2018-07-25 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5

Notes/ Action Items

Action items/notes:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
- no SOI updates

2. Problems to be Solved from the 2012 round
- Emphasis: focus on real problems observed or experienced, so that we can identify solutions that target those problems.
- Some examples of possible problems to discuss: lack of timely response from governments when seeking support/non-objection, uncertainty about which govt/public authority to contact, unauthorized change of use after delegation.
- Suggestion related to lack of timely response from governments when seeking support/non-objection: ICANN can ask all governments whether they are concerned about an application. If they are not concerned, the application can move forward. If they are concerned, ICANN can work with the government to find a timeframe within which the government can provide additional detail about the concern. The government can also indicate whether it prefers to provide implicit or explicit approval of the application.
- Problem suggested: governments may not have experience dealing with ICANN, which may cause longer timeframes to reply to requests for support/non-objection.
- Question raised: Other than .spa, are there cases the group can identify where there was an application that was coincindentally a geographic term but was applied for in non-geographic use and resulted in objection?
From the chat:
Katrin Ohlmer: Problem: CIty opposed application. Examples: .spa Possible solution(s): Require a pre-check to avoid delays and increase predictability.
- Suggestion for a solution: GAC should work more closely with governments to make sure applicants reach the right focal point within a government in relation to obtaining support/non-objection.
- Comment: it would be helpful of staff to do an analysis of how frequently these issues emerged.
- Comment: The situation in many countries and places will be different in subsequent procedures. Problems experienced in 2012 may not reflect problems that will be experienced in the future.
- Problem suggested: Changes in the public authorities concerned. Solution proposed: agreements should be time limited.
From the chat:
Kavouss Arasteh: Ouzur departure point should always be the 2012 ERound, what problem we have identified for that round
Kavouss Arasteh: For capital city, the example given by Alexander such as .Paris ,who we have to ciontact and in what sequence? France or Texas State ?
- Challenge for this group identified in this exercise: members of the WT may not have visibility into the experiences of parties involved in the 2012 round. The WT may want to reach out to parties involved in the round for input about problems experienced.
- Problem suggested: Challenge of potentially needing to reach out to multiple governments or public authorities to obtain support/non-objection for a single application.
- Question: to what extent did applicants have difficulty working with city governments? Some city TLDs were run by the city and others had a more tenuous relationship with the city. This may be a business issue and not an ICANN issue to resolve.
- Problem suggested (not specific to non-capital city): Some applicants applied for strings that were reserved or had other requirements and the applicant was not aware that the requirements existed. Possible solution: mechanism to have a warning that a term is a geographic name and has specific requirements or restrictions.
- Staff response: In the instances where the string could NOT be applied for by anyone, and there was a defined list, there were programmatic measures in place. Adding in a notification for geographic names that COULD be applied for could be something new that this WT could recommend.
- For non-capital cities - it may not be straightforward to provide this type of information for non-capital city names upfront, but this could be explored further.
- Suggestion: additional fact finding about issues experienced might be helpful through a questionnaire or by asking questions in the Initial Report for public comment.
- Staff suggestion for structuring the discussion: One possible way to think of issues is in a series of categories: 1. The string is used as a city name a. problems for the applicant and b. problems for the government. 2. The string is not intended to be used as a city name a. problems for the applicant and b. problems for the government.
From the chat:
- Katrin Ohlmer: @Steve: It would be helpful if ICANN org could provide more details about the geographic names panel work - e.g. how did they identify a geo name, what happened if they identified a string as geo name, did they inform someone..
- Staff response to Katrin: In instances that the applicant did not identify a string as a geographic name but the geo panel found that it was a geo term, the applicant was given additional time to obtain support/non-objection from the relevant governments/public authorities.
- Slide 9: view of different perspectives expressed on possible paths forward for non-capital city names. Given the diversity of perspectives, is a possible middle ground to keep the 2012 protections?
- Suggestion for path forward: focus on the process. From this perspective, there were some cases where a term was obviously geographic terms. There should be list. In other cases, the applicant may not know that a term has geographic meaning.
- Comment about level of protections for subsequent procedures: There are attractive elements to reducing restrictions, but there is concern about stability of the outcome. The registry has to be protected against changes in governments and ex-post facto concerns raised. If we want to have predictability throughout the life of the registry there has to be a formal agreement between the registry and the government.
- Question: Could the use of PICs provide some of that assurance?
- Comment: At some point we need to talk about process. It is premature to talk about process until we talk about what that process applies to. Disagree that everything included in the 2012 AGB should be restricted in the future. Sub-national place names are an example, .tata was a consequence.
- Comment: For strings that are applied for that correspond to geographic term but are used in a generic sense, we do not yet have agreement about whether we need to treat these as geographic terms.
- Comment: it is important to identify which governments/public authorities we are referring to in slide 9. In column 3/row 2 of the table, will need to be more specific about the proposals put forward regarding city size/population/significance.

2b. Problems identified for non-AGB terms.
- All are encouraged to share concrete problems and possible solutions on the list.
- This agenda item will be addressed further in the future.

3. Focus on Implementation Guidance
- Review of suggestions received so far regarding implementation guidance.
- By reviewing implementation ideas, it may help the group think about issues to address at a policy level.
- Examples: advisory panel, leverage GAC members to get input on geographic sensitivities, repository of geographic names, rules for strings that are similar to geographic term, online tool for applicants, applicant research requirements, government involved at contract renewal, mediation related to support/non-objection letter.
- Comment: Concern expressed that anything that has a geographic meaning will be caught in the geographic "net." We can't take the text part of an atlas and say this is a restricted zone. We can't assume that everything that someone considers a geographic term is in fact a geographic term for treatment in the AGB.
- Suggestion: We need to draw a boundary outside of which there are no additional rights, powers, or privileges for governments.

4. Looking Ahead: Work Plan and Initial Report
- Leadership team is working on a work plan to reach the Initial Report. This will be shared soon with the WT.

5. AOB
- The co-leaders are proposing moving the 14:00 time slot in the rotation to the 13:00 time slot to avoid scheduling conflicts.