Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting today, 08 May 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WT5 members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-05-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and 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