Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 5 Sub Team Meeting 06 December 2017

Thanks Julie! That was fast! Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua El dic. 6, 2017, a la(s) 11:22 a. m., Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> escribió:

Dear Work Track members,

Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 06 December. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording.

Some excerpts from the chat room also are included below.

Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 5 Sub Team Meeting 06 December 2017

1. SOI Updates: None.

2. Terms of Reference Review:

Actions: 1) Problem Statement -- Proposal to change "Consolidate work" to "streamline and consolidate the efforts of previous work." 2) Goals and Objectives -- Proposal to change heading to "Context and Objectives". -- Proposal to delete the first sentence and also the text "As with the other Work Tracks..." in the last sentence and leave it as "WT5 leadership is coordinated by the PDP WG Co-Chairs. 3) Scope -- Paragraphs 1 and 2 -- some support for Alternative 1, which would preclude inclusion of paragraph 2. -- Paragraph 3 -- New wording in the chat: Kavouss Arasteh: ​“The​ ​Work​ ​Track​ ​​​ ​could​ ​also​ ​​will​ ​t​ake​ ​cognizance​,​ ​if​ ​appropriate,​ ​​​ ​of​ ​previous​ ​work​ ​in​ ​ICANN regarding​ ​geographic​ ​terms​ ​including​ ​those​ ​that​ ​have​ ​taken​ ​place​ ​previously​ ​in​ ​the​ ​GNSO,​ ​the CCWG​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Use​ ​of​ ​Country​ ​and​ ​Territory​ ​Names,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​previous​ ​processes​ ​and procedures​ ​contained​ ​within​ ​the​ ​final​ ​Applicant​ ​Guidebook​ ​for​ ​the​ ​2012​ ​round​ ​of​ ​New​ ​gTLDs. 1​ ​Which​ ​may​ ​concern​ ​the​ ​ownership,​ ​business​ ​model​ ​and​ ​jurisdiction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​proposed​ ​Registry. “ Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): In Para 3, can we replace "take cognizance of" with "acknowledge" or "take into account" to simplify the language? c) Paragraph 4: Suggesting rewording and if included consider whether to say it is out of scope at this stage.

Notes:

Google Doc Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zLvMb_HrGrEUZYqqeaHTS3x-exIlc_dmo-3ZC9Hu... -- Since the last call there has been a lot of discussion on the list. Some has been on the TOR and scope, and some are other comments. What is not discussed here will be addressed later. -- NOTE: This will be the first reading of the TOR. There will be another reading.

Problem Statement: -- Comment on why the word "consolidate" was included: Reason why the word "consolidate" was included was to indicate that there was work going on in different fora and that one of the goals was to bring all of that work into one area (although not stopping other work). -- The key is "consolidate the work" is tactically correct but if you read it casually it sounds like it is consolidating the answers. Could say, "streamline and consolidate the efforts of previous work." -- Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): <COMMENT> I support @Alan's clarification regarding wording. The text should expressly say "consolidate the efforts" instead of just "consolidate"

Goals and Objectives: -- Objection to references in paragraph 1 to other Work Tracks. Could delete the first sentence and also the text "As with the other Work Tracks..." in the last setence and leave it as "WT5 leadership is coordinated by the PDP WG Co-Chairs. -- Description of what we are doing and that all are giving their input into the plenary group. -- Change header to "Context and Objectives".

Scope: Paragraphs 1 and 2: -- New Alternative (from the chat): Kavouss Arasteh: “Work​ ​Track​ ​5​ ​will​ ​focus​ ​on​ ​developing​ ​recommendations​ ​​ ​to​ ​be​ ​proposed​ ​to chartering​ ​organizations​ ​(​ ​ALAC,​ ​ccNSO,​ ​GAC​ ​and​ ​GNSO​) regarding​ ​the​ ​treatment​ ​of geographic​ ​names​ ​at​ ​the​ ​top​ ​level,​ ​including​ ​both​ ​in​ ​ASCII​ ​and​ ​IDN​ ​form,​ ​evaluation​ ​criteria, potential​ ​grounds​ ​for​ ​objection​ ​(through​ ​specific​ ​approach​ ​)​ ​​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​addressing​ ​whether​ ​such names​ ​require​ ​consent​ ​or​ ​non-objection​ ​from​ ​applicable​ ​governmental​ ​authorities.” -- If a lighter version alternative is selected we wouldn't need paragraph 2. -- Proposal to delete the reference to Chartering Organizations in alternate 2.1. -- Proposal to retain both alternatives. -- If we go for a lighter version of paragraph 1, there is no mention of specific categories of geonames. Should avoid excluding any category.

Paragraph 3: -- New wording from the chat: Kavouss Arasteh: ​“The​ ​Work​ ​Track​ ​​​ ​could​ ​also​ ​​will​ ​t​ake​ ​cognizance​,​ ​if​ ​appropriate,​ ​​​ ​of​ ​previous​ ​work​ ​in​ ​ICANN regarding​ ​geographic​ ​terms​ ​including​ ​those​ ​that​ ​have​ ​taken​ ​place​ ​previously​ ​in​ ​the​ ​GNSO,​ ​the CCWG​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Use​ ​of​ ​Country​ ​and​ ​Territory​ ​Names,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​previous​ ​processes​ ​and procedures​ ​contained​ ​within​ ​the​ ​final​ ​Applicant​ ​Guidebook​ ​for​ ​the​ ​2012​ ​round​ ​of​ ​New​ ​gTLDs. 1​ ​Which​ ​may​ ​concern​ ​the​ ​ownership,​ ​business​ ​model​ ​and​ ​jurisdiction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​proposed​ ​Registry.” Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): In Para 3, can we replace "take cognizance of" with "acknowledge" or "take into account" to simplify the language?

Comments from the chat: Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): <Comment>: ​I think that if there will be a specific reference regarding "consent or non objection from applicable governmental authorities" that would open the door to "consent or non-objection" from "linguistic communities, indigenous peoples, distinct ethnic minorities, etc). which I think are relevant here, but to move forward and be inclusive we should be less prescriptive and keep a more general language, to avoid fragmentation and balkanization. General language is better. Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): <Comment> The best way to avoid exclusion is to remain general.

Paragraph 4 -- Proposal to delete. Suggest it is better to be silent. -- This was supposed to say that we are going to focus on the substantive issues of what is a geographic name -- noting areas that are out of scope. -- Whether something is a ccTLD or gTLD is out of scope -- but if that is the case, when do we discuss it? We should base our discussions on settled matters. Stating what is out of scope is important. -- Could we consider this out of the scope at this stage, but not close the door totally -- may come back if required?

Comments from the chat: Ashley Heineman (US): Jeff - your verbal explanation of 4. is much more clear than what is written. Perhaps a rewrite and then we consider again later? Jeff Neuman: @Ashley - We will take that back and attempt to make more clear

Decision making (captured for future discussion): -- Some issues that this is a GNSO process, but there are four chartering organizations, so can we address decision-making from different perspectives. -- Letter from the Co-Chairs has been sent to the ALAC, ccNSO, and GAC on decision-making; it discusses how consensus is measured and documented. If the GAC is working on a response to the letter, we should take those comments in context of the letter. -- There is a gap between the way the GAC works and the GNSO. We are talking about that in the GAC. We will talk about this in the TOR section. -- Fear that some of what has been said is based on assumptions about the GNSO process that aren't accurate. -- Concerns expressed that there should be equal footing for all of the chartering organizations on how you come to the decision making.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5