Thank you, Jorge.

It would be useful if members did as you, used the list below and tried to answer them from their standing point.

Olga will lead the non-AGB discussion tomorrow and the better prepared we all are, the better.

Kind regards,

Annebeth

From: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
Date: Tuesday, 21 August 2018 at 14:47
To: "Annebeth B. Lange" <annebeth.lange@norid.no>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC

Dear Annebeth and all

I wonder how the co-leads intend to structure the discussion around “non-AGB terms”.

If I may, I would suggest that we approach the issue step-by-step:

1. Consider if data from the 2012 AGB round indicates whether there were issues with strings with geographic significance
2. Consider what kind of issues were identified, eg lack of awareness, lack of communication, lack of understanding, competing interests…
3. Consider whether those issues merit being addressed
4. consider what means are at our disposal in the policy tool-box to address such issues
5. discuss on which policy tools may have enough traction

I feel that I have already made my substantial points clear, but here they go again in a summarized fashion (following the sequence summarized above):

1. Yes, I feel there were important issues with non-AGB terms, which have resulted in conflicts between applicants and authorities;
2. Probably there was a bit of all kind of issues in differing degrees in the various cases we have heard of;
3. Yes, as the process and also the legitimacy of the TLD expansion would benefit from an agreed approach that takes all legitimate interests on board;
4. I have mentioned a few, but here they go again:

-             We need a framework governing terms not fitting in any new specific category but still having such a “geographic significance”.

-              Both applicants and interested parties with claims to such geographic significance terms would benefit from a more predictable framework of rules, and, therefore, the need for last-minute interventions would be minimized.

-              Elements of such a framework could be:

• a diligent search requirement for applicants – which could be linked to a “Geonames Advisory Panel” and/or internationally available lists of geographic terms and/or a voluntary repository/database of such terms;
• a contact obligation for applicants;
• incentives to reach an amicable solution, such as a prima facie non-objection requirement. The non-objection letter could be subject to deadlines, and to an implied non-objection if the corresponding authority does not respond within the deadline;
• a fair, quick, cheap and independent mediation and/or dispute resolution mechanism in case there are disagreements between applicant and relevant authority.

I hope this may be helpful…

Best regards

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Annebeth Lange
Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 08:40
An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org
Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC

Dear Work Track 5 members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Work Track 5 call on Wednesday 22nd August 2018 at 20.00 UTC:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates

2. Status of Draft Recommendations on 2-Letter ASCII Strings and Country and Territory Names

3. Non-AGB Terms

4. AOB

We refer to the email sent out by Emily yesterday, Monday 20^th August, with Draft Recommendations.

If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs@icann.org as far in advance as possible.

Kind regards

WT5 Co-leads

Javier Rua

Olga Cavalli

Martin Sutton

Annebeth Lange