_______________________________________________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
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:
- Consider if data from the 2012 AGB round indicates whether there were issues with strings with geographic significance
- Consider what kind of issues were identified, eg lack of awareness, lack of communication, lack of understanding, competing interests…
- Consider whether those issues merit being addressed
- consider what means are at our disposal in the policy tool-box to address such issues
- 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):
- Yes, I feel there were important issues with non-AGB terms, which have resulted in conflicts between applicants and authorities;
- Probably there was a bit of all kind of issues in differing degrees in the various cases we have heard of;
- 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;
- 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 20th 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
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5