Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting today, 14 November 2018 at 1400 UTC. 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/2018-11-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM re: Recommendation 11: retain this recommendation. ACTION ITEM re: page 40: proposals reflected in deliberations -- revise the text, "once a gTLD is registered [change to "delegated and available for application"] with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other variations and translation of this term are unconditionally available for registration by any entity or person. Objection procedures could potentially still apply." ACTION ITEM re: page 42: Proposal re: Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC -- remove the text. Add any suggestions for drawback text if sent to the list. ACTION ITEM re: page 77: change proposal to state, "Apply a ["clear and unambiguous" instead of "bright line"] rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration. Add to drawback text as provided by Alexander Shubert. ACTION ITEM: Page 22: Exceptionally reserved names: Add additional discussion into the deliberations. ACTION ITEM: Re: Preliminary Recommendation #13 -- circulate via email Greg Shatan's edits and explanations. Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates. 2. Recommendation 11 - non-capital city names: -- Considerable discussions around non-capital cities. -- Result of those discussions there was a spread of comments, which are included in the report and that there wasn't a significant swing either way. -- Purpose of the Initial Report is to solicit further comments, concerns, or new ideas to address this. -- Emails in the last week some think the recommendation should remain in as is, some want to see it tweaked, and some want to see it removed. -- Suggest we retain it in this section and that will allow comments on it. 3. Review new comments, clarifications, and edits to the draft Initial Report: Page 40: In deliberations -- proposals by Work Track members who believe that existing protections/restrictions included in the 2012 AGB should be reduced -- once a gTLD is registered [delegated and available for application] with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other variations and translation of this term are unconditionally available for registration by any entity or person. Objection procedures could potentially still apply. -- Note that this is part of the deliberations section but is not a recommendation by the WT, it is just presented to reflect the discussion on it. Should be more clear that this is a proposal from just one member. -- Correct term is "delegated" and not "registered". And "available for application". Page 42: Proposal re: Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC -- a few comments from a few different people; not sure where this came from, it's not clear, don't support keeping it. -- Understanding that this came out of a brainstorming session at an ICANN meeting, but was not put forward by a WT member. Should it be included? Or if there is opposition then it may or may not be worth keeping. -- Advocate that for the average geographic name this suggestion doesn't make sense. -- Not sure the GAC would be interested in this regardless. -- ACTION ITEM: Remove the text. Page 77, change proposal to state, "Apply a ["clear and unambiguous" instead of "bright line"] rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration. -- Several new comments (page 78) are summarized. -- If we say objections are not allowed, then nobody can challenge them. This could be added into the drawbacks if it is not reflected. -- Not sure if we have the wording right yet. Alexander.berlin: My suggestion as "drawback text" for the "bright line":Some WT5 members argued to keep the amount of "protected" geo-names as small as possible. These WT members suggested that instead potential violations should be subject to "curative rights" - and that is "objections" in the application phase! So denying objections would have to be offset with expanding the list of protected domains; for example by eliminating the "non-geo use provision". Alexander.berlin: "protected domains" should be "protected strings" Justine Chew: I will go one step further and suggest, "Some believe that the right to object is a fundamental right that should be neither abrogated nor limited, especially in relation to any contemplated changes to policy touching on the availability or protection of geo-names strings." Additional comments that may need further discussion: Page 22: Exceptionally reserved names: Issues raised by Jaap Akkerhuis about the list that maybe the list didn't exist on the code point list so it should be removed. That is not accurate and we have removed the question, but may need to indicate what is unclear about the provision that needs to be changed. It was applied correctly in the AGB, that the short-form version of the name (such as UN) is reserved. The objections from Jaap are included in the deliberations section. -- To the extent Jaap is talking about two-letter codes and whether they have short or long forms, that doesn't matter since all two-letter codes are reserved anyway, But we do have a question of whether we seek input on allowing United Nations to say it is reserved but we would like to use it. -- Are we making something bigger about this than it is? If "United Nations" is a long form of UN, and countries can't apply for their full name, don't know that we need to revisit this. Keep in mind that there is more than one way for ICANN to delegate a domain name. ACTION ITEM: Add additional discussion into the deliberations. Emily Barabas: One Work Track member raised the following points about exceptionally reserved codes:• They are not officially reserved code points, although data about these codes is available at the ISO’s Online Browsing Platform, and the definition of "exceptional reservations" is included in the current standard, (ISO 3166-1:2013(E/F)) Section 7.5, Reservation of Code Elements.• The list may be out of date.• Not all exceptionally reserved codes have a short and long form name associated with them.• Some exceptionally reserved codes do not refer to a country or territory (for example “UN” for United Nations).• Some places may have more than one code associated with their name, for example Tristan da Cunha has both an assigned 2-letter code (SH) and an exceptionally reserved code (TA). Emily Barabas: This is the text that has been added to page 52 of the deliberations section based on Jaap's feedback Justine Chew: I am happy to defer to Jaap's feedback on the text for PR#6 David McAuley: does that mean that Q e8 remains as deleted and that is that, jyst wondering what is shrort description of what we just agreed Susan Payne: I'm not going to go to the wire on this but I think if we create a policy that blocks the use of this term "united nations" even though it isn't a country name then we also create something that is difficult to unpick in future should the UN want that term. There have been problems in the first round at the second level on this topic (happy to go into detail should anyone care). I don't see the harm in at least giving scope to request release in future for a name which isn't actually a country or territory name Substantive Comments from Greg Shatan: Page 13: Preliminary recommendation #2 -- just a point of clarification; not changing substance. Alan Greenberg (ALAC): Them make it "as applicable". Some or all allows the applicant to decide whether to include. Emily Barabas: Thanks Alan. Good suggestion. Any objections to Alan's suggestion? Page 13: Preliminary recommendation #3 -- (A22) Not viable to change the substance of the recommendations at this stage; should be a comment submitted in the public comment period. Page 18: Preliminary Recommendation #13 -- [A51]/[A52]/[A53R52]/[A54R52] -- recirculate with Greg's edits and explanatory text. Page 20: Question for community Input e2: [A59] is "geographic name" the proper term to use? Need to discuss this further. John Rodriguez: Question: I understand we aren't conducting "consensus calls" yet for purposes of this intial draft report. If so, are we getting ahead of ourselves by using language such as "The Work Track recommends..." . Just curious and thanks for any clarification. -- Work Track is not the full WG -- as noted in the beginning of the report that these are preliminary recommendations that have not been subjected to any consensus calls.