Dear Work Track 5 members, Thanks to all who have submitted comments about the draft Initial Report on the mailing list and those who were able to join the call yesterday to go through some of the comments received that may require further discussion. Please find attached a revised draft of the report incorporating feedback received on the call. As a reminder, the target date for publishing the Initial Report is 20 November. In view of this timeline, the Work Track leadership team kindly requests that members submit any final feedback on the Initial Report no later than Friday 16 November. You can either insert comments in a copy of the attached document and send to the WT5 mailing list or send your comments in the body of an email to the WT5 list, identifying the page and line number of the text you are referencing. Below you will find some of the questions/concerns raised in comments by members that still may need additional input. The leadership team is sending these on the mailing list to make sure that all members have a chance to provide feedback, even if they were not able to join the call. * On page 17 (recommendations section of the report) two WT members commented that they felt it was premature to include any preliminary recommendation in the Initial Report on the topic of non-capital city names. Do you support removing preliminary recommendation 11 on treatment of non-capital city names? Or do you favor leaving the recommendation in the report, noting that it can be changed for the Final Report based on community input and further discussion in the Work Track? Regardless of whether the recommendation is kept or removed, there are two questions for community input on this topic (e10 and e11) included in the Initial Report, so the group can expect additional community feedback through public comment to support further deliberations. * On page 40 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Once a gTLD is registered with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this term are unconditionally available for registration.” Another Work Track member requested clarification on the meaning of “unconditionally available” and also requested clarification about which entities might be able to apply for these variations and translations under the proposal. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? * On page 41 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC to receive permission to submit an application for the string.” Another Work Track member requested clarification about the scope and meaning of this proposal, including how it would interact with other requirements. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? * On page 76 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Apply a "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.” Other Work Track members raised concern that the term “bright line” rule may not be widely used and understood, and further requested clarification on the scope of this rule and the basis for protection. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? Note that Work Track members are welcome to comment on any other parts of the draft in addition to the items listed above. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976