Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13 June). These high-level notes are designed to help WG 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. See also the slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working Document. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Action Items: -- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document, and attached). -- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week’s meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June). Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates 2. Capital City Names -- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand. -- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support or non-objection. -- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find the authority. -- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc. -- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a category that should remain as it was. -- The WT found some convergence on the idea of not abandoning the current treatment of Capital Cities”. 3. Non-Capital Cities -- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say additional controls over what was in 2012. -- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of population. -- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic or branded term. -- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to improve the next application round. -- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different interests at stake. -- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities. -- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city. -- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc. -- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would cover everything. -- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and then conditions in an evaluation process. I don't think any one is arguing for open slather. I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and then sensible measures to evaluate applications. -- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving "conflicts", etc. -- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from a city name (rather than the opposite)? --W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? -- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related to the city as a city. Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city authority. -- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a geographic purpose, that would be against the intent. -- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2) objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process. -- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address concerns. -- There are different areas of control that can be applied. -- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are different interest at stake. -- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group. -- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues. -- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive. -- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even where that intent wasn't stated. -- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C. Identity who are the actors impacted in each of those time frames. Each of these are very different. Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly see where we have agreement... -- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up with something for the next call where the pressure points are for particular stakeholders at particular points in time. -- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the requirements phase. -- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections, challenge mechanisms, etc. 4. ICANN62 Planning: -- Check the schedule online. There is remote participation. -- Planning the activities for each session. 5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling next week.