Dear Greg, I pretty much agree with your straw poll and look forward to the official tally. What I still miss is if we are within the strict limits of the SubPro PDP, in terms of revising the 2012 AGB only, based on the spirit of promoting competition, consumer choice and consumer trust (the basis for the expansion as per 2009 AOB) or if we have gone far beyond the GNSO picket fence. But I guess it will be up to the council to evaluate that issue later. With that, I mean the non-AGB use of GeoNames. it would be a pity if we don't make any progress there. let's wait and see... --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-21 22:38, Greg Shatan escribió:
While I hate the game of participants identifying areas of agreement (rather than the co-chairs doing it), I'll play anyway. We probably have some level of rough consensus on continuing the current treatment of (long and short-form) country names, 2-letter codes and two character letter-letter strings, and continuing to allow three-letter TLDs. I don't see consensus beyond that. Not on the treatment of ISO 3166-1 3 letter codes (reserved indefinitely? available? if so, to whom? Govs only? Anyone with gov support? What about non-geo uses, like .QAT?) (I hope this WT does not drive me to chewing qat....). As Alexander notes, we don't have it on non-capital cities. And we glossed over capital cities, so I'm not sure we can even say we have considered consensus on that point.
I look forward to our Co-Chairs' evaluation of levels of agreement in the group.
Greg
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:09 AM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Jorge,
I think that both cities and non-AGB strings are the top issues at hand. Seemingly the Alpha-3 codes and country names are being banned already - that would have been the 3rd silo. Everything else seems to be quite self-evident and agreed on.
This probably means that non-AGB terms and city-names are the last two big silos we need to find agreement on. And I forecast that the vast majority of geo-applications will target CITIES. But nonetheless: non-AGB strings are in dire need to be discussed!
In the past seemingly the discussion on different silos overlapped - and merged. So we should make sure to keep non-AGB string issues (and its discussion) separated from the city-name string discussion. That's why we have silos in the first place.
Thanks,
Alexander
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch SENT: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:48 TO: annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org CC: gnso-secs@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [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 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5