Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meetings at ICANN64 on 09 March 2019. 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/2019-03-09+ICANN64+Kobe+-+New+gTLD.... Please also see the attached referenced slides. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: 1. Background / Current Status: a) Brief update and overview on the Public comment proceeding (dates, number of comments received, other) b) Initial report and general comments (e.g., many general comments reflected on the 2012 round) 2. Summary of Public Comments on Preliminary Recommendations -- Three main themes on 2012 implementation / Preliminary Recommendations: a. Recommendations 2-9 (reserved strings): -- There is a section that deals with string similarity. Rather than creating a different standard for string similarity, it should fit into the overall discussion for string similarity. We have to be mindful of the impact – be brief on the result of the overall standard and how that applies to two-letter codes. -- Are we going to add a requirement that if there is an apparent conflict it is ruled out? -- The comments in opposition to one letter, one digit were raised in the reserved names section. -- Is there any process to ensure that the issue of geographic names dealt with in other Work Tracks are taken into consideration? We’ll make sure that there aren’t contradictions – need to observe the decisions of the geographic names panel. -- To the extent that this WG doesn’t address certain issues they will be dealt with the same as in any other string applications (such as the length of the public comment period). Any differential treatment must be specified and agreed to. -- Language is needed to indicate that the finding of the geographic names panel should govern the treatment of an application. A name determined by the panel not to be geographic is not subject to the geographic name requirements established by this WT. A name determined to be geographic is subject to the requirements established by this WT. -- Individual comments were more nuanced than the summaries reflect. -- Consensus cannot reflect the number of comments in support of/or not; so the WG should disregard the suggestions of numbers (“one comment” or “two comments”). This is about the WG reaching consensus. b. Recommendations 10-13: -- Intended use is not a new idea – it may be brought up for discussion, but it’s not a new concept. -- Recommendations 12 – what was the reason for switching from “many” to “several”? Also for recommendation 13. Don’t want to underestimate the numbers, but also not inflate them. -- Recommendation 11 – several makes sense, but it does not make sense for 12 and 13. Why was this done? Should keep it at “many”. Answer: This is not a consensus call. If there is a switch from “many” to “several” there was no intention to carry any extra nuance. c. Open Issues: 1) Notes, Preliminary Recommendations excluded language requirements -- Not clear why we are focusing on the 6 UN languages and official languages? Deciding whether 6 UN languages is overbroad is dependent on the country. -- The “in any language” is overly broad and should be limited to the official language of the country. 2) Divergent issues in Public Comments from the Preliminary Recommendations: 2-Character Number/letter-letter/Number combinations 3-char ISO 3166-1 Extension of the “Intended use” provision Support/non-objection in all cases -- One way to do it would be to prove that you notified the administration and there was no response then you can go ahead. -- Not practical to get permission in advance for city names for which there are multiple iterations. Basis for preventative protections