Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting today, 27 March 2019 at 14:00 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/2019-03-27+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Continue Review of Public Comments: Questions for Community Input: Line 3, #e1: Line 4, Government of Spain, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, SWITCH, Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, German GAC, oriGIn, European Broadcasting Union, government of France, association of European regions for origin products (AREPO), Republic of Peru -- Support for most 2012 rules -- Concerns about non-objection for city names and any extension of provision From the Chat: Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): the concerns are on the "intended use" rule and any extension of it - the concerns do NOT affect the "non-objection" rule Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): those inputs are quite clear: "In the case of non-capital city names the rule according to which the “non-objection” framework is not applicable when the alleged “intended use” is non-geographic should be suppressed as it ignores the unique character of the TLDs and creates wrong incen-tives to circumvent (i.e. “game”) the requirement to contact and obtain the non-objection from the relevant public authorities.Accordingly, we also disagree with any proposals that suggest to extend the “intend-ed use” rule to any other categories of geonames. " Steve Chan: Typo! Is this better: -- Concerns about the intended-use provision for city names and any extension of provision Line 5, dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH, geoTLD.group -- Support for most 2012 rules Issues from experience -- referred to a) applicants for a term, which matched a geographic term and b) applicants who applied for a term which did not match, but resemble a geographic term. Line 6, Dotzon GmbH -- -- Support for most 2012 rules Line 7, Business Constituency -- Issues from experience: -- .AMAZON and .INDIANs Line 8, Governments of Argentina, Chile, and Colombia, Fundación Incluirme ssues from experience: -- Government ability to file objections -- Incomplete scope of protections for geo names in AGB Line 9, Tom Dale (Individual) -- -- Suggests input from those outside of ICANN would be helpful Line 10, ALAC -- - Geo terms, in AGB and not in AGB, need more predictability Line 11, United States -- Does not identify experiences Line 12, International Trademark Association (INTA) -- Does not identify experiences Line 13, Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) -- Does not identify experiences Line 14, APTLD -- New Idea [Presumably in reference to f.1.2.1 Who owns a string? Who has rights to a string? What is the appropriate role of geographic communities and governments?] -- Copied from General Comments (although staff note, we believe this is in reference to a question posed in the Initial Report, not that posed here?) Line 15, e2: Line 16, Business Constituency -- Agreement -- -- Definition should be recs 4-13 Line 17, Group of Registries: Uniregistry, Minds + Machines Group , Top Level Design , Amazon Registry Services , Employ Media LLC -- Agreement -- Support for definition from 2012 AGB Line 18, Government of Spain, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, SWITCH, Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, German GAC, oriGIn, European Broadcasting Union, government of France, association of European regions for origin products (AREPO), Republic of Peru -- [Does not seem to directly relate to question] -- Support for most 2012 rules -- Concerns about non-objection for city names and any extension of provision -- For non-AGB terms, extend non-objection provision Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): The points raised re 1591 can be well discussed when this goes to the full WG (it is not so mush a "new Idea" as such but rather an important distinction regarding the delegation and management of a TLD as difned by RFC1591 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel that on the definition question it should be understood that the line of comments coming from Switzerland etc. support the 2012 categories, although with the caveat that additional geonames should be covered Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): the summary should be amended as before... Line 19, RySG -- Agreement New Idea -- Support for definition from 2012 AGB -- Provides definition: Other RySG members recommend the geographic names panel to use additional official UN resources to determine what strings should be considered as a “geographic name”. Line 20, Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) -- Agreement Divergence -- Support for definition from 2012 AGB -- Does not believe there should be any special requirements or implications for terms which are “geographic names”. -- Does not believe that the discussion whether “geographic names” is “the appropriate term” to use for terms that are to be considered entitled to requirements of government approval under the Applicant Guide Book progresses the work of Work Track 5. Line 21, International Trademark Association (INTA) -- New Idea - Believes the rules in AGB are more important than a definition. -- Provides definition: One option would be to use the term “Geographic Name” for any name that requires reservation of the name or an obligation to obtain consent/non-objection irrespective of the proposed manner of use. For example: any name that is (1) a UNESCO region, (2) a region appearing on the United Nations “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list, and/or (3) names identified as a country and territory names and codes, as set out in the ISO 3166-1 [to be more specifically delineated when the recommendations are finalised]. Conversely, “term with geographic meaning” could be used for terms like city names, where restrictions are dependent on the intended use. Line 22, dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH, geoTLD.group -- New Idea -- Identifies list that could possibly serve as "definition" Line 23, Portuguese Government -- New Idea - UN data base and the Manual for the national standardization of geographical names by United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names -- Geographic names should include toponyms such as mountains, rivers, that by their notoriety and relevance are commonly known, as well as geographical indications based on WIPO and TRIPs. Line 24, Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) -- New Idea -- - Provides definition: a term or string that is exclusively associated with a geographic area and cannot be reasonably confused with any other geographic area or term. Line 25, Governments of Argentina, Chile, and Colombia, Fundación Incluirme -- New Idea -- Provides definition: A geographic name for the purposes of the New gTLD Program should be any term that has a geographic meaning or connotation according to a government or community associated with that term. Line 26, Government of Brazil -- Concerns -- Does not seek to define, but notes concerns to be taken into consideration in developing a definition Line 27, ALAC -- New Idea -- Provides definition: see text to the left, given length Line 28, GAC [comment] Line 29, United States -- Concerns -- -- Definition should take into account context or proposed use. Line 30, NCSG -- Concerns Divergence -- -- Supports that "geographical names do not deserve special treatment and should be handled as any other string." Line 31, Dotzon GmbH -- [comment] -- States that definition should be provided in AGB, but does not seek to define Line 32, Brand Registry Group -- [comment] -- -- Does not appear to address the "definition" aspect Line 33, RDS-HN (Honduras) [comment] -- -- Does not appear to address the "definition" aspect Line 34, #e3: Line 35, Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) -- Agreement -- Believes existing preventative and curative measures are appropriate -- Opposes extending preventative to additional terms Line 36, Group of Registries: Uniregistry, Minds + Machines Group , Top Level Design , Amazon Registry Services , Employ Media LLC -- Agreement - Believes existing preventative and curative measures are appropriate but if additional measures needed, emphasis on curative Line 37, International Trademark Association (INTA) -- Agreement New Idea -- Believes existing preventative and curative measures are appropriate -- Opposes extending to additional terms Line 38, RySG -- Agreement (support for current balance) Divergence New Idea -- Some believe existing preventative and curative measures are appropriate but if additional measures needed, emphasis on curative -- Some preference for curative -- Some preference for preventative Line 39, Singapore -- [comment] -- Preference for preventative Line 40, dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH, geoTLD.group -- [comment] -- Preference for preventative -- Opposes curative Line 41, Portuguese Government -- [comment] -- Preference for preventative Line 42, RDS-HN (Honduras) -- [comment] -- Preference for preventative Line 43, Dotzon GmbH -- [comment] -- Preference for preventative Line 44, Brand Registry Group -- Concerns -- -- Preference for curative -- GEO PIC Line 45, Business Constituency -- New Idea -- Preference for curative -- GEO PIC Line 46, Business Constituency -- [comment] --- Preference for curative Line 47, United States -- [comment] -- Preference for curative Line 48, NCSG -- Concerns -- Preference for curative Line 49, Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) -- [comment] -- Preference for curative Line 50, Governments of Argentina, Chile, and Colombia, Fundación Incluirme -- [comment] -- Supports both preventative and curative Line 51, ALAC -- [comment] -- Believes existing preventative and curative measures can co-exist -- There is a preference for preventative under the specific conditions noted. [add to summary] Line 52, GAC -- [comment] -- Reminder for WG to consider post-delegation mechanism Line 53, Tom Dale (Individual) -- [Comment - questions posed to the WG] Steve Chan: Note, staff has generally not pulled the Concerns, New Ideas into the summary. The expectation is that those elements will be considered substantively during WT5 deliberations, after this comment review/sorting exercise. Martin Sutton (Co-Lead): Thanks Steve - and we should also note that much of the substance has been covered during WT5 deliberations over the past year. Line 54, Government of Spain, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, SWITCH, Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, German GAC, oriGIn, European Broadcasting Union, government of France, association of European regions for origin products (AREPO), Republic of Peru -- Support for most of the existing 2012 rules. One could presume that this means the balance between preventative and curative is appropriate within that rule set] Steve Chan: Note, staff has generally not pulled the Concerns, New Ideas into the summary. The expectation is that those elements will be considered substantively during WT5 deliberations, after this comment review/sorting exercise. Martin Sutton (Co-Lead): Thanks Steve - and we should also note that much of the substance has been covered during WT5 deliberations over the past year. Line 54, Government of Spain, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, SWITCH, Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, German GAC, oriGIn, European Broadcasting Union, government of France, association of European regions for origin products (AREPO), Republic of Peru -- Support for most of the existing 2012 rules. One could presume that this means the balance between preventative and curative is appropriate within that rule set] 3. Next Meeting: Start at Line 55, #e4, 03 April at 20:00 UTC