Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (04 April). 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 at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-02-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... See also the attached slides. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Action Items: Include the input from the notes and chat in the spreadsheet and review for the next meeting. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: No updates. 2. Update from ICANN61 / Where we are now: Slide 4: Update from ICANN61: -- WT5 held a public session at ICANN61 -- Provided a brief background and summary of progress -- Presented the timeline the group is working towards to deliver an Initial Report in July -- Discussed future treatment of geographic terms contained within the 2012 Applicant Guidebook (AGB). -- Slides, transcript and video stream can be accessed via the ICANN61 Meeting Schedule page - https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647704 -- Feedback from the session has been incorporated into the working document for the Work Track: - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQ... -- Some members raised concerns about the format of the spreadsheet used to track deliberations. Suggestions for alternatives are welcome. Slide 5: Work Track 5 Work Plan: -- March-April: Begin Discussing Future Treatment of Terms in 2012 Applicant Guidebook. -- May: Discuss Future Treatment of Terms Not Included in 2012 Applicant Guidebook. -- June: Draft initial report. -- July: Publish Initial Report -- Not an end point, but a required step in the PDP to publish in the public forum. Initial focus is to reach this initial report stage in July. Slide 6: Where are we now? Drawing on the conversation during the ICANN61 session, the Work Track co-leaders submit the following proposals for consideration: -- 2-character country codes (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, reserving all 2 letter-letter ASCII combinations for existing and future country codes. -- 3-character country codes (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, i.e. not available, and defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply for these strings and how they may be treated (for instance, as a gTLD, a ccTLD or something else). -- Long and short form of country and territory names (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, i.e. not available, and defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply for these strings and how they may be treated (for instance, as a gTLD, a ccTLD or something else). Discussion: -- Gathering all input in a spreadsheet, but could consider converting it into a Word document. -- Separate item: The letter-number combination is not a geographic name and will be taken by Work Track 2; the actual two-character country codes would be reserved (letter-letter country code). -- The discussion centered on the point that a letter-number combination would not be referring to a geographic term so it would be out of scope of this Work Track. It would be considered by Work Track 2. -- When we defined the scope of Work Track 5 we explicitly included 3-character country codes, so how can we pass this on – what do we mean by “defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply”? At ICANN61 whereby it was thought that this should sit outside of gTLD-land (outside of GNSO). That is where we find difficulties in routing anything further. We said we would not look at anything that is outside of the scope for the GNSO. Comments were to keep these as unavailable and to defer broader questions outside the GNSO scope. Important to note that even if some countries did not want this as a gTLD, and it is not a ccTLD, and Work Track 5 can only look at what is a gTLD or not. So the only solution is either we give support or non-objection, it would still be a gTLD, which would not be satisfactory for the participants who commented at ICANN61. 3. Geographic terms from the AGB (continued): Slide 8: Review of Existing Country and Territory Names: As a reminder, in the 2012 Application Guidebook, the following country and territory names were not available (see section 2.2.1.4.1): it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. **discussed at ICANN61** it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language. **discussed at ICANN61** it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language. **discussed at ICANN61 ** it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module. it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization. Slide 9: Future Treatment – Country and Territory Names: We are now discussing future treatment of the following country and territory names: it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. (example: .eu) it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module. (example: Åland, separable component of Åland Islands) it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” (note: transposition does not apply to 3-letter codes) it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization. (Holland for the Netherlands) Discussion: -- What do we mean by “name of the country” – do we mean in English? Answer: There are some language aspects included in the terms. Bullet 2 – “is a translation of a name appearing on the list...” Check in the AGB to see which items have a translation? ISO 3166 names it comes in two forms – English translation or French translation of the names. That is the language being used. Often they are actually transliterated. For the permutations language isn’t mentioned. What has been discussed is the possibility of having all languages. -- When we’ve talked about permutations: it is strangely written – transposition doesn’t apply to 3-letter codes, but doesn’t mention permutations. Perhaps still consider whether to have the permutations unavailable, or to have an objection process. There were a number of conversations in the spreadsheet on the relevance on the reserved status. -- Shortcomings on translations or specific terms should be covered on the spreadsheet in those items that are not covered in the applicant guidebook. -- On the last bullet – “name by which a country is commonly known...” ADD: “in any language”. But, how would we manage that? It could not be a definitive list. Start with any official language in the country or geography concerned by the relevant string. Depending on requests for expanding, you could go to UN languages, but this might be too little. Not fair to say all strings to be treated fairly in all languages. Where the AGB is not explicit we should take that over to the list of what isn’t in the guidebook. If we are saying these are reserved then it would be ideal to have a definitive list, but that may not be possible. “In any language” could be tens of thousands of strings reserved. Need to compile a rough list of what this could look like. A start could be recognizing the official language in the jurisdiction of the string concerned. Should we say, “all scripts” instead of “all languages”? Noting this for the list of what is not considered in the AGB. Re: it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. (example: .eu) – does it fit into the same way forward? -- “Exceptionally reserved” there are no definitions of this in the standard. Probably shouldn’t include in a new version of the AGB. The whole standard is in a review period and it might be that the whole notion of reserved names will change. If you are doing a new AGB consider taking this whole notion of reserved and exceptionally reserved out of the AGB. Using undefined terms is not a good idea. -- Just accept the international standard as it is, but without including the notion of reserved and exceptionally reserved. But there are many geographicals that are not included in ISO 3166 at all. Bias toward a certain category of subdivisions and ignoring others. But, there could be other terms that protect, or they have an objection process. 4. Next Meeting: Wednesday, 18 April at 20:00 UTC.
Dear all, There was an interesting discussion on the meaning of "all languages" (concerning the long and short names of countries and territories). Taken literally, this would mean thousands and thousands of names. As far as country names in their official languages and in the six UN languages are concerned, a good starting point is Working Paper 54 of the UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN). https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEG... <https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEG...> <https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEG...> it is from 2011 so there may be some new countries created after that like South Sudan. Some languages have their specific names not only for the "own" country but for most other countries as well.. In some cases, protecting those other versions (eg., in the languages of neighboring countries, or in non-UN languages such as German or Japanese) might be important for the government. Should governments have the option of protecting the name of the country in additional languages? Best, Yrjö UNGEGN list of country names - the United Nations - UNSD<https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEG...> unstats.un.org UNGEGN List of Country Names Introduction During its 16th Session (New York, 1992), the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) re- convened its working group to establish the official forms of country names. ________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 6:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018 Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (04 April). 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 at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-02-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... See also the attached slides. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Action Items: Include the input from the notes and chat in the spreadsheet and review for the next meeting. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: No updates. 2. Update from ICANN61 / Where we are now: Slide 4: Update from ICANN61: -- WT5 held a public session at ICANN61 -- Provided a brief background and summary of progress -- Presented the timeline the group is working towards to deliver an Initial Report in July -- Discussed future treatment of geographic terms contained within the 2012 Applicant Guidebook (AGB). -- Slides, transcript and video stream can be accessed via the ICANN61 Meeting Schedule page - https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647704 -- Feedback from the session has been incorporated into the working document for the Work Track: - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQ... -- Some members raised concerns about the format of the spreadsheet used to track deliberations. Suggestions for alternatives are welcome. Slide 5: Work Track 5 Work Plan: -- March-April: Begin Discussing Future Treatment of Terms in 2012 Applicant Guidebook. -- May: Discuss Future Treatment of Terms Not Included in 2012 Applicant Guidebook. -- June: Draft initial report. -- July: Publish Initial Report -- Not an end point, but a required step in the PDP to publish in the public forum. Initial focus is to reach this initial report stage in July. Slide 6: Where are we now? Drawing on the conversation during the ICANN61 session, the Work Track co-leaders submit the following proposals for consideration: -- 2-character country codes (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, reserving all 2 letter-letter ASCII combinations for existing and future country codes. -- 3-character country codes (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, i.e. not available, and defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply for these strings and how they may be treated (for instance, as a gTLD, a ccTLD or something else). -- Long and short form of country and territory names (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, i.e. not available, and defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply for these strings and how they may be treated (for instance, as a gTLD, a ccTLD or something else). Discussion: -- Gathering all input in a spreadsheet, but could consider converting it into a Word document. -- Separate item: The letter-number combination is not a geographic name and will be taken by Work Track 2; the actual two-character country codes would be reserved (letter-letter country code). -- The discussion centered on the point that a letter-number combination would not be referring to a geographic term so it would be out of scope of this Work Track. It would be considered by Work Track 2. -- When we defined the scope of Work Track 5 we explicitly included 3-character country codes, so how can we pass this on – what do we mean by “defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply”? At ICANN61 whereby it was thought that this should sit outside of gTLD-land (outside of GNSO). That is where we find difficulties in routing anything further. We said we would not look at anything that is outside of the scope for the GNSO. Comments were to keep these as unavailable and to defer broader questions outside the GNSO scope. Important to note that even if some countries did not want this as a gTLD, and it is not a ccTLD, and Work Track 5 can only look at what is a gTLD or not. So the only solution is either we give support or non-objection, it would still be a gTLD, which would not be satisfactory for the participants who commented at ICANN61. 3. Geographic terms from the AGB (continued): Slide 8: Review of Existing Country and Territory Names: As a reminder, in the 2012 Application Guidebook, the following country and territory names were not available (see section 2.2.1.4.1): 1. it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. **discussed at ICANN61** 2. it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language. **discussed at ICANN61** 3. it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language. **discussed at ICANN61 ** 4. it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. 5. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module. 6. it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” 7. it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization. Slide 9: Future Treatment – Country and Territory Names: We are now discussing future treatment of the following country and territory names: * it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. (example: .eu) * it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module. (example: Åland, separable component of Åland Islands) * it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” (note: transposition does not apply to 3-letter codes) * it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization. (Holland for the Netherlands) Discussion: -- What do we mean by “name of the country” – do we mean in English? Answer: There are some language aspects included in the terms. Bullet 2 – “is a translation of a name appearing on the list...” Check in the AGB to see which items have a translation? ISO 3166 names it comes in two forms – English translation or French translation of the names. That is the language being used. Often they are actually transliterated. For the permutations language isn’t mentioned. What has been discussed is the possibility of having all languages. -- When we’ve talked about permutations: it is strangely written – transposition doesn’t apply to 3-letter codes, but doesn’t mention permutations. Perhaps still consider whether to have the permutations unavailable, or to have an objection process. There were a number of conversations in the spreadsheet on the relevance on the reserved status. -- Shortcomings on translations or specific terms should be covered on the spreadsheet in those items that are not covered in the applicant guidebook. -- On the last bullet – “name by which a country is commonly known...” ADD: “in any language”. But, how would we manage that? It could not be a definitive list. Start with any official language in the country or geography concerned by the relevant string. Depending on requests for expanding, you could go to UN languages, but this might be too little. Not fair to say all strings to be treated fairly in all languages. Where the AGB is not explicit we should take that over to the list of what isn’t in the guidebook. If we are saying these are reserved then it would be ideal to have a definitive list, but that may not be possible. “In any language” could be tens of thousands of strings reserved. Need to compile a rough list of what this could look like. A start could be recognizing the official language in the jurisdiction of the string concerned. Should we say, “all scripts” instead of “all languages”? Noting this for the list of what is not considered in the AGB. Re: it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. (example: .eu) – does it fit into the same way forward? -- “Exceptionally reserved” there are no definitions of this in the standard. Probably shouldn’t include in a new version of the AGB. The whole standard is in a review period and it might be that the whole notion of reserved names will change. If you are doing a new AGB consider taking this whole notion of reserved and exceptionally reserved out of the AGB. Using undefined terms is not a good idea. -- Just accept the international standard as it is, but without including the notion of reserved and exceptionally reserved. But there are many geographicals that are not included in ISO 3166 at all. Bias toward a certain category of subdivisions and ignoring others. But, there could be other terms that protect, or they have an objection process. 4. Next Meeting: Wednesday, 18 April at 20:00 UTC.
Very interesting Yrjö. Thank you for this link. I agree UN official languages are always an important benchmark, but I saw very valid concerns in the community that the UN list might be to exclusive (English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic), a point that I agree with. This link you provide is useful as it shows short form(s) and “formal” (similar to long form) country names in the pertinent country’s official/national language(s) even if said language is not a UN language (short form examples: Polska-Poland in Polish language- or Svizra (la)-Switzerland in Romansh language, one of Switzerland’s official tongues). This list I think is helpful from the standpoint of predictability. Any list of course will never be perfect: it will have to be updated as new sovereign countries are born, and by the same token will never include non-sovereign countries/regions nor territories. But again, this definitely looks like a good reference and starting point. Question: could you possibly point to a similar UN list that includes “non self governing territories”, autonomic regions, politically disputed regions and/or areas of limited sovereignty? I know I ask a lot, but such a list could help cover all or most bases. Thanks again. Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Apr 4, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
There was an interesting discussion on the meaning of "all languages" (concerning the long and short names of countries and territories). Taken literally, this would mean thousands and thousands of names.
As far as country names in their official languages and in the six UN languages are concerned, a good starting point is Working Paper 54 of the UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN). https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEG...
it is from 2011 so there may be some new countries created after that like South Sudan.
Some languages have their specific names not only for the "own" country but for most other countries as well.. In some cases, protecting those other versions (eg., in the languages of neighboring countries, or in non-UN languages such as German or Japanese) might be important for the government. Should governments have the option of protecting the name of the country in additional languages?
Best,
Yrjö
UNGEGN list of country names - the United Nations - UNSD unstats.un.org UNGEGN List of Country Names Introduction During its 16th Session (New York, 1992), the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) re- convened its working group to establish the official forms of country names.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 6:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (04 April). 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 at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-02-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro....
See also the attached slides.
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes/Action Items:
Action Items: Include the input from the notes and chat in the spreadsheet and review for the next meeting.
Notes:
1. SOI Updates: No updates.
2. Update from ICANN61 / Where we are now:
Slide 4: Update from ICANN61:
-- WT5 held a public session at ICANN61
-- Provided a brief background and summary of progress
-- Presented the timeline the group is working towards to deliver an Initial Report in July
-- Discussed future treatment of geographic terms contained within the 2012 Applicant Guidebook (AGB).
-- Slides, transcript and video stream can be accessed via the ICANN61 Meeting Schedule page - https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647704
-- Feedback from the session has been incorporated into the working document for the Work Track: - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQ...
-- Some members raised concerns about the format of the spreadsheet used to track deliberations. Suggestions for alternatives are welcome.
Slide 5: Work Track 5 Work Plan:
-- March-April: Begin Discussing Future Treatment of Terms in 2012 Applicant Guidebook.
-- May: Discuss Future Treatment of Terms Not Included in 2012 Applicant Guidebook.
-- June: Draft initial report.
-- July: Publish Initial Report -- Not an end point, but a required step in the PDP to publish in the public forum. Initial focus is to reach this initial report stage in July.
Slide 6: Where are we now?
Drawing on the conversation during the ICANN61 session, the Work Track co-leaders submit the following proposals for consideration:
-- 2-character country codes (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, reserving all 2 letter-letter ASCII combinations for existing and future country codes.
-- 3-character country codes (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, i.e. not available, and defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply for these strings and how they may be treated (for instance, as a gTLD, a ccTLD or something else).
-- Long and short form of country and territory names (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, i.e. not available, and defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply for these strings and how they may be treated (for instance, as a gTLD, a ccTLD or something else).
Discussion:
-- Gathering all input in a spreadsheet, but could consider converting it into a Word document.
-- Separate item: The letter-number combination is not a geographic name and will be taken by Work Track 2; the actual two-character country codes would be reserved (letter-letter country code).
-- The discussion centered on the point that a letter-number combination would not be referring to a geographic term so it would be out of scope of this Work Track. It would be considered by Work Track 2.
-- When we defined the scope of Work Track 5 we explicitly included 3-character country codes, so how can we pass this on – what do we mean by “defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply”? At ICANN61 whereby it was thought that this should sit outside of gTLD-land (outside of GNSO). That is where we find difficulties in routing anything further. We said we would not look at anything that is outside of the scope for the GNSO. Comments were to keep these as unavailable and to defer broader questions outside the GNSO scope. Important to note that even if some countries did not want this as a gTLD, and it is not a ccTLD, and Work Track 5 can only look at what is a gTLD or not. So the only solution is either we give support or non-objection, it would still be a gTLD, which would not be satisfactory for the participants who commented at ICANN61.
3. Geographic terms from the AGB (continued):
Slide 8: Review of Existing Country and Territory Names:
As a reminder, in the 2012 Application Guidebook, the following country and territory names were not available (see section 2.2.1.4.1):
it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. **discussed at ICANN61** it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language. **discussed at ICANN61** it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language. **discussed at ICANN61 ** it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module. it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization.
Slide 9: Future Treatment – Country and Territory Names:
We are now discussing future treatment of the following country and territory names:
it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. (example: .eu) it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module. (example: Åland, separable component of Åland Islands) it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” (note: transposition does not apply to 3-letter codes) it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization. (Holland for the Netherlands)
Discussion:
-- What do we mean by “name of the country” – do we mean in English? Answer: There are some language aspects included in the terms. Bullet 2 – “is a translation of a name appearing on the list...” Check in the AGB to see which items have a translation? ISO 3166 names it comes in two forms – English translation or French translation of the names. That is the language being used. Often they are actually transliterated. For the permutations language isn’t mentioned. What has been discussed is the possibility of having all languages.
-- When we’ve talked about permutations: it is strangely written – transposition doesn’t apply to 3-letter codes, but doesn’t mention permutations. Perhaps still consider whether to have the permutations unavailable, or to have an objection process. There were a number of conversations in the spreadsheet on the relevance on the reserved status.
-- Shortcomings on translations or specific terms should be covered on the spreadsheet in those items that are not covered in the applicant guidebook.
-- On the last bullet – “name by which a country is commonly known...” ADD: “in any language”. But, how would we manage that? It could not be a definitive list. Start with any official language in the country or geography concerned by the relevant string. Depending on requests for expanding, you could go to UN languages, but this might be too little. Not fair to say all strings to be treated fairly in all languages. Where the AGB is not explicit we should take that over to the list of what isn’t in the guidebook. If we are saying these are reserved then it would be ideal to have a definitive list, but that may not be possible. “In any language” could be tens of thousands of strings reserved. Need to compile a rough list of what this could look like. A start could be recognizing the official language in the jurisdiction of the string concerned. Should we say, “all scripts” instead of “all languages”? Noting this for the list of what is not considered in the AGB.
Re: it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. (example: .eu) – does it fit into the same way forward?
-- “Exceptionally reserved” there are no definitions of this in the standard. Probably shouldn’t include in a new version of the AGB. The whole standard is in a review period and it might be that the whole notion of reserved names will change. If you are doing a new AGB consider taking this whole notion of reserved and exceptionally reserved out of the AGB. Using undefined terms is not a good idea.
-- Just accept the international standard as it is, but without including the notion of reserved and exceptionally reserved. But there are many geographicals that are not included in ISO 3166 at all. Bias toward a certain category of subdivisions and ignoring others. But, there could be other terms that protect, or they have an objection process.
4. Next Meeting: Wednesday, 18 April at 20:00 UTC.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I deleted quite some text but this part from Yrjö Länsipuro message:
Some languages have their specific names not only for the "own" country but for most other countries as well.. In some cases, protecting those other versions (eg., in the languages of neighboring countries, or in non-UN languages such as German or Japanese) might be important for the government. Should governments have the option of protecting the name of the country in additional languages?
This is known as exonym and endonyms[*]. As an example, the Netherlands is not only knows as "Holland" but also as "Pays-Bas", "Niederlande" etc. while the Dutch tend to talk about "Frankrijk", "Duitsland". In case people want to consider this for TLDs the amount of 140.000 names mentioned in the call (7000 lnguages, 200 countries) will easely grows a couple of magnitudes. jaap [*] For a quick introduction, see the lemma in Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym_and_endonym>.
Would a possibility be to include only the official language(s) of all countries, or would that be too much as well? I agree with Javier that UN Languages, plus the official language of the country is the easiest. However, it is fairly restricted, as there are many languages in the world used extensively by others, to take German and Portuguese as an example. Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> Date: Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 21:10 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018 I deleted quite some text but this part from Yrjö Länsipuro message:
Some languages have their specific names not only for the "own" country but for most other countries as well.. In some cases, protecting those other versions (eg., in the languages of neighboring countries, or in non-UN languages such as German or Japanese) might be important for the government. Should governments have the option of protecting the name of the country in additional languages?
This is known as exonym and endonyms[*]. As an example, the Netherlands is not only knows as "Holland" but also as "Pays-Bas", "Niederlande" etc. while the Dutch tend to talk about "Frankrijk", "Duitsland". In case people want to consider this for TLDs the amount of 140.000 names mentioned in the call (7000 lnguages, 200 countries) will easely grows a couple of magnitudes. jaap [*] For a quick introduction, see the lemma in Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym_and_endonym>. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
UN has in a formal way 8 official languages. Adding the country languages, some are legitimate languages of the country but then you have dialects as well. These can be overwhelming. I can just Africa, the languages spoken are imported but then the local local ones, you can’t even start counting. There needs to be some limits as the UN languages for a start. Else we will end up in a spinning wheel and we will never agree again and again. My two cents.
On Apr 5, 2018, at 11:36, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> wrote:
Would a possibility be to include only the official language(s) of all countries, or would that be too much as well? I agree with Javier that UN Languages, plus the official language of the country is the easiest. However, it is fairly restricted, as there are many languages in the world used extensively by others, to take German and Portuguese as an example.
Annebeth
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl <mailto:jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>> Date: Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 21:10 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018
I deleted quite some text but this part from Yrjö Länsipuro message:
Some languages have their specific names not only for the "own" country but for most other countries as well.. In some cases, protecting those other versions (eg., in the languages of neighboring countries, or in non-UN languages such as German or Japanese) might be important for the government. Should governments have the option of protecting the name of the country in additional languages?
This is known as exonym and endonyms[*]. As an example, the Netherlands is not only knows as "Holland" but also as "Pays-Bas", "Niederlande" etc. while the Dutch tend to talk about "Frankrijk", "Duitsland". In case people want to consider this for TLDs the amount of 140.000 names mentioned in the call (7000 lnguages, 200 countries) will easely grows a couple of magnitudes.
jaap
[*] For a quick introduction, see the lemma in Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym_and_endonym <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym_and_endonym>>. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Annebeth Lange writes:
Would a possibility be to include only the official language(s) of all countries, or would that be too much as well? I agree with Javier that UN Languages, plus the official language of the country is the easiest. However, it is fairly restricted, as there are many languages in the world used extensively by others, to take German and Portuguese as an example.
At first sight this seems easy, but I'm afraid it is yet another can of worms. One needs to define what "Official languages" means. When the second Edition on of 3166-1 came out in 2006, a columns where added which contains additional information. The description of this column is (quoting ISO 3166-1-2006): - 9 (informative) The alpha-2 ISO 639 code element of each administrative language of the country (with a dash when the code element is missing); - 10 (informative) The alpha-3 (terminological version) ISO 639 code element of each administrative language of the country (with a dash when the code element is missing); The term "administrative language" is chosen because there don't seem to be a list of official languages of a country available. The path to such a list will be way more complicated then one hopes. Here are some random problems: For the Netherlands, the ISO OBP lists in part 1 NLD (Dutch) only but for part 2 list for a subdivision Frisian as well. And as far as I know, Frisian can be used as official language under certain conditions (in court is one of them). The CIA handbook list a couple more as being used <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html...>. On the Government site I found an article stating that for the revision of the constitutions maybe it is time to say something about the language used <https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2010/02/12/dutch-language-enshrined-in...>. For India, ISO lists two languages for part 1 (eng, hin), and part 2 just one (en) while the CIA fact book lists a 14 official languages. The USA doesn't has an official language and there are regular heated debates whether there should be one. I'm afraid that this will lead to yet another extensive discussion but not a lot of results that can be used in the scope of this work track. jaap
Hi all, The UN Group of Experts on Geographic Names (UNGEGN) list is rather more straightforward and unequivocal about which languages are "official" in each country (presumably based on information from UN member countries themselves) It doesn't go as deep as ISO lists - no mention of Frisian, or of status of three different variants Sámi in certain municipalities of Finnish Lapland, for that matter. For our purposes, the UNGEGN list should be enough, and IMHO relevant for country names as for ISO is for their codes. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEG... UNGEGN list of country names - the United Nations - UNSD<https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEG...> unstats.un.org UNGEGN List of Country Names Introduction During its 16th Session (New York, 1992), the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) re- convened its working group to establish the official forms of country names. UNGEGN website: https://unstats.un.org/UNSD/geoinfo/UNGEGN/default.html United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names - UNGEGN<https://unstats.un.org/UNSD/geoinfo/UNGEGN/default.html> unstats.un.org In 1959, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) paved the way for a small group of experts to meet and provide technical recommendations on standardizing geographical names at the national and international levels. ________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 12:58 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018 Annebeth Lange writes:
Would a possibility be to include only the official language(s) of all countries, or would that be too much as well? I agree with Javier that UN Languages, plus the official language of the country is the easiest. However, it is fairly restricted, as there are many languages in the world used extensively by others, to take German and Portuguese as an example.
At first sight this seems easy, but I'm afraid it is yet another can of worms. One needs to define what "Official languages" means. When the second Edition on of 3166-1 came out in 2006, a columns where added which contains additional information. The description of this column is (quoting ISO 3166-1-2006): - 9 (informative) The alpha-2 ISO 639 code element of each administrative language of the country (with a dash when the code element is missing); - 10 (informative) The alpha-3 (terminological version) ISO 639 code element of each administrative language of the country (with a dash when the code element is missing); The term "administrative language" is chosen because there don't seem to be a list of official languages of a country available. The path to such a list will be way more complicated then one hopes. Here are some random problems: For the Netherlands, the ISO OBP lists in part 1 NLD (Dutch) only but for part 2 list for a subdivision Frisian as well. And as far as I know, Frisian can be used as official language under certain conditions (in court is one of them). The CIA handbook list a couple more as being used <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html...>. The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html...> www.cia.gov The Office of Public Affairs (OPA) is the single point of contact for all inquiries about the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). We read every letter, fax, or e-mail we receive, and we will convey your comments to CIA officials outside OPA as appropriate. On the Government site I found an article stating that for the revision of the constitutions maybe it is time to say something about the language used <https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2010/02/12/dutch-language-enshrined-in...>. For India, ISO lists two languages for part 1 (eng, hin), and part 2 just one (en) while the CIA fact book lists a 14 official languages. The USA doesn't has an official language and there are regular heated debates whether there should be one. I'm afraid that this will lead to yet another extensive discussion but not a lot of results that can be used in the scope of this work track. jaap _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear All,As per Manual for the national standardization of geographical names United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names Defining a geographical nameThe United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names defines a geographical name as a name applied to a feature on Earth (Glossary, 216). In general, a geographical name is the proper name (a specific word, combination of words, or expression) used consistently in language to refer to a particular place, feature or area having a recognizable identity on the surface of the Earth. Named features include:1. Populated places (for example, cities, towns, villages)2. Civil divisions (for example, States, cantons, districts, boroughs)3. Natural features (for example, streams, mountains, capes, lakes, seas)4. Constructed features (for example, dams, airports, highways)5. Unbounded places or areas that have specific local (often religious) meaning (for example, grazing lands, fishing areas, sacred areas)A geographical name m ay also be referred to as a topographical name or toponym (a term that in a wider context can also include extraterrestrial names, such as names applied to features on the Moon or on other planets).To determine what languages to include we may use the status of each language in each country where it is used in the Status element of a language . The first is an estimate of the overall development versus endangerment of the language using the EGIDS (Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale) scale (Lewis and Simons 2010). The second is a categorization of the Official Recognition given to a language within the country.The EGIDS consists of 13 levels with each higher number on the scale representing a greater level of disruption to the intergenerational transmission of the language.Link : https://www.ethnologue.com/about/language-statusICANN is also using this scale in Lable Generation Panels to determine Lable Generaion Rules and including languages upto level 5.Link : https: //www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposal-latin-lgr-15may17-en.pdfThanks,Harish Chowdhary,Technology Analyst,National Internet Exchange of IndiaISOC IETF FELLOWinSIG 2017 FELLOWwww.nixi.in | www.indiaig.inFrom: Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com>Sent: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 16:13:44 GMT+0530To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLDSubsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018 Hi all, The UN Group of Experts on Geographic Names (UNGEGN) list is rather more straightforward and unequivocal about which languages are "official" in each country (presumably based on information from UN member countries themselves) It doesn't go as deep as ISO lists - no mention of Frisian, or of status of three different variants Sámi in certain municipalities of Finnish Lapland, for that matter. For our purposes, the UNGEGN list should be enough, and IMHO relevant for country names as for ISO is for their codes. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEG... unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEGN%20WG%20Country%20Names%20Document%202011.pdf" target="_blank" target='_blank' rel=external>UNGEGN list of country names - the United Nations - UNSD unstats.un.org UNGEGN List of Country Names Introduction During its 16th Session (New York, 1992), the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) re- convened its working group to establish the official forms of country names. UNGEGN website: https://unstats.un.org/UNSD/geoinfo/UNGEGN/default.html United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names - UNGEGN unstats.un.org In 1959, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) paved the way for a small group of experts to meet and provide technical recommendations on standardizing geographical names at the national and international levels. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 12:58 PMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orgSubject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018 Annebeth Lange writes: > Would a possibility be to include only the official language(s) of all > countries, or would that be too much as well? I agree with Javier that > UN Languages, plus the official language of the country is the easiest. > However, it is fairly restricted, as there are many languages in the > world used extensively by others, to take German and Portuguese as an > example.At first sight this seems easy, but I'm afraid it is yet another canof worms. One needs to define what "Official languages" means.When the second Edition on of 3166-1 came out in 2006, a columns whereadded which contains additional information. The description of thiscolumn is (quoting ISO 3166-1-2006): - 9 (informative) The alpha-2 ISO 639 code element of each administrative language of the country (with a dash when the &n bsp; code element is missing); - 10 (informative) The alpha-3 (terminological version) ISO 639 code element of each administrative language of the country (with a dash when the code element is missing);The term "administrative language" is chosen because there don't seemto be a list of official languages of a country available.The path to such a list will be way more complicated then one hopes.Here are some random problems: For the Netherlands, the ISO OBP lists in part 1 NLD (Dutch) only but for part 2 list for a subdivision Frisian as well. And as far as I know, Frisian can be used as official language under certain conditions (in court is one of them). The CIA handbook list a couple more as being used <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html...;. The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency www.cia.gov The Office of Public Affairs (OPA) is the single point of contact for all inquiries about the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). We read every letter, fax, or e-mail we receive, and we will convey your comments to CIA officials outside OPA as appropriate. On the Government site I found an article stating that for the revision of the constitutions maybe it is time to say something about the language used <https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2010/02/12/dutch-language-enshrined-in-the-constitution>. ; For India, ISO lists two languages for part 1 (eng, hin), and part 2 just one (en) while the CIA fact book lists a 14 official languages. The U SA doesn't has an official language and there are regular heated debates whether there should be one.I'm afraid that this will lead to yet another extensive discussion butnot a lot of results that can be used in the scope of this work track. jaap_______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5___________________... mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [NIXI is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nixiindia & Twitter: @inregistry ] This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone I have been following carefully this thread of conversations about geographic names and I think we need to step back a little. It may be helpful to come up with all kinds of lists but what for? The only utility of lists is to ensure that whatever policy we come to a consensus on can be used as independent, objective maps against which to a) advise applicants about what may or may not be possible; b) assist evaluators in assessing the veracity of applications and c) as compliance tools to ensure correct implementation of the registry contract. “Lists” designed to prevent, constrain, limit just for the sake of being limited is, I don’t think, where we want to be for the next generation of the Internet. And we may, unwittingly, prevent the very opportunities we seek for social, cultural, linguistic communities to represent themselves. Could I urge us to remember that, in our work, we also need to focus on a key element of ICANN’s mission & core values (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article1) which is to promote innovation and competition. Liz On 5 Apr 2018, at 9:31 pm, Harish Chowdhary <harish@nixi.in<mailto:harish@nixi.in>> wrote: Dear All, As per Manual for the national standardization of geographical names United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names Defining a geographical name The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names defines a geographical name as a name applied to a feature on Earth (Glossary, 216). In general, a geographical name is the proper name (a specific word, combination of words, or expression) used consistently in language to refer to a particular place, feature or area having a recognizable identity on the surface of the Earth. Named features include: 1. Populated places (for example, cities, towns, villages) 2. Civil divisions (for example, States, cantons, districts, boroughs) 3. Natural features (for example, streams, mountains, capes, lakes, seas) 4. Constructed features (for example, dams, airports, highways) 5. Unbounded places or areas that have specific local (often religious) meaning (for example, grazing lands, fishing areas, sacred areas) A geographical name may also be referred to as a topographical name or toponym (a term that in a wider context can also include extraterrestrial names, such as names applied to features on the Moon or on other planets). To determine what languages to include we may use the status of each language in each country where it is used in the Status element of a language . The first is an estimate of the overall development versus endangerment of the language using the EGIDS (Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale) scale (Lewis and Simons 2010). The second is a categorization of the Official Recognition given to a language within the country. The EGIDS consists of 13 levels with each higher number on the scale representing a greater level of disruption to the intergenerational transmission of the language. Link : https://www.ethnologue.com/about/language-status ICANN is also using this scale in Lable Generation Panels to determine Lable Generaion Rules and including languages upto level 5. Link : https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposal-latin-lgr-15may17-en.pd... Thanks, Harish Chowdhary, Technology Analyst, National Internet Exchange of India ISOC IETF FELLOW inSIG 2017 FELLOW www.nixi.in<http://nixi.in/> | www.indiaig.in<http://indiaig.in/> From: Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com<mailto:yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com>> Sent: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 16:13:44 GMT+0530 To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl<mailto:jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLDSubsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018 Hi all, The UN Group of Experts on Geographic Names (UNGEGN) list is rather more straightforward and unequivocal about which languages are "official" in each country (presumably based on information from UN member countries themselves) It doesn't go as deep as ISO lists - no mention of Frisian, or of status of three different variants Sámi in certain municipalities of Finnish Lapland, for that matter. For our purposes, the UNGEGN list should be enough, and IMHO relevant for country names as for ISO is for their codes. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEG... unstats.un.org<https://<a%20href=>/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEGN%20WG%20Country%20Names%20Document%202011.pdf" target="_blank" target='_blank' rel=external>UNGEGN list of country names - the United Nations - UNSD unstats.un.org<http://unstats.un.org/> UNGEGN List of Country Names Introduction During its 16th Session (New York, 1992), the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) re- convened its working group to establish the official forms of country names. UNGEGN website: <https://unstats.un.org/UNSD/geoinfo/UNGEGN/default.html> https://unstats.un.org/UNSD/geoinfo/UNGEGN/default.html United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names - UNGEGN<https://unstats.un.org/UNSD/geoinfo/UNGEGN/default.html> unstats.un.org<http://unstats.un.org> In 1959, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) paved the way for a small group of experts to meet and provide technical recommendations on standardizing geographical names at the national and international levels. ________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl<mailto:jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>> Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 12:58 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018 Annebeth Lange writes:
Would a possibility be to include only the official language(s) of all countries, or would that be too much as well? I agree with Javier that UN Languages, plus the official language of the country is the easiest. However, it is fairly restricted, as there are many languages in the world used extensively by others, to take German and Portuguese as an example.
At first sight this seems easy, but I'm afraid it is yet another can of worms. One needs to define what "Official languages" means. When the second Edition on of 3166-1 came out in 2006, a columns where added which contains additional information. The description of this column is (quoting ISO 3166-1-2006): - 9 (informative) The alpha-2 ISO 639 code element of each administrative language of the country (with a dash when the code element is missing); - 10 (informative) The alpha-3 (terminological version) ISO 639 code element of each administrative language of the country (with a dash when the code element is missing); The term "administrative language" is chosen because there don't seem to be a list of official languages of a country available. The path to such a list will be way more complicated then one hopes. Here are some random problems: For the Netherlands, the ISO OBP lists in part 1 NLD (Dutch) only but for part 2 list for a subdivision Frisian as well. And as far as I know, Frisian can be used as official language under certain conditions (in court is one of them). The CIA handbook list a couple more as being used <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html...>. The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html...> www.cia.gov<http://www.cia.gov/> The Office of Public Affairs (OPA) is the single point of contact for all inquiries about the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). We read every letter, fax, or e-mail we receive, and we will convey your comments to CIA officials outside OPA as appropriate. On the Government site I found an article stating that for the revision of the constitutions maybe it is time to say something about the language used <https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2010/02/12/dutch-language-enshrined-in...>. For India, ISO lists two languages for part 1 (eng, hin), and part 2 just one (en) while the CIA fact book lists a 14 official languages. The USA doesn't has an official language and there are regular heated debates whether there should be one. I'm afraid that this will lead to yet another extensive discussion but not a lot of results that can be used in the scope of this work track. jaap _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<x-msg://prolinks.rediffmailpro.com/cgi-bin/prored.cgi?red=https%3A%2F%2Fmm%2Eicann%2Eorg%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso%2Dnewgtld%2Dwg%2Dwt5&rediffng=0> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [NIXI is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nixiindia & Twitter: @inregistry ] This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
As a corollary to Liz's message, I'll note that reserved lists, blocking lists, and the like are disfavored in ICANN policy. Taking names "out of circulation" fails to advance innovation or competition. This is particularly the case where there are multiple legitimate uses for the same string. There is also no precedent (outside of the recent history of the ccTLDs) for picking a single rightful owner of a string, and no precedent at all for holding a string out of circulation indefinitely until that "rightful owner" decides to apply for it (if ever). Even more generally, preventative rights are disfavored compared to curative rights. So, whatever the use any list (or a subpart of any list) might be put to, I would expect that any kind of preventative right, and in particular any kind of reservation, will not be a favored use. I'd also expect that this is increasingly the case as lists grow longer and the unique, widespread or notable nature of the strings declines. Greg On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hello everyone
I have been following carefully this thread of conversations about geographic names and I think we need to step back a little. It may be helpful to come up with all kinds of lists but what for?
The only utility of lists is to ensure that whatever policy we come to a consensus on can be used as independent, objective maps against which to a) advise applicants about what may or may not be possible; b) assist evaluators in assessing the veracity of applications and c) as compliance tools to ensure correct implementation of the registry contract. “Lists” designed to prevent, constrain, limit just for the sake of being limited is, I don’t think, where we want to be for the next generation of the Internet. And we may, unwittingly, prevent the very opportunities we seek for social, cultural, linguistic communities to represent themselves.
Could I urge us to remember that, in our work, we also need to focus on a key element of ICANN’s mission & core values (https://www.icann.org/ resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article1) which is to promote innovation and competition.
Liz
On 5 Apr 2018, at 9:31 pm, Harish Chowdhary <harish@nixi.in> wrote:
Dear All,
As per Manual for the national standardization of geographical names United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names Defining a geographical name
The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names defines a geographical name as a name applied to a feature on Earth (Glossary, 216). In general, a geographical name is the proper name (a specific word, combination of words, or expression) used consistently in language to refer to a particular place, feature or area having a recognizable identity on the surface of the Earth. Named features include:
1. Populated places (for example, cities, towns, villages) 2. Civil divisions (for example, States, cantons, districts, boroughs) 3. Natural features (for example, streams, mountains, capes, lakes, seas) 4. Constructed features (for example, dams, airports, highways) 5. Unbounded places or areas that have specific local (often religious) meaning (for example, grazing lands, fishing areas, sacred areas)
A geographical name may also be referred to as a topographical name or toponym (a term that in a wider context can also include extraterrestrial names, such as names applied to features on the* Moon or on other planets).*
To determine what languages to include we may use the status of each language in each country where it is used in the Status element of a language . The first is an estimate of the overall development versus endangerment of the language using the EGIDS (Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale) scale (Lewis and Simons 2010). The second is a categorization of the Official Recognition given to a language within the country.
The EGIDS consists of 13 levels with each higher number on the scale representing a greater level of disruption to the intergenerational transmission of the language.
Link : https://www.ethnologue.com/about/language-status
ICANN is also using this scale in Lable Generation Panels to determine Lable Generaion Rules and including languages upto level 5.
Link : https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposal- latin-lgr-15may17-en.pdf
Thanks,
*Harish Chowdhary, Technology Analyst, National Internet Exchange of India*
*ISOC IETF FELLOW inSIG 2017 FELLOW* www.nixi.in <http://nixi.in/> | www.indiaig.in <http://indiaig.in/>
From: Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> Sent: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 16:13:44 GMT+0530 To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLDSubsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018
Hi all,
The UN Group of Experts on Geographic Names (UNGEGN) list is rather more straightforward and unequivocal about which languages are "official" in each country (presumably based on information from UN member countries themselves) It doesn't go as deep as ISO lists - no mention of Frisian, or of status of three different variants Sámi in certain municipalities of Finnish Lapland, for that matter.
For our purposes, the UNGEGN list should be enough, and IMHO relevant for country *names *as for ISO is for their *codes*.
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn- docs/WP/WP54_UNGEGN%20WG%20Country%20Names%20Document%202011.pdf
unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/ WP54_UNGEGN%20WG%20Country%20Names%20Document%202011.pdf" target="_blank" target='_blank' rel=external>UNGEGN list of country names - the United Nations - UNSD unstats.un.org UNGEGN List of Country Names Introduction During its 16th Session (New York, 1992), the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) re- convened its working group to establish the official forms of country names.
UNGEGN website: <https://unstats.un.org/UNSD/geoinfo/UNGEGN/default.html> https://unstats.un.org/UNSD/geoinfo/UNGEGN/default.html
United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names - UNGEGN <https://unstats.un.org/UNSD/geoinfo/UNGEGN/default.html> unstats.un.org In 1959, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) paved the way for a small group of experts to meet and provide technical recommendations on standardizing geographical names at the national and international levels.
------------------------------ *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> *Sent:* Thursday, April 5, 2018 12:58 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018
Annebeth Lange writes:
Would a possibility be to include only the official language(s) of all countries, or would that be too much as well? I agree with Javier that UN Languages, plus the official language of the country is the easiest. However, it is fairly restricted, as there are many languages in the world used extensively by others, to take German and Portuguese as an example.
At first sight this seems easy, but I'm afraid it is yet another can of worms. One needs to define what "Official languages" means.
When the second Edition on of 3166-1 came out in 2006, a columns where added which contains additional information. The description of this column is (quoting ISO 3166-1-2006):
- 9 (informative) The alpha-2 ISO 639 code element of each administrative language of the country (with a dash when the code element is missing);
- 10 (informative) The alpha-3 (terminological version) ISO 639 code element of each administrative language of the country (with a dash when the code element is missing);
The term "administrative language" is chosen because there don't seem to be a list of official languages of a country available.
The path to such a list will be way more complicated then one hopes. Here are some random problems:
For the Netherlands, the ISO OBP lists in part 1 NLD (Dutch) only but for part 2 list for a subdivision Frisian as well. And as far as I know, Frisian can be used as official language under certain conditions (in court is one of them). The CIA handbook list a couple more as being used <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/fields/2098.html#nl>.
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html...> www.cia.gov The Office of Public Affairs (OPA) is the single point of contact for all inquiries about the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). We read every letter, fax, or e-mail we receive, and we will convey your comments to CIA officials outside OPA as appropriate.
On the Government site I found an article stating that for the revision of the constitutions maybe it is time to say something about the language used <https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2010/02/12/dutch- language-enshrined-in-the-constitution>.
For India, ISO lists two languages for part 1 (eng, hin), and part 2 just one (en) while the CIA fact book lists a 14 official languages.
The USA doesn't has an official language and there are regular heated debates whether there should be one.
I'm afraid that this will lead to yet another extensive discussion but not a lot of results that can be used in the scope of this work track.
jaap _______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------- [NIXI is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nixiindia & Twitter: @inregistry ] This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
please Staff, could you send me the credentials to enter call by webex. thanks Carlos Dionisio Aguirre ALAC LACRALO liaison On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (04 April). *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 at: * https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-02-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+ Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5.
See also the attached slides.
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Notes/Action Items:*
*Action Items:* Include the input from the notes and chat in the spreadsheet and review for the next meeting.
*Notes:*
1. SOI Updates: No updates.
2. Update from ICANN61 / Where we are now:
Slide 4: Update from ICANN61:
-- WT5 held a public session at ICANN61
-- Provided a brief background and summary of progress
-- Presented the timeline the group is working towards to deliver an Initial Report in July
-- Discussed future treatment of geographic terms contained within the 2012 Applicant Guidebook (AGB).
-- Slides, transcript and video stream can be accessed via the ICANN61 Meeting Schedule page - https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647704
-- Feedback from the session has been incorporated into the working document for the Work Track: - https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQu9 1FDqo/edit#gid=358523414
-- Some members raised concerns about the format of the spreadsheet used to track deliberations. Suggestions for alternatives are welcome.
Slide 5: Work Track 5 Work Plan:
-- March-April: Begin Discussing Future Treatment of Terms in 2012 Applicant Guidebook.
-- May: Discuss Future Treatment of Terms Not Included in 2012 Applicant Guidebook.
-- June: Draft initial report.
-- July: Publish Initial Report -- Not an end point, but a required step in the PDP to publish in the public forum. Initial focus is to reach this initial report stage in July.
Slide 6: Where are we now?
Drawing on the conversation during the ICANN61 session, the Work Track co-leaders submit the following proposals for consideration:
-- 2-character country codes (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, reserving all 2 letter-letter ASCII combinations for existing and future country codes.
-- 3-character country codes (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, i.e. not available, and defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply for these strings and how they may be treated (for instance, as a gTLD, a ccTLD or something else).
-- Long and short form of country and territory names (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, i.e. not available, and defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply for these strings and how they may be treated (for instance, as a gTLD, a ccTLD or something else).
Discussion:
-- Gathering all input in a spreadsheet, but could consider converting it into a Word document.
-- Separate item: The letter-number combination is not a geographic name and will be taken by Work Track 2; the actual two-character country codes would be reserved (letter-letter country code).
-- The discussion centered on the point that a letter-number combination would not be referring to a geographic term so it would be out of scope of this Work Track. It would be considered by Work Track 2.
-- When we defined the scope of Work Track 5 we explicitly included 3-character country codes, so how can we pass this on – what do we mean by “defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply”? At ICANN61 whereby it was thought that this should sit outside of gTLD-land (outside of GNSO). That is where we find difficulties in routing anything further. We said we would not look at anything that is outside of the scope for the GNSO. Comments were to keep these as unavailable and to defer broader questions outside the GNSO scope. Important to note that even if some countries did not want this as a gTLD, and it is not a ccTLD, and Work Track 5 can only look at what is a gTLD or not. So the only solution is either we give support or non-objection, it would still be a gTLD, which would not be satisfactory for the participants who commented at ICANN61.
3. Geographic terms from the AGB (continued):
Slide 8: Review of Existing Country and Territory Names:
As a reminder, in the 2012 Application Guidebook, the following country and territory names were not available (see section 2.2.1.4.1):
1. it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. **discussed at ICANN61** 2. it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language. **discussed at ICANN61** 3. it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language. **discussed at ICANN61 ** 4. it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. 5. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module. 6. it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” 7. it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization.
Slide 9: Future Treatment – Country and Territory Names:
We are now discussing future treatment of the following country and territory names:
- it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. (example: .eu) - it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module. (example: Åland, separable component of Åland Islands) - it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” (note: transposition does not apply to 3-letter codes) - it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization. (Holland for the Netherlands)
Discussion:
-- What do we mean by “name of the country” – do we mean in English? Answer: There are some language aspects included in the terms. Bullet 2 – “is a translation of a name appearing on the list...” Check in the AGB to see which items have a translation? ISO 3166 names it comes in two forms – English translation or French translation of the names. That is the language being used. Often they are actually transliterated. For the permutations language isn’t mentioned. What has been discussed is the possibility of having all languages.
-- When we’ve talked about permutations: it is strangely written – transposition doesn’t apply to 3-letter codes, but doesn’t mention permutations. Perhaps still consider whether to have the permutations unavailable, or to have an objection process. There were a number of conversations in the spreadsheet on the relevance on the reserved status.
-- Shortcomings on translations or specific terms should be covered on the spreadsheet in those items that are not covered in the applicant guidebook.
-- On the last bullet – “name by which a country is commonly known...” ADD: “in any language”. But, how would we manage that? It could not be a definitive list. Start with any official language in the country or geography concerned by the relevant string. Depending on requests for expanding, you could go to UN languages, but this might be too little. Not fair to say all strings to be treated fairly in all languages. Where the AGB is not explicit we should take that over to the list of what isn’t in the guidebook. If we are saying these are reserved then it would be ideal to have a definitive list, but that may not be possible. “In any language” could be tens of thousands of strings reserved. Need to compile a rough list of what this could look like. A start could be recognizing the official language in the jurisdiction of the string concerned. Should we say, “all scripts” instead of “all languages”? Noting this for the list of what is not considered in the AGB.
Re: it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. (example: .eu) – does it fit into the same way forward?
-- “Exceptionally reserved” there are no definitions of this in the standard. Probably shouldn’t include in a new version of the AGB. The whole standard is in a review period and it might be that the whole notion of reserved names will change. If you are doing a new AGB consider taking this whole notion of reserved and exceptionally reserved out of the AGB. Using undefined terms is not a good idea.
-- Just accept the international standard as it is, but without including the notion of reserved and exceptionally reserved. But there are many geographicals that are not included in ISO 3166 at all. Bias toward a certain category of subdivisions and ignoring others. But, there could be other terms that protect, or they have an objection process.
4. Next Meeting: Wednesday, 18 April at 20:00 UTC.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
participants (10)
-
Annebeth Lange -
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre -
Greg Shatan -
Harish Chowdhary -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
Javier Rua -
Julie Hedlund -
Kris Seeburn -
Liz Williams -
Yrjö Länsipuro