Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (19 September). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki. Please also find attached the referenced slides. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: -- Javier Rua -- New client that will be employer in the next 6 months. 2. Terms Requiring Letter of Support/Non-Objection in the 2012 AGB: Slide 5: AGB Section 2.2.1.4.2 Slide 6: Finding Areas of Agreement for the Initial Report (1/2) Discussion: -- Where you see the term "status quo" that should not be looked upon as a lack of achievement by the WT. -- Trying to sift through all of the conversations and work out where we might have agreement. -- See Slide 5: AGB Section 2.2.1.4.2. -- We can pose questions if we don't have preliminary recommendations. -- Re: Status Quo in current AGB -- does this means a written (the text) not the history after the fact?  -- We are mixing categories -- if we try to take one category at the time: start with capital city names, then on to the city names.  -- Looking at whether we need support or non-objection.  We will ask about languages in a question.  (Leave out "in any language" for now). -- A compromise (see the chat): not allowing city names or sub-national places when the intended use would misrepresent its authority over or connection to that places. Recommending we narrow to words other than capital names.  Look at the intended use.

From the chat:

Annebeth Lange, co-lead ccNSO: We should not forget that 2012 AGB was the result of many years of discussions from 2007 to 2012. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co Chair): Well said Martin and Yes indeed  Annebeth! Javier Rua-Jovet: Thats right  @Martin:  Status quo might be a type o f evidence that past consensus and past hard fought agreements werent that bad at all. Paul McGrady 2: Can we have the specific language from the AGB RE: city names used as city names? Paul McGrady 2: Also, is the question the AGB as written or the AGB as misapplied? Paul McGrady 2: That is capital city names, but what is the language for the second bullet point? David McAuley: process question, must we have 'prelim recommendations' for IR or can we simply pose questions that are supported by us to be posed for public comment? Paul McGrady 2: What supports the second bullet point> Emily Barabas: An application for a city name, where the applicant declares that it intends to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name.City names present challenges because city names may also be generic terms or brand names, and in many cases city names are not unique. Unlike other types of geographic names, there are no established lists that can be used as objective references in the evaluation process. Thus, city names are not universally protected. However, the process does provide a means for cities and applicants to work together where desired.An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if:(a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name; and(b) The applied-for string i Emily Barabas: (b) The applied-for string is a city name as listed on official city documents. Robin Gross: I could agree to not allowing city names or sub-national places when the intended use would misrepresent its authority over or connection to that place.  That seems like a reasonable compromise that recognizes there are multiple legitimate uses of a word. Emily Barabas: The following types of applied-for strings are considered geographic names and must be accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities:1. An application for any string that is a representation, in any language, of the capital city name of any country or territory listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. Christopher Wilkinson: I have in the past supported official national languages + the UN languages + PT, but today I feel a consensus for 'in any language' then I withdraw. CW Marita Moll: I might be okay with Robin's concept except there is still an idea of treating very large cities differently -- names of cities 1M+ Christopher Wilkinson: 'misrepresent' is subject to a range of interpretations. For now, Robin is making an effort which we should welcome.  CW Annebeth Lange, co-lead ccNSO: @Robin, which categories did you mean to extend? Robin Gross: I was recommending we narrow to words other than capital names. -- Alberto Soto: I think, the greater or lesser number of citizens of a place, should not give greater or lesser rights... Paul McGrady 2: I think we should explore it. Paul McGrady 2: Can staff try to incorporate some language that can be put to the list? Slide 7: Finding Areas of Agreement for the Initial Report (2/2) -- non-capital city names Discussion: -- Debated greatly.  Trying to move the needle either way is difficult when you consider all of the comments. -- Preliminary recommendations: status quo for this category? -- See: Working Document page 34 -- proposals with respect to non-capital city names.  Could put into the Initial Report for feedback. -- Proposal (Robin Gross): unless there was misrepresentation the domain would be allowed to go forward without the need for a support or non-objection letter.

From the chat:

Robin Gross: With respect to these non-capital city names, I would again accept the status quo with this tweek to use a misrepresentation standard. Annebeth Lange, co-lead ccNSO: Thanks, Robin Robin Gross: Olga, to prohibit uses that are misrepresentations of authority over or connection to a place. Annebeth Lange, co-lead ccNSO: @Robin, could you send an explanation of what you mean on the mailing list? I think non-English speakers have a little problem by understanding this Paul McGrady 2: "connection to a place" can be very broad.  For example, .Chicago used to promote the musical certainly has a connection to the place but is not a misrepresentation that the registry is the city of Chicago or its police department, etc. Annebeth Lange, co-lead ccNSO: I don´t really understand the misrepresentation issue in this connection. If you intend to represent a city, you need support/non-objection. If not, you don´'t need it. So where comes misrepresentation come in? I understand Robin the way that she wants to reduce the need for support/non-objection. Robin Gross: To clarify, a letter would only be needed if a applicant is trying to represent themselves as having authority over the place name.  If it turns out later they misrepresented, there would be post-penatlies, loss of tld, etc. 3. Next Steps and Revised Work Plan: Slide 9: Initial Report -- Next Steps Slide 10: Timeline

From the chat:

Emily Barabas: As a reminder, the Subsequent Procedures charter states "The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group (WG) is tasked with calling upon the            1http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htmcommunity’s collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to determine what, if any changes may need to be made to the existing Introduction of New Generic Top -Level Domains policy recommendations from 8 August 2007.” 4. AOB: None.