Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 28 November 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting today, 28 November 2018 at 2000 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WT5 members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-11-28+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: General: Staff to send a comparison version with redlines to show the changes made from today's meeting. Slide 5, Recommendations - page 12: Remove "as applicable" at the end of the sentence. Insert a reference to the relevant recommendation (11). Slide 6, Recommendations - page 16: Change to: “Strings resulting from permutations and transpositions of alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard should be allowed.” Slide 7, Deliberations - Page 33: Add a footnote: “Some believe that the question of jurisdiction and the applicability of national law is more complicated than stated in this bullet point. From this perspective, it is not given that it will always be the national law of the applicant that will be applicable in a possible legal dispute concerning a part of an application for a next-round gTLD-string.” Slide 8, Deliberations - Page 34: Swap "exclusive us" for "monopolization" Slide 9, Deliberations - Page 34, Cont.: Edit text to: “Rights granted to geographic locations to protect geographic names are civil rights, which are qualitatively different than intellectual property rights.” "Civil rights are more general in scope than intellectual property rights and therefore more significant.” Slides 10, 11, 12: Deliberations - Page 35-36: Delete all of the text after the first two sentences and before the last two sentences. Also, delete the footnotes. Slides 13, 14: Deliberations - Page 50-51: Add the bullets on slide 14 to the relevant sections (please see document for details). Each is prefaced with “some believe that”. Slide 15, Deliberations - Page 79: Amend the second section to the text suggested by Justine: “A lack of letter of support/non-objection alone will not be a cause to suspend hinder or suspend an application for such unprotected term.” Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates. Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates 2. Initial Report – Outstanding Items -- Major changes to the Supplemental Initial Report should be done. -- We need to finalize the document and send it out for public comment. Slide 5, Recommendations - Page 12: -- Who decides if it is applicable or not applicable? We should avoid these subjective terms. -- Support the change to remove "as applicable". Insert a reference to the recommendations. -- Rather than trying to recreate the language relating to non-capital city names, we can actually reference the recommendations. Slide 6, Recommendations - Page 16: Change to: “Strings resulting from permutations and transpositions of alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard should be allowed.” Slide 7, Deliberations - Page 33: -- Bullet point is predicated with "Some believe that" so it is not necessary to add a footnote. -- Suggest adding "Others believe that..." followed by the text from Ann-Catherin Marcussen (bullet point 2). -- Suggest that the question of jurisdiction is distinct so we don't need "some believe". -- Staff suggest putting new text in as footnotes in deliberations. -- Footnotes may add confusion. Could be made a public comments. -- Could modify the footnote Slide 8, Deliberations - Page 34: -- Not clear what are the other possible legal meanings of the word "monopolization". Suggest not changing the text. -- But we aren't talking about competition law, where the term "monopolization" is used. -- The idea is that we are trying to elicit responses -- this is prefaced with "some believe that". Don't think we need footnotes/comments. Slide 9, Deliberations - Page 34, Cont.: ACTION: Staff suggested edit attempting to incorporate feedback from both comments above while retaining original meaning: “Rights granted to geographic locations to protect geographic names are civil rights, which are qualitatively different than intellectual property rights.” "Civil rights are more general in scope than intellectual property rights and therefore more significant.” Slides 10, 11, 12: Deliberations - Page 35-36: -- This section gets into the weeds of trademark law: one solution is to cut everything after the first two sentences and before the last two sentences. Slides 13, 14: Deliberations - Page 50-51: Add the following bullets [slide 14] to the relevant sections (please see document for details). Each is prefaced with “some believe that” Slide 15: Deliberations - Page 79: -- Not sure who is the author of Proposal 32 to provide context. -- Amend the second section to the text suggested by Justine: “A lack of letter of support/non-objection alone will not be a cause to suspend hinder or suspend an application for such unprotected term.” Next Steps: -- Staff will provided a redlined document with the edits from this call, to make sure Work Track members agree. -- Publish the Supplemental Issue Report the first week in December. 3. AOB: Request from Jorge Cancio to inquire with the Geonames Panel whether the used a definition of geographic names for their review. Staff researched with GDD colleagues and determined that there is no definition. Staff can ask the panel to confirm the finding, but we intend to publish the Supplemental Initial Report so we will park this request for now until after the Initial Report is published.
Hi Julie, all Please note 2 corrections to notes on Slides 8 and 15 below marked in yellow-highlighted red text Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 05:57, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting today, 28 November 2018 at 2000 UTC. *These high-level notes are designed to help WT5 members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-11-28+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-11-28+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>. *
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*Notes and Action Items:*
*Action Items:*
*General*: Staff to send a comparison version with redlines to show the changes made from today's meeting.
*Slide 5, Recommendations - page 12*: Remove "as applicable" at the end of the sentence. Insert a reference to the relevant recommendation (11).
*Slide 6, Recommendations - page 16*: Change to: “Strings resulting from permutations and transpositions of alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard should be allowed.”
*Slide 7, Deliberations - Page 33*: Add a footnote: “Some believe that the question of jurisdiction and the applicability of national law is more complicated than stated in this bullet point. From this perspective, it is not given that it will always be the national law of the applicant that will be applicable in a possible legal dispute concerning a part of an application for a next-round gTLD-string.”
*Slide 8, Deliberations - Page 34*: Swap "exclusive use" for "monopolization"
*Slide 9, Deliberations - Page 34, Cont.:* Edit text to: “Rights granted to geographic locations to protect geographic names are civil rights, which are qualitatively different than intellectual property rights.”
"Civil rights are more general in scope than intellectual property rights and therefore more significant.”
*Slides 10, 11, 12: Deliberations - Page 35-36*: Delete all of the text after the first two sentences and before the last two sentences. Also, delete the footnotes.
*Slides 13, 14: Deliberations - Page 50-51*: Add the bullets on slide 14 to the relevant sections (please see document for details). Each is prefaced with “some believe that”.
*Slide 15, Deliberations - Page 79*: Amend the second section to the text suggested by Justine: “A lack of letter of support/non-objection alone will not be a cause to suspend(to delete) hinder or suspend an application for such unprotected term.”
*Notes:*
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates.
Notes:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates
2. Initial Report – Outstanding Items
-- Major changes to the Supplemental Initial Report should be done.
-- We need to finalize the document and send it out for public comment.
*Slide 5, Recommendations - Page 12*:
-- Who decides if it is applicable or not applicable? We should avoid these subjective terms.
-- Support the change to remove "as applicable". Insert a reference to the recommendations.
-- Rather than trying to recreate the language relating to non-capital city names, we can actually reference the recommendations.
*Slide 6, Recommendations - Page 16*:
Change to: “Strings resulting from permutations and transpositions of alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard should be allowed.”
*Slide 7, Deliberations - Page 33*:
-- Bullet point is predicated with "Some believe that" so it is not necessary to add a footnote.
-- Suggest adding "Others believe that..." followed by the text from Ann-Catherin Marcussen (bullet point 2).
-- Suggest that the question of jurisdiction is distinct so we don't need "some believe".
-- Staff suggest putting new text in as footnotes in deliberations.
-- Footnotes may add confusion. Could be made a public comments.
-- Could modify the footnote
*Slide 8, Deliberations - Page 34*:
-- Not clear what are the other possible legal meanings of the word "monopolization". Suggest not changing the text.
-- But we aren't talking about competition law, where the term "monopolization" is used.
-- The idea is that we are trying to elicit responses -- this is prefaced with "some believe that". Don't think we need footnotes/comments.
*Slide 9, Deliberations - Page 34, Cont.:*
ACTION: Staff suggested edit attempting to incorporate feedback from both comments above while retaining original meaning:
“Rights granted to geographic locations to protect geographic names are civil rights, which are qualitatively different than intellectual property rights.”
"Civil rights are more general in scope than intellectual property rights and therefore more significant.”
*Slides 10, 11, 12: Deliberations - Page 35-36*:
-- This section gets into the weeds of trademark law: one solution is to cut everything after the first two sentences and before the last two sentences.
*Slides 13, 14: Deliberations - Page 50-51:*
Add the following bullets [slide 14] to the relevant sections (please see document for details). Each is prefaced with “some believe that”
*Slide 15: Deliberations - Page 79*:
-- Not sure who is the author of Proposal 32 to provide context.
-- Amend the second section to the text suggested by Justine: “A lack of letter of support/non-objection alone will not be a cause to suspend hinder or suspend an application for such unprotected term.”
Next Steps:
-- Staff will provided a redlined document with the edits from this call, to make sure Work Track members agree.
-- Publish the Supplemental Issue Report the first week in December.
3. AOB: Request from Jorge Cancio to inquire with the Geonames Panel whether the used a definition of geographic names for their review. Staff researched with GDD colleagues and determined that there is no definition. Staff can ask the panel to confirm the finding, but we intend to publish the Supplemental Initial Report so we will park this request for now until after the Initial Report is published. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi Justine, Thank you very much for your helpful corrections. Best, Julie From: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 1:05 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 28 November 2018 Hi Julie, all Please note 2 corrections to notes on Slides 8 and 15 below marked in yellow-highlighted red text Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 05:57, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting today, 28 November 2018 at 2000 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WT5 members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-11-28+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: General: Staff to send a comparison version with redlines to show the changes made from today's meeting. Slide 5, Recommendations - page 12: Remove "as applicable" at the end of the sentence. Insert a reference to the relevant recommendation (11). Slide 6, Recommendations - page 16: Change to: “Strings resulting from permutations and transpositions of alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard should be allowed.” Slide 7, Deliberations - Page 33: Add a footnote: “Some believe that the question of jurisdiction and the applicability of national law is more complicated than stated in this bullet point. From this perspective, it is not given that it will always be the national law of the applicant that will be applicable in a possible legal dispute concerning a part of an application for a next-round gTLD-string.” Slide 8, Deliberations - Page 34: Swap "exclusive use" for "monopolization" Slide 9, Deliberations - Page 34, Cont.: Edit text to: “Rights granted to geographic locations to protect geographic names are civil rights, which are qualitatively different than intellectual property rights.” "Civil rights are more general in scope than intellectual property rights and therefore more significant.” Slides 10, 11, 12: Deliberations - Page 35-36: Delete all of the text after the first two sentences and before the last two sentences. Also, delete the footnotes. Slides 13, 14: Deliberations - Page 50-51: Add the bullets on slide 14 to the relevant sections (please see document for details). Each is prefaced with “some believe that”. Slide 15, Deliberations - Page 79: Amend the second section to the text suggested by Justine: “A lack of letter of support/non-objection alone will not be a cause to suspend(to delete) hinder or suspend an application for such unprotected term.” Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates. Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates 2. Initial Report – Outstanding Items -- Major changes to the Supplemental Initial Report should be done. -- We need to finalize the document and send it out for public comment. Slide 5, Recommendations - Page 12: -- Who decides if it is applicable or not applicable? We should avoid these subjective terms. -- Support the change to remove "as applicable". Insert a reference to the recommendations. -- Rather than trying to recreate the language relating to non-capital city names, we can actually reference the recommendations. Slide 6, Recommendations - Page 16: Change to: “Strings resulting from permutations and transpositions of alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard should be allowed.” Slide 7, Deliberations - Page 33: -- Bullet point is predicated with "Some believe that" so it is not necessary to add a footnote. -- Suggest adding "Others believe that..." followed by the text from Ann-Catherin Marcussen (bullet point 2). -- Suggest that the question of jurisdiction is distinct so we don't need "some believe". -- Staff suggest putting new text in as footnotes in deliberations. -- Footnotes may add confusion. Could be made a public comments. -- Could modify the footnote Slide 8, Deliberations - Page 34: -- Not clear what are the other possible legal meanings of the word "monopolization". Suggest not changing the text. -- But we aren't talking about competition law, where the term "monopolization" is used. -- The idea is that we are trying to elicit responses -- this is prefaced with "some believe that". Don't think we need footnotes/comments. Slide 9, Deliberations - Page 34, Cont.: ACTION: Staff suggested edit attempting to incorporate feedback from both comments above while retaining original meaning: “Rights granted to geographic locations to protect geographic names are civil rights, which are qualitatively different than intellectual property rights.” "Civil rights are more general in scope than intellectual property rights and therefore more significant.” Slides 10, 11, 12: Deliberations - Page 35-36: -- This section gets into the weeds of trademark law: one solution is to cut everything after the first two sentences and before the last two sentences. Slides 13, 14: Deliberations - Page 50-51: Add the following bullets [slide 14] to the relevant sections (please see document for details). Each is prefaced with “some believe that” Slide 15: Deliberations - Page 79: -- Not sure who is the author of Proposal 32 to provide context. -- Amend the second section to the text suggested by Justine: “A lack of letter of support/non-objection alone will not be a cause to suspend hinder or suspend an application for such unprotected term.” Next Steps: -- Staff will provided a redlined document with the edits from this call, to make sure Work Track members agree. -- Publish the Supplemental Issue Report the first week in December. 3. AOB: Request from Jorge Cancio to inquire with the Geonames Panel whether the used a definition of geographic names for their review. Staff researched with GDD colleagues and determined that there is no definition. Staff can ask the panel to confirm the finding, but we intend to publish the Supplemental Initial Report so we will park this request for now until after the Initial Report is published. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
participants (2)
-
Julie Hedlund -
Justine Chew