Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Work Track 5 call on Wednesday 22nd August 2018 at 20.00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Status of Draft Recommendations on 2-Letter ASCII Strings and Country and Territory Names 3. Non-AGB Terms 4. AOB We refer to the email sent out by Emily yesterday, Monday 20th August, with Draft Recommendations. If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> as far in advance as possible. Kind regards WT5 Co-leads Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton Annebeth Lange
Dear Annebeth and all I wonder how the co-leads intend to structure the discussion around “non-AGB terms”. If I may, I would suggest that we approach the issue step-by-step: 1. Consider if data from the 2012 AGB round indicates whether there were issues with strings with geographic significance 2. Consider what kind of issues were identified, eg lack of awareness, lack of communication, lack of understanding, competing interests… 3. Consider whether those issues merit being addressed 4. consider what means are at our disposal in the policy tool-box to address such issues 5. discuss on which policy tools may have enough traction I feel that I have already made my substantial points clear, but here they go again in a summarized fashion (following the sequence summarized above): 1. Yes, I feel there were important issues with non-AGB terms, which have resulted in conflicts between applicants and authorities; 2. Probably there was a bit of all kind of issues in differing degrees in the various cases we have heard of; 3. Yes, as the process and also the legitimacy of the TLD expansion would benefit from an agreed approach that takes all legitimate interests on board; 4. I have mentioned a few, but here they go again: - We need a framework governing terms not fitting in any new specific category but still having such a “geographic significance”. - Both applicants and interested parties with claims to such geographic significance terms would benefit from a more predictable framework of rules, and, therefore, the need for last-minute interventions would be minimized. - Elements of such a framework could be: · a diligent search requirement for applicants – which could be linked to a “Geonames Advisory Panel” and/or internationally available lists of geographic terms and/or a voluntary repository/database of such terms; · a contact obligation for applicants; · incentives to reach an amicable solution, such as a prima facie non-objection requirement. The non-objection letter could be subject to deadlines, and to an implied non-objection if the corresponding authority does not respond within the deadline; · a fair, quick, cheap and independent mediation and/or dispute resolution mechanism in case there are disagreements between applicant and relevant authority. I hope this may be helpful… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Annebeth Lange Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 08:40 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC Dear Work Track 5 members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Work Track 5 call on Wednesday 22nd August 2018 at 20.00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Status of Draft Recommendations on 2-Letter ASCII Strings and Country and Territory Names 3. Non-AGB Terms 4. AOB We refer to the email sent out by Emily yesterday, Monday 20th August, with Draft Recommendations. If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> as far in advance as possible. Kind regards WT5 Co-leads Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton Annebeth Lange
Jorge, Thanks for these suggestions. Gracias. PS: I apologize to all as I won’t be able to make this call. Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 21, 2018, at 8:47 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Annebeth and all
I wonder how the co-leads intend to structure the discussion around “non-AGB terms”.
If I may, I would suggest that we approach the issue step-by-step:
1. Consider if data from the 2012 AGB round indicates whether there were issues with strings with geographic significance 2. Consider what kind of issues were identified, eg lack of awareness, lack of communication, lack of understanding, competing interests… 3. Consider whether those issues merit being addressed 4. consider what means are at our disposal in the policy tool-box to address such issues 5. discuss on which policy tools may have enough traction
I feel that I have already made my substantial points clear, but here they go again in a summarized fashion (following the sequence summarized above):
1. Yes, I feel there were important issues with non-AGB terms, which have resulted in conflicts between applicants and authorities; 2. Probably there was a bit of all kind of issues in differing degrees in the various cases we have heard of; 3. Yes, as the process and also the legitimacy of the TLD expansion would benefit from an agreed approach that takes all legitimate interests on board; 4. I have mentioned a few, but here they go again: - We need a framework governing terms not fitting in any new specific category but still having such a “geographic significance”. - Both applicants and interested parties with claims to such geographic significance terms would benefit from a more predictable framework of rules, and, therefore, the need for last-minute interventions would be minimized. - Elements of such a framework could be: · a diligent search requirement for applicants – which could be linked to a “Geonames Advisory Panel” and/or internationally available lists of geographic terms and/or a voluntary repository/database of such terms; · a contact obligation for applicants; · incentives to reach an amicable solution, such as a prima facie non-objection requirement. The non-objection letter could be subject to deadlines, and to an implied non-objection if the corresponding authority does not respond within the deadline; · a fair, quick, cheap and independent mediation and/or dispute resolution mechanism in case there are disagreements between applicant and relevant authority.
I hope this may be helpful…
Best regards
Jorge
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Annebeth Lange Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 08:40 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Work Track 5 call on Wednesday 22nd August 2018 at 20.00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Status of Draft Recommendations on 2-Letter ASCII Strings and Country and Territory Names 3. Non-AGB Terms 4. AOB
We refer to the email sent out by Emily yesterday, Monday 20th August, with Draft Recommendations.
If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs@icann.org as far in advance as possible.
Kind regards
WT5 Co-leads Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton Annebeth Lange
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Thank you, Jorge. It would be useful if members did as you, used the list below and tried to answer them from their standing point. Olga will lead the non-AGB discussion tomorrow and the better prepared we all are, the better. Kind regards, Annebeth From: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Date: Tuesday, 21 August 2018 at 14:47 To: "Annebeth B. Lange" <annebeth.lange@norid.no>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC Dear Annebeth and all I wonder how the co-leads intend to structure the discussion around “non-AGB terms”. If I may, I would suggest that we approach the issue step-by-step: 1. Consider if data from the 2012 AGB round indicates whether there were issues with strings with geographic significance 2. Consider what kind of issues were identified, eg lack of awareness, lack of communication, lack of understanding, competing interests… 3. Consider whether those issues merit being addressed 4. consider what means are at our disposal in the policy tool-box to address such issues 5. discuss on which policy tools may have enough traction I feel that I have already made my substantial points clear, but here they go again in a summarized fashion (following the sequence summarized above): 1. Yes, I feel there were important issues with non-AGB terms, which have resulted in conflicts between applicants and authorities; 2. Probably there was a bit of all kind of issues in differing degrees in the various cases we have heard of; 3. Yes, as the process and also the legitimacy of the TLD expansion would benefit from an agreed approach that takes all legitimate interests on board; 4. I have mentioned a few, but here they go again: - We need a framework governing terms not fitting in any new specific category but still having such a “geographic significance”. - Both applicants and interested parties with claims to such geographic significance terms would benefit from a more predictable framework of rules, and, therefore, the need for last-minute interventions would be minimized. - Elements of such a framework could be: * a diligent search requirement for applicants – which could be linked to a “Geonames Advisory Panel” and/or internationally available lists of geographic terms and/or a voluntary repository/database of such terms; * a contact obligation for applicants; * incentives to reach an amicable solution, such as a prima facie non-objection requirement. The non-objection letter could be subject to deadlines, and to an implied non-objection if the corresponding authority does not respond within the deadline; * a fair, quick, cheap and independent mediation and/or dispute resolution mechanism in case there are disagreements between applicant and relevant authority. I hope this may be helpful… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Annebeth Lange Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 08:40 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC Dear Work Track 5 members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Work Track 5 call on Wednesday 22nd August 2018 at 20.00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Status of Draft Recommendations on 2-Letter ASCII Strings and Country and Territory Names 3. Non-AGB Terms 4. AOB We refer to the email sent out by Emily yesterday, Monday 20th August, with Draft Recommendations. If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> as far in advance as possible. Kind regards WT5 Co-leads Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton Annebeth Lange
Dear All, May someone send me the adobe Tks KAVOUSS On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:16 PM Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> wrote:
Thank you, Jorge.
It would be useful if members did as you, used the list below and tried to answer them from their standing point.
Olga will lead the non-AGB discussion tomorrow and the better prepared we all are, the better.
Kind regards,
Annebeth
*From: *"Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Date: *Tuesday, 21 August 2018 at 14:47 *To: *"Annebeth B. Lange" <annebeth.lange@norid.no>, " gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC
Dear Annebeth and all
I wonder how the co-leads intend to structure the discussion around “non-AGB terms”.
If I may, I would suggest that we approach the issue step-by-step:
1. Consider if data from the 2012 AGB round indicates whether there were issues with strings with geographic significance 2. Consider what kind of issues were identified, eg lack of awareness, lack of communication, lack of understanding, competing interests… 3. Consider whether those issues merit being addressed 4. consider what means are at our disposal in the policy tool-box to address such issues 5. discuss on which policy tools may have enough traction
I feel that I have already made my substantial points clear, but here they go again in a summarized fashion (following the sequence summarized above):
1. Yes, I feel there were important issues with non-AGB terms, which have resulted in conflicts between applicants and authorities; 2. Probably there was a bit of all kind of issues in differing degrees in the various cases we have heard of; 3. Yes, as the process and also the legitimacy of the TLD expansion would benefit from an agreed approach that takes all legitimate interests on board; 4. I have mentioned a few, but here they go again:
- We need a framework governing terms not fitting in any new specific category but still having such a “geographic significance”.
- Both applicants and interested parties with claims to such geographic significance terms would benefit from a more predictable framework of rules, and, therefore, the need for last-minute interventions would be minimized.
- Elements of such a framework could be:
- a diligent search requirement for applicants – which could be linked to a “Geonames Advisory Panel” and/or internationally available lists of geographic terms and/or a voluntary repository/database of such terms; - a contact obligation for applicants; - incentives to reach an amicable solution, such as a prima facie non-objection requirement. The non-objection letter could be subject to deadlines, and to an implied non-objection if the corresponding authority does not respond within the deadline; - a fair, quick, cheap and independent mediation and/or dispute resolution mechanism in case there are disagreements between applicant and relevant authority.
I hope this may be helpful…
Best regards
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *Im Auftrag von *Annebeth Lange *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 21. August 2018 08:40 *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org *Betreff:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Work Track 5 call on Wednesday 22nd August 2018 at 20.00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
2. Status of Draft Recommendations on 2-Letter ASCII Strings and Country and Territory Names
3. Non-AGB Terms
4. AOB
We refer to the email sent out by Emily yesterday, Monday 20th August, with Draft Recommendations.
If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs@icann.org as far in advance as possible.
Kind regards
WT5 Co-leads
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
Annebeth Lange
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Jorge, I think that both cities and non-AGB strings are the top issues at hand. Seemingly the Alpha-3 codes and country names are being banned already – that would have been the 3rd silo. Everything else seems to be quite self-evident and agreed on. This probably means that non-AGB terms and city-names are the last two big silos we need to find agreement on. And I forecast that the vast majority of geo-applications will target CITIES. But nonetheless: non-AGB strings are in dire need to be discussed! In the past seemingly the discussion on different silos overlapped – and merged. So we should make sure to keep non-AGB string issues (and its discussion) separated from the city-name string discussion. That’s why we have silos in the first place. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:48 To: annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC Dear Annebeth and all I wonder how the co-leads intend to structure the discussion around “non-AGB terms”. If I may, I would suggest that we approach the issue step-by-step: 1. Consider if data from the 2012 AGB round indicates whether there were issues with strings with geographic significance 2. Consider what kind of issues were identified, eg lack of awareness, lack of communication, lack of understanding, competing interests… 3. Consider whether those issues merit being addressed 4. consider what means are at our disposal in the policy tool-box to address such issues 5. discuss on which policy tools may have enough traction I feel that I have already made my substantial points clear, but here they go again in a summarized fashion (following the sequence summarized above): 1. Yes, I feel there were important issues with non-AGB terms, which have resulted in conflicts between applicants and authorities; 2. Probably there was a bit of all kind of issues in differing degrees in the various cases we have heard of; 3. Yes, as the process and also the legitimacy of the TLD expansion would benefit from an agreed approach that takes all legitimate interests on board; 4. I have mentioned a few, but here they go again: - We need a framework governing terms not fitting in any new specific category but still having such a “geographic significance”. - Both applicants and interested parties with claims to such geographic significance terms would benefit from a more predictable framework of rules, and, therefore, the need for last-minute interventions would be minimized. - Elements of such a framework could be: * a diligent search requirement for applicants – which could be linked to a “Geonames Advisory Panel” and/or internationally available lists of geographic terms and/or a voluntary repository/database of such terms; * a contact obligation for applicants; * incentives to reach an amicable solution, such as a prima facie non-objection requirement. The non-objection letter could be subject to deadlines, and to an implied non-objection if the corresponding authority does not respond within the deadline; * a fair, quick, cheap and independent mediation and/or dispute resolution mechanism in case there are disagreements between applicant and relevant authority. I hope this may be helpful… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > Im Auftrag von Annebeth Lange Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 08:40 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC Dear Work Track 5 members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Work Track 5 call on Wednesday 22nd August 2018 at 20.00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Status of Draft Recommendations on 2-Letter ASCII Strings and Country and Territory Names 3. Non-AGB Terms 4. AOB We refer to the email sent out by Emily yesterday, Monday 20th August, with Draft Recommendations. If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> as far in advance as possible. Kind regards WT5 Co-leads Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton Annebeth Lange
While I hate the game of participants identifying areas of agreement (rather than the co-chairs doing it), I’ll play anyway. We probably have some level of rough consensus on continuing the current treatment of (long and short-form) country names, 2-letter codes and two character letter-letter strings, and continuing to allow three-letter TLDs. I don’t see consensus beyond that. Not on the treatment of ISO 3166-1 3 letter codes (reserved indefinitely? available? if so, to whom? Govs only? Anyone with gov support? What about non-geo uses, like .QAT?) (I hope this WT does not drive me to chewing qat....). As Alexander notes, we don’t have it on non-capital cities. And we glossed over capital cities, so I’m not sure we can even say we have considered consensus on that point. I look forward to our Co-Chairs' evaluation of levels of agreement in the group. Greg On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:09 AM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Jorge,
I think that both cities and non-AGB strings are the top issues at hand. Seemingly the Alpha-3 codes and country names are being banned already – that would have been the 3rd silo. Everything else seems to be quite self-evident and agreed on.
This probably means that non-AGB terms and city-names are the last two big silos we need to find agreement on. And I forecast that the vast majority of geo-applications will target CITIES. But nonetheless: non-AGB strings are in dire need to be discussed!
In the past seemingly the discussion on different silos overlapped – and merged. So we should make sure to keep non-AGB string issues (and its discussion) separated from the city-name string discussion. That’s why we have silos in the first place.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Sent:* Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:48 *To:* annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC
Dear Annebeth and all
I wonder how the co-leads intend to structure the discussion around “non-AGB terms”.
If I may, I would suggest that we approach the issue step-by-step:
1. Consider if data from the 2012 AGB round indicates whether there were issues with strings with geographic significance
2. Consider what kind of issues were identified, eg lack of awareness, lack of communication, lack of understanding, competing interests…
3. Consider whether those issues merit being addressed
4. consider what means are at our disposal in the policy tool-box to address such issues
5. discuss on which policy tools may have enough traction
I feel that I have already made my substantial points clear, but here they go again in a summarized fashion (following the sequence summarized above):
1. Yes, I feel there were important issues with non-AGB terms, which have resulted in conflicts between applicants and authorities;
2. Probably there was a bit of all kind of issues in differing degrees in the various cases we have heard of;
3. Yes, as the process and also the legitimacy of the TLD expansion would benefit from an agreed approach that takes all legitimate interests on board;
4. I have mentioned a few, but here they go again:
- We need a framework governing terms not fitting in any new specific category but still having such a “geographic significance”.
- Both applicants and interested parties with claims to such geographic significance terms would benefit from a more predictable framework of rules, and, therefore, the need for last-minute interventions would be minimized.
- Elements of such a framework could be:
· a diligent search requirement for applicants – which could be linked to a “Geonames Advisory Panel” and/or internationally available lists of geographic terms and/or a voluntary repository/database of such terms;
· a contact obligation for applicants;
· incentives to reach an amicable solution, such as a prima facie non-objection requirement. The non-objection letter could be subject to deadlines, and to an implied non-objection if the corresponding authority does not respond within the deadline;
· a fair, quick, cheap and independent mediation and/or dispute resolution mechanism in case there are disagreements between applicant and relevant authority.
I hope this may be helpful…
Best regards
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *Im Auftrag von *Annebeth Lange *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 21. August 2018 08:40 *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org *Betreff:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Work Track 5 call on Wednesday 22nd August 2018 at 20.00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
2. Status of Draft Recommendations on 2-Letter ASCII Strings and Country and Territory Names
3. Non-AGB Terms
4. AOB
We refer to the email sent out by Emily yesterday, Monday 20th August, with Draft Recommendations.
If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs@icann.org as far in advance as possible.
Kind regards
WT5 Co-leads
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
Annebeth Lange
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
GREG! I violently have to ……. ….. agree with you. You are right: 3-letter codes and country names are still being discussed. What I wanted to highlight (and I admit I phrased it in a shrewd way) is: When we discuss 3-letter codes and country names we usually stay within that respective silo. But whenever we started to discuss city names we often slid into the silo of non-AGB strings as well. If we now start to discuss city names AND non-AGB strings IN PARALLEL (what wrong with this keyboard, it gets stuck in all caps for entire words…) then we might mix both. But there is a reason that we discuss everything separately – that capital cities are even separated from all other cities etc. All these are different animals and need different treatment. And just for the record: Like you I am NOT in agreement that 3-letter codes or country names are exempted from the next round. These are ISO-3166 strings and codes just like the “ISO 3166-2 country subdivisions”; and they should be protected just in the same way (Governmental support, even if non-geo use is intended). ICANN could inform applicants and Governments that a separate policy might be set up in the future, that until such policy exists ICANN strongly advises to NOT support such application, that the supporting Government authority is required to consult with the ICANN geo name evaluation team, the respective GAC member and ccTLD manager. If the Government STILL want to support such application within the gNSO policy framework: let them do! ICANN recommends not to do so – the Government authority can use that recommendation to deny support (while “keeping face”). Leave flexibility to Governments – while allowing GAC members and ccTLD managers to be heard. A Government will ONLY override ICANN’s recommendations if there is no push-back from the GAC member & the ccTLD manager, and if the application is poised to create benefit for the country. Thanks, Alexander From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 22. August 2018 07:39 To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC While I hate the game of participants identifying areas of agreement (rather than the co-chairs doing it), I’ll play anyway. We probably have some level of rough consensus on continuing the current treatment of (long and short-form) country names, 2-letter codes and two character letter-letter strings, and continuing to allow three-letter TLDs. I don’t see consensus beyond that. Not on the treatment of ISO 3166-1 3 letter codes (reserved indefinitely? available? if so, to whom? Govs only? Anyone with gov support? What about non-geo uses, like .QAT?) (I hope this WT does not drive me to chewing qat....). As Alexander notes, we don’t have it on non-capital cities. And we glossed over capital cities, so I’m not sure we can even say we have considered consensus on that point. I look forward to our Co-Chairs' evaluation of levels of agreement in the group. Greg On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:09 AM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Jorge, I think that both cities and non-AGB strings are the top issues at hand. Seemingly the Alpha-3 codes and country names are being banned already – that would have been the 3rd silo. Everything else seems to be quite self-evident and agreed on. This probably means that non-AGB terms and city-names are the last two big silos we need to find agreement on. And I forecast that the vast majority of geo-applications will target CITIES. But nonetheless: non-AGB strings are in dire need to be discussed! In the past seemingly the discussion on different silos overlapped – and merged. So we should make sure to keep non-AGB string issues (and its discussion) separated from the city-name string discussion. That’s why we have silos in the first place. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:48 To: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> ; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC Dear Annebeth and all I wonder how the co-leads intend to structure the discussion around “non-AGB terms”. If I may, I would suggest that we approach the issue step-by-step: 1. Consider if data from the 2012 AGB round indicates whether there were issues with strings with geographic significance 2. Consider what kind of issues were identified, eg lack of awareness, lack of communication, lack of understanding, competing interests… 3. Consider whether those issues merit being addressed 4. consider what means are at our disposal in the policy tool-box to address such issues 5. discuss on which policy tools may have enough traction I feel that I have already made my substantial points clear, but here they go again in a summarized fashion (following the sequence summarized above): 1. Yes, I feel there were important issues with non-AGB terms, which have resulted in conflicts between applicants and authorities; 2. Probably there was a bit of all kind of issues in differing degrees in the various cases we have heard of; 3. Yes, as the process and also the legitimacy of the TLD expansion would benefit from an agreed approach that takes all legitimate interests on board; 4. I have mentioned a few, but here they go again: - We need a framework governing terms not fitting in any new specific category but still having such a “geographic significance”. - Both applicants and interested parties with claims to such geographic significance terms would benefit from a more predictable framework of rules, and, therefore, the need for last-minute interventions would be minimized. - Elements of such a framework could be: * a diligent search requirement for applicants – which could be linked to a “Geonames Advisory Panel” and/or internationally available lists of geographic terms and/or a voluntary repository/database of such terms; * a contact obligation for applicants; * incentives to reach an amicable solution, such as a prima facie non-objection requirement. The non-objection letter could be subject to deadlines, and to an implied non-objection if the corresponding authority does not respond within the deadline; * a fair, quick, cheap and independent mediation and/or dispute resolution mechanism in case there are disagreements between applicant and relevant authority. I hope this may be helpful… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > Im Auftrag von Annebeth Lange Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 08:40 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC Dear Work Track 5 members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Work Track 5 call on Wednesday 22nd August 2018 at 20.00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Status of Draft Recommendations on 2-Letter ASCII Strings and Country and Territory Names 3. Non-AGB Terms 4. AOB We refer to the email sent out by Emily yesterday, Monday 20th August, with Draft Recommendations. If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> as far in advance as possible. Kind regards WT5 Co-leads Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton Annebeth Lange _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Greg, I pretty much agree with your straw poll and look forward to the official tally. What I still miss is if we are within the strict limits of the SubPro PDP, in terms of revising the 2012 AGB only, based on the spirit of promoting competition, consumer choice and consumer trust (the basis for the expansion as per 2009 AOB) or if we have gone far beyond the GNSO picket fence. But I guess it will be up to the council to evaluate that issue later. With that, I mean the non-AGB use of GeoNames. it would be a pity if we don't make any progress there. let's wait and see... --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-21 22:38, Greg Shatan escribió:
While I hate the game of participants identifying areas of agreement (rather than the co-chairs doing it), I'll play anyway. We probably have some level of rough consensus on continuing the current treatment of (long and short-form) country names, 2-letter codes and two character letter-letter strings, and continuing to allow three-letter TLDs. I don't see consensus beyond that. Not on the treatment of ISO 3166-1 3 letter codes (reserved indefinitely? available? if so, to whom? Govs only? Anyone with gov support? What about non-geo uses, like .QAT?) (I hope this WT does not drive me to chewing qat....). As Alexander notes, we don't have it on non-capital cities. And we glossed over capital cities, so I'm not sure we can even say we have considered consensus on that point.
I look forward to our Co-Chairs' evaluation of levels of agreement in the group.
Greg
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:09 AM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Jorge,
I think that both cities and non-AGB strings are the top issues at hand. Seemingly the Alpha-3 codes and country names are being banned already - that would have been the 3rd silo. Everything else seems to be quite self-evident and agreed on.
This probably means that non-AGB terms and city-names are the last two big silos we need to find agreement on. And I forecast that the vast majority of geo-applications will target CITIES. But nonetheless: non-AGB strings are in dire need to be discussed!
In the past seemingly the discussion on different silos overlapped - and merged. So we should make sure to keep non-AGB string issues (and its discussion) separated from the city-name string discussion. That's why we have silos in the first place.
Thanks,
Alexander
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch SENT: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:48 TO: annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org CC: gnso-secs@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC
Dear Annebeth and all
I wonder how the co-leads intend to structure the discussion around "non-AGB terms".
If I may, I would suggest that we approach the issue step-by-step:
1. Consider if data from the 2012 AGB round indicates whether there were issues with strings with geographic significance
2. Consider what kind of issues were identified, eg lack of awareness, lack of communication, lack of understanding, competing interests...
3. Consider whether those issues merit being addressed
4. consider what means are at our disposal in the policy tool-box to address such issues
5. discuss on which policy tools may have enough traction
I feel that I have already made my substantial points clear, but here they go again in a summarized fashion (following the sequence summarized above):
1. Yes, I feel there were important issues with non-AGB terms, which have resulted in conflicts between applicants and authorities;
2. Probably there was a bit of all kind of issues in differing degrees in the various cases we have heard of;
3. Yes, as the process and also the legitimacy of the TLD expansion would benefit from an agreed approach that takes all legitimate interests on board;
4. I have mentioned a few, but here they go again:
- We need a framework governing terms not fitting in any new specific category but still having such a "geographic significance".
- Both applicants and interested parties with claims to such geographic significance terms would benefit from a more predictable framework of rules, and, therefore, the need for last-minute interventions would be minimized.
- Elements of such a framework could be:
· a diligent search requirement for applicants - which could be linked to a "Geonames Advisory Panel" and/or internationally available lists of geographic terms and/or a voluntary repository/database of such terms;
· a contact obligation for applicants;
· incentives to reach an amicable solution, such as a prima facie non-objection requirement. The non-objection letter could be subject to deadlines, and to an implied non-objection if the corresponding authority does not respond within the deadline;
· a fair, quick, cheap and independent mediation and/or dispute resolution mechanism in case there are disagreements between applicant and relevant authority.
I hope this may be helpful...
Best regards
Jorge
VON: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> IM AUFTRAG VON Annebeth Lange GESENDET: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 08:40 AN: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org CC: gnso-secs@icann.org BETREFF: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Work Track 5 call on Wednesday 22nd August 2018 at 20.00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
2. Status of Draft Recommendations on 2-Letter ASCII Strings and Country and Territory Names
3. Non-AGB Terms
4. AOB
We refer to the email sent out by Emily yesterday, Monday 20th August, with Draft Recommendations.
If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs@icann.org as far in advance as possible.
Kind regards
WT5 Co-leads
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
Annebeth Lange
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (7)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Annebeth Lange -
Carlos Raul Gutierrez -
Greg Shatan -
Javier Rua -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh