Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (30 May). 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 slides posted on the wiki above. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Action Items: WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document) when it is sent to the list. Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No SOI updates 2. Process Map Improvements Slides 4, 5, & 6: -- The Work Track has reviewed the process from the 2012 round and validated the chart documenting this process. -- We considered five elements of the process: 1) Submitting Application; 2) Geographic Names Review; 3) Objections Mechanisms; 4) String Contention; 5) Contractual Requirements -- No objections to the process map for the 2012 AGB treatment of geographic names Slide 7: Suggestions for Future Process Improvements -- Do you have ideas for process improvements in one or more of these areas? -- The discussion will focus on one area at a time: 1. Submitting Application 2. Geographic Names Review 3. Objections Mechanisms 4. String Contention 5. Contractual Requirements Slide 5, Stage 5 – Contractual Requirements -- post-delegation controls – are these adequate to protect the needs of applicants. What if an applicant applies for a name that is the same as a geographic term, but says it won’t use it in a geographic sense, but then changes after delegation to a geographic use. -- Gaps or improvements in the post delegation phase Discussion: -- There are very strong opinions about the non-geo use clause in the 2012 AGB. Hardly any support for maintaining that clause. Risk of creating a loophole. -- Disagree. This is very much a live issue. -- Determine in this WT what is or isn’t enforceable re: PICs and statements in applications.

From the chat: Katrin Ohlmer: PICs will not be enforceable by Governments as they do not have the bandwidth to monitor them regularly

-- Re: conditions attached to the use of a top-level name and any intended use: important that we don’t only hear from those people who are being vocal, but consider all opinions on intended use. From the email discussion we see that the notion of intended use is considered problematic from participants coming from all SOs and ACs, perhaps 20 people. -- If the public authority is not consulted ahead of time it will have to intervene during delegation. -- What we are seeing here and part of the difficulties -- 5 different vectors where protection can be put in place. People have different opinions on how the range of each vector can be implemented. Good to look at each vector and lay out the full range of mechanism available -- both hypothetical and actual. With few exceptions I don't think everyone is imagining that the protection is all in the application phase. -- Could use the above suggestions and replay different types of situations and where there could be improvements. -- This could be a value-neutral process of laying out all the options as a useful step forward to keep things constructive. -- Recent work re: two-character labels at the second level: a new mechanism for post-delegation to enable monitoring and enforcement of any kind of confusion, which also is how trademark law works. There are many mechanisms beyond ICANN in domestic trademark law to prevent confusion. -- Confusion is not key when considering Top Level Domains which are unique - the question is about the scarceness, the uniqueness of the resource, which requires that all interested parties, included the relevant public authorities are at a table at the very start of the process. -- There could be improvements in a monitoring and enforcement mechanism. -- Re: string contention -- the area of digit-letter two-character strings -- there are already mechanisms to reduce confusion. Is there anything that we should consider to improve? -- Make sure there are fair processes that are reasonably well publicized. -- We should be responding when there are complaints and that it quite reasonable. -- If we have reserved names that are geographic names at the top level that should be dealt with in this Work Track. -- Re: Objection mechanisms -- quite a lot of discussion on letters of non-objection, but this is focused on the GAC early warning and advice. 3. Next Steps on Working Document (slide 9) -- Over the last few weeks there have been a lot of comments on the list. -- Working with staff to build out a collaborative working document (in Google Docs) -- or an essential data capture tool -- in the format of the Initial Report. -- Populated it with background, previous treatment, and opinions that have been expressed. -- Will send the document after this call and allow WT member to add comments to the document as to whether it represents discussions in the email list and the meetings. To see if there are any gaps. 4. ICANN62 Preparation (slide 10) -- Two Cross-Community Sessions will be held at ICANN62 on geo names. Expected session times: Monday 25 June from 15:15-16:45Thursday 28 June from 15:15-16:45 -- Work Track leaders are working on a proposed structure and focus for these sessions. -- Other SOs and ACs are discussing these topics and those sessions also will be open. 5. AOB: Timing of Meetings -- Sessions have been weekly for 60 minutes. -- Work Track leaders will review this schedule, but we'll continue 60-minute weekly meeting up to ICANN62.