Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (18 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: 1. Include the input from the notes and chat in the spreadsheet and review for the next meeting. 2. Meeting schedule: Staff will send a Doodle on the options: -- Current schedule: Alternate Wednesdays for 90 minutes -- Current time slot rotation: 5:00 UTC, 14:00 UTC, 20:00 UTC -- The Work Track co-leaders propose meeting weekly on Wednesdays for 60 minutes with the same time slot rotation: 5:00 UTC, 14:00 UTC, 20:00 UTC Notes: 1. Second reading of the first three categories: Slide 4: Second Reading In the last meeting, the Work Track co-leaders submitted the following proposals for consideration. This is the second reading: 2-character country codes (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, reserving all 2 letter-letter ASCII combinations for existing and future country codes. 2-character letter-letter combinations country codes (ISO 3166): The starting point is status quo, but narrowing it to geo-names by reserving all 2 letter-letter ASCII combinations for existing and future country codes. 2 character «letter-digit» are not geo-names and are therefore outside the scope of WT5. If 2-char letter-digit combinations were to be recommended (WT2 considering- reserved names), would be subject to string similarity review 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: -- Add examples of 2-character letter-letter combinations. 2. Review of Existing Country and Territory Names Slide 7: Future Treatment – Country and Territory Names We have begun to discuss the following, which were unavailable in the 2012 round: 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: -- Comment thus far show no strong indication to adjust these. -- 3-letter permutations: taken out of consideration.  Change: “transposition does not apply to 3-letter codes.” To “Neither permutation nor transposition applies to 3-letter codes.” -- Replace the word “it” with a definite article since it is not clear what “it” refers to. -- Instead of bullets, use the numbering from the 2012 AGB for any external communications. -- How would “Separable Country Names List” work if both items were countries?  There are no countries in the list, but territories. 3. Future Treatment – Other Geographic Names Slide 8: Next, we will discuss terms that were available in the 2012 round only with support/non-objection from relevant governments or public authorities. Slide 9: 2.2.1.4.2 Other Geographic Names (and 10, 11, and 12) -- A representation, in any language, of a capital city name of any country or territory listed in ISO 3166-1 -- Examples: London-Londres-Llundain / Berlin-Berlijn-Berlino -- Policy (2007 PDP): Available, but challenge mechanism to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. -- Implementation (2012 AGB): Requiring support/non-objection from relevant governments or public authorities. Discussion: -- Need to decide what the strawman is – are we adding or subtracting from 2007 or from the 2012 AGB.  We have to start somewhere. -- Mismatch between what is in policy and what was implemented in the AGB.  We need to resolve it somehow. -- Assertion that there are tons of geographic names, etc.  – try to make a suggestion of what we should be doing and also cite the basis for that assertion. -- Georgia (country) versus Georgia (state) – good example.  State wanted to use a second-level name and was blocked by Georgia the country. -- Wherever we can point to what we are trying to safeguard and why. 4. Wider Discussion of Non-Included Categories Slide 14: Exploring the Issue Why might additional categories of geographic names, beyond those in the AGB, be needed? What are the underlying interests in adding to the list of geographic names? What are the specific additional groupings of geographic terms that should be under consideration for differential treatment? Why do they require protection? What type of protections do you envision? Discussion: -- We have been talking about political geography, but we should also consider users.  Argument that some communities that are close in language and history also get included.  Examples: Latin America, Serbia, Norwegian, etc. -- Principle about whether we need to be tying ourselves in knots about additional categories.  Another way is to have specific guidelines for applicants that could be applied to any application.  Having lists of things tends not to be practical. -- Underlying interest: Make sure groups have an opportunity to apply for terms without getting blocked by hurdles.  Focus on end uses and uses that we haven’t thought about yet. -- Reserved names and blocking lists is generally strongly disfavored.  The idea is that domain names are supposed to be available, unless there are collisions.  There should be a general disinclination to add to a list. -- This is an area that is not black and white and where we can talk about non-political geographic terms.  The ideal approach would try to take into account these differences. -- Examples of Australian rivers: Murry, Darling, Clarence, Bisbane.  All of those names relate to people’s names, also place names.  Think about this more broadly.  Generic words that are geographic names in some context, and also are used in other countries.  Think more clearly about what we could expect in terms of applications.  Could come up with a basket of opportunity.  The 2012 implementation is insufficient since it doesn’t address these intention divisions. -- Missing question: Ask why might additional categories beyond those in the AGB not be needed? -- Geographic name has not been defined; that is what we are trying to address.  An applicant could propose a new gTLD that could correspond in appearance to a word or phrase that has geographic significance, but the applicant does not intend to use the gTLD in a way to refer to the geographic reference.  Then that takes it off the table for further consideration. 5. Meeting Schedule -- Current schedule: Alternate Wednesdays for 90 minutes -- Current time slot rotation: 5:00 UTC, 14:00 UTC, 20:00 UTC -- The Work Track co-leaders propose meeting weekly on Wednesdays for 60 minutes with the same time slot rotation: 5:00 UTC, 14:00 UTC, 20:00 UTC Discussion: -- Suggest not meeting every week; in favor of the current situation. -- Suggest doing a doodle poll with the options.