Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 7 November 2018. 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/x/xhm8BQ . Note that staff will be going back to the meeting transcript and chat transcript as the authoritative source of feedback received on the Initial Report during this call. This will ensure that all comments and suggestions are appropriately incorporated in the next revision of the Report. Kind regards, Emily ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates -- None 2. Initial Report Review -- Report intended to incorporate recent comments on list and from ICANN63. Review certain changes made, per below notes: -- Summary of recommendations added to the executive summary (p5) -- Added data about geo names from the 2012 round (p12) -- Seeking to get better clarity on the exceptionally reserved names list (p21) -- Added a footnote about the Articles of Incorporation (p30) -- Added a proposal from Katrin Ohlmer (p63) -- Added text about currency codes (p73) -- Added text about geographic indications (p74) -- Question about city names over 1 million inhabitants. Answer: it is included in the report. Emily Barabas: Marita, please see page 65 for proposal on large cities -- Paul McGrady suggestion from ICANN63 - develop 1-2 page summary report, in addition to executive summary. -- Goal is to try and have the executive summary to serve, at least in part, in the summary report role. David McAuley: The summary of recs on pages 5-6 (in Word) are quite helpful additions Jim Prendergast: i found the excel spread sheet that was prepared for WT1-4 that pulled out the key uestions posed to the community a useful tool for helping organize comments Emily Barabas: @Jim, we will produce these for this report as well -- Some support for executive summary to serve as summary of the report. Individual communities can develop additional resources as necessary. -- Suggestion that the small summary report drafting team be abandoned as it seems to be a distraction at this point. -- Additional data gathering. Is there anything additional needed prior to the Initial Report? Emily Barabas: If the Work Track wants to do additional data gathering, it will be important to define the specific scope of what is needed -- Review of comments from WT5 members that require input. In some circumstances, unclear what needs to change in response to these comments. -- Comments from Robin Gross and Jorge Cancio that they disagree with recommendation to keep provisions for non-capital city names (p17). Could move to option or question of course. Is it inappropriate to have a recommendation on this topic? Could also have a recommendation as well as a question. -- Suggestion that it's a hot topic and warrants a question instead of a recommendation (Marita, Christoper). Action Item: Pose question about whether rec 11 should be a recommendation or question on list. Justine Chew: Summarize deliberations of WT5 on in city names - intended use then pose questions. Emily Barabas: Note that deliberations, pros/cons and proposals are summarized in the deliberations section of the document -- Deliberations are in section (f). Could add a question that points to the deliberations section. -- Comment from Jorge Cancio, reducing restrictions on names, unclear what "unconditionaly available" means, and for whom (p 40). Action Item: Seek clarification on the comment above on list, about who made the comment and what the meaning might be. -- Does this relate to the discussions around translations (e.g., country and territory names)? -- This item appears to refer to non-capital city names? -- Clarification that this item is only part of the deliberations (not a recommendation, or even a question). - Comment from Jorge Cancio about applicants applying to the GAC to receive permission - what is the sense of the proposed solution, what is scope, how does it play with other requirements? (p41) Action Item: Seek clarification on the proposal referenced above on list, about who made the proposal and if additional clarity can or should be provided. - Comment from Christopher Wilkinson about a proposal to eliminate preventative protections and focus on curative protections instead. In a "curative" regime, objectors might be private parties. (p63). -- May be appropriate to leave section as is and see if public comment is received. The concerns seem to be captured in the drawbacks, though staff will make sure. -- If the concern is already captured in the drawbacks, can resolve comment. Justine Chew: @Martin, thanks, I would add "and community groups" to "public authority" on $ financial burden to file objection. Action Item: Christopher to review and revert on list. -- Comments about a proposal put forward on page 75. What does the "bright-line" mean and will translate well? (p75) Action Item: Seek clarification on the proposal referenced above on list, about who made the proposal and if additional clarity can or should be provided. -- Reviewing questions to pose to the community: (section e of the report) -- The purpose is not to answer the questions but to determine if they are the right questions to ask. Also helpful to determine if other questions are needed. -- Reviewing questions... Action Item: For question e1: Ask for input from people who 'considered' as well as applied. Action Item: For question e2, note that the definition of a geographic name could be integrated into the AGB, as well as be utilized by the geo names panel. Action Item: For question e5, "other norms" should ask the respondent to specify what those norms are. Add a 4th bullet, "Others not categorized above". Justine Chew: @Emily: thanks, may be a to use "...not categorized above...." Justine Chew: *better to use -- Suggestion to reverse order of the bullets in e5. Suggestion to review Jorge's comments from ICANN63 about "norms and values" -- Are e3 and e5 related? Suggestion to move e4 above e3. Action Item: Review question order to determine if the above suggestion allows questions to flow better. -- Question about what “commonly used language” means in proposals regarding translation. Further detail would be needed if it ends up as the selected proposal. Action Item: e7: use the word “recommendation” instead of "decision" in the final sentence. -- Seeking additional information around e8. If it can be answered through research, it could potentially be removed. -- Belief that the list is in place, includes UK and EU for example. Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet: ref e8 I understand Jaap’s point is quite a technical one and hopefully we can resolve this and remove this line David McAuley: typo on line 1 of e9 - letters of support 'on' non-objection -- e10 asks about whether the use for non-captital city names is relevant. e11 asks for alternatives. In the event the preliminary recommendation on non-capital city names is removed, these questions will draw additional community input on the topic for further consideration. -- How are external factors, like Board resolutions, captured in the report? Important to emphasize that external decisions to not necessarily set a precedent. -- Suggestion to add reference to ISO 4217 in question regarding non-AGB terms -- Suggestion to note that if something is out of scope, where it is in scope (e.g., currency codes). Emily Barabas: We can add a reference in the deliberations section to Board resolutions Emily Barabas: @Christopher, we can add a reference to the ISO list of currency codes Emily Barabas: (4217) 3. AOB -- None Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976