With apologies, the notes below cover the Work Track 5 call that took place earlier today. Please disregard. The notes will be resent to the appropriate list.

From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, 19 June 2019 at 14:03
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 19 June 2019

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 19 June 2019. 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/d4qjBg

Kind regards,

Emily

Action Item: To discuss later (“parking lot”) - WT5 to discuss how to resolve, under different scenarios, if there are multiple applications for the same string proposing different uses. Should there be prioritization or weighting of certain applications? For example, if the group determines that there should be rules with respect to non-AGB terms, prioritization of different types of applications in a contention set should be considered.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOI): No updates.

2. Summary Document Review:

Co-leaders briefly went over documents that explain the task at hand for the group and summarize current status of deliberations.

a. Geographic Terms That Require Letters of Support/Non-Objection Dependent Upon Intended Usage (Recommendation 11) – continued from last meeting

Co-leaders briefly went over relevant preliminary recommendation
Co-leaders briefly went over comments suggesting modification to existing preliminary recommendation (discussed more extensively on the last call)
Review of comments not yet discussed, beginning on page 16 -- comments from those that believe that a letter of support/non-objection should not be required if the applicant has trademark rights and is using the TLD in association with a brand.
One WT member asked for clarification regarding how the INTA proposal should work if there is another applicant that wants to use the name in association with a city name (middle of page 16). See comment in Google Document.
Raises question of whether one use or another takes precedence if there are multiple applications for the same string. Is a special process put in place or do the existing mechanisms described in the AGB to resolve contention remain (auctions of last resort, etc)?
In the 2012 round, if there were two applications in the contention set for geographic names, standard contention resolution would not go forward.
In the 2012 round, if one application proposed geographic use and one proposed generic use, this contention set could proceed to auction.
Reminder that auctions of last resort as the method of resolving contention are under discussion in the full Working Group.

Review of comments related to relying on curative mechanisms (page 16)
One WT member expressed concern on standing to file objections if curative mechanisms are the focus of protections
Review of comments on the possibility of requiring a letter of support/non-objection regardless of intended use (page 17)
Review of responses to proposals 23 and 24 (page 17)

b. Languages – continued from last meeting and discussions on the list

Leadership recap - based on discussion during the last call there seemed to be some support for refining the recommendations with respect to translations of country and territory names.
Leadership had put forward a proposal on the last call. Modifications were proposed on the mailing list. In particular, there was a suggestion to include transliterations in the proposal.
One member reiterated the concern that there is no single standard for transliteration.
One perspective -- “UN and official languages” should be expanded to “UN and official and relevant languages.”
Request for clarification - how do you determine whether a language is relevant? From one perspective this concept seems imprecise.
A member recalled previous discussion on the topic of languages and the different perspectives raised. What problem are we trying to solve from the 2012 round? What issues were caused by current provisions including reservation of translations “in any language” of country and territory names? From this perspective, if we are to find compromise, we need to find a solution that is acceptable to all, including those not participating in WT5.
Concern raised that many countries do not have official languages.
From one perspective, minority or regional languages not recognized by central governments should be considered. This is a political issue. From this perspective “UN and official and relevant languages” respects all language communities, including those not officially recognized.
Suggestion that this is policy issue, but will require implementation from ICANN Org. From this perspective ICANN Org should make a list of relevant languages in each country based on facts and statistics. This is not a task for the WT to complete.
From one perspective, the problem we are trying to solve may not have been seen in practice, but could come up at any time if the rules remain in place as they were in 2012. No one knows if an application went through that was in violation of the rules, because there is no finite list to use as reference. From this perspective, this uncertainty is a problem and a more practical solution is needed. Is it the role of ICANN to adopt standards that are stricter than the national governments that are not protecting/recognizing minority languages discussed previously?
From one perspective, language is a sensitive issue and an important way in which groups of people identify themselves.
Leadership comment - is there another place in the technology space where there have been rules around language that we can leverage for our work? How do we apply these lessons in a practical way?
Suggestion that the geo names panel could assist with identifying whether a proposed string corresponds to the translation of a country or territory name. This role for the panel could create more certainty for applicants.
One WT member raised concern about standing to file objections with respect to this topic.
From one perspective, the languages issue should not be left to the authority of the advisory panel.
Staff note - there is a Wikipedia page that lists official languages of countries, as well as regional and minority languages. This indicates that may be possible to create a finite list using a set of rules to define what is included and excluded. Staff is not suggesting to use the list on Wikipedia, but it suggests referencing the page to show that it is possible to compile a list. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_country_and_territory
Question repeated - what is the problem we are trying to solve from the 2012 round? Suggestion from one member that there could be evidence from the Geo Names Panel of any possible problems from the 2012 round.
Leadership recap - where do we stand with the tracking document at the close of the call? - review of closed and open items. No additional comments received. Tracking document will be posted on the wiki with archived older versions of the document.

c. Refining Processes

Not covered on this call.

AOB - ICANN65

Sessions will take place in the morning of Monday 24 June from 9:00 to 12:00 local time.
First session will be on validating the outcomes so far for WT5 and taking temperature on preliminary recommendations, as well as identifying outstanding issues.
Additional time will be devoted to discussing the outstanding issues. The goal is to focus on three topics (to be identified in the first session).