Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Vrikson Acosta
32:00
Hi everyone
Jorge Cancio
34:48
hello all, sorry for joining a bit late...
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
35:00
Just to clarify, this is the exact match of the adjectival form eg 'British' as opposed to compound forms 'britishairways'?
Annebeth Lange
36:18
@Nick, yes, this is the way I have understood it
Robin Gross
36:31
I also oppose this new proposed obligation.
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
36:33
thanks Annebeth!
Jorge Cancio
37:40
the option to contact themselves or let ICANN Org do it should be up to the applicants
Emily Barabas
39:16
See highlighted text on screen from Proposal 2
Emily Barabas
39:29
Which Paul is discussing
Katrin Ohlmer
40:10
The AGB2012 is based on concessions from all parties equally.
Vrikson Acosta
40:17
There's audio issues. Almost unhearable
Martin Sutton
40:56
Audio seems fine for me Vrikson, may need rejoin?
Yrjo Lansipuro
41:00
@Katrin +1
David McAuley (Verisign)
46:23
sorry to be late
Andrea Glandon
46:32
Welcome, David!
Andrea Glandon
46:50
@Vrickson, I can dial out to you if you would like
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
50:19
Question - is the proposed notice to governments (As soon as possible after, but never before, the close of each application window , but no later than 1 month after the close) before the applications are publicly revealed ?
Katrin Ohlmer
50:39
We're talking about hypothetical problems arising from the proposals whereas the problems in the last round were real and we as the WG could contribute to improve the rules.
Emily Barabas
51:36
It’s up
Jorge Cancio
52:17
the question if we want to contribute to solving a set of problems we know is out there or whether we leave it without addressing and just hope that conflicts around non-AGB Terms with geo-significance will not pop-up again...
Katrin Ohlmer
52:56
+1 Jorge
Katrin Ohlmer
56:01
I do support the position from Greg that we should not treat adjectival forms of country names differently to all other geographic terms.
Jorge Cancio
56:47
fair point on complexity from Paul - however the applicant should be free to contact him/herself... but we don't Need to say this explicitly
Jorge Cancio
57:25
@Robin: this is a contact provision, nothing more...
Robin Gross
58:02
A contract provision to put one interest to the front of the line ahead of all others. That’s the problem.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
58:28
So if the early notice portion is removed and the notifications are sent when the applications are publicly revealed, would that be ok ?
Katrin Ohlmer
58:52
@Robin: contact vs contract!
Jorge Cancio
59:09
+1 Katrin...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
59:32
I had read that as a tyo or auto correct issue from @Robin
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
59:56
typo of typo ;-)
Robin Gross
01:00:50
Yes I read that as “contract” at first. Apologies for any confusion. But I think point remains that it (the contact obligation) puts one interest to the head of the line above all others.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:01:07
As Jorge mentioned earlier: The question is, if we want to contribute to solving a set of problems we know is out there or whether we leave it without addressing and just hope that conflicts around non-AGB Terms with geo-significance will not pop-up again.
Yrjo Lansipuro
01:02:31
A contact provision is intended to smoothen the process and prevent conflicts at a later date. It should not be seen in terms of stakeholder inequality. It’s just a fact of life that governments are geographically defined entities.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:02:43
As one of the Co-Chairs, I want to offer my support for what Martin has said. We are not intending to re-open up any issues that were fully discussed during the Work Track phase when WT5 presents its report to the Full Working Group
Jorge Cancio
01:02:49
+1 Yrjo
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:21
Absolutly @Jeff! so were all clear
Nkem Nweke (DigitalSENSE Africa)
01:03:23
I support this new proposal
Annebeth Lange
01:03:54
I completely agree with Martin. We have used a long time discussing these questions and we should expect that all opinions are on the table. If we cannot agree on changing the AGB 2012, we should say that, and not expect the WG to continue the discussion. But bearing in mind that we have really tried to find a way forward, I think we should give it a go, at least as an option for the applicants. We are trying to find a way to avoid conflicts as much as possible.
Griffin Barnett
01:04:19
cities don't have representatives? Isn't that what the GAC is for?
Marita Moll
01:04:32
Yes Yrjo -- it is just hard to understand why notify peoples who are affected could be such a dangerous proposition
John Rodriguez
01:04:50
I think that is the underlying and basic issue... some would say there are problems we want to resolve and others would say there shouldn't even have been a problem to begin with as there is no legal basis for special treatment of geo terms.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:05:46
+1 Yrjo
Jorge Cancio
01:05:57
@John: with respect, beyond legal discussions, we have witnessed real Problems... it is not very pragmatic -as policy-makers- to ignore that
Robin Gross
01:06:18
Yes this new proposal is still problematic as a chilling effect on lawful speech. Thanks, Paul.
Alexander Schubert
01:07:24
How do you spell "KAFKA"?
Marita Moll
01:07:41
Why only talk about governments -- really it is the people who are being deprived of even a brief notification of a desire to use a name that they call themselves
Katrin Ohlmer
01:08:06
@Robin: ... potential chilling effects .... versus real issue which happened in the last round -> we'll have to decide between both
Katrin Ohlmer
01:08:20
+1 Marita
John Rodriguez
01:08:30
@Jorge. Thanks, Jorge. Understand, but I think some would disagree as to whether these "real problems" you might be referring to should've been problems to begin with.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:09:00
@robin - if the applications are publicly revealed, a govt paying attention and pouring over the list can decide to object / raise concerns - the notice to govts is only a notice/warning
Jorge Cancio
01:09:33
@John: that's more of a philosophical debate I fear... I'm more on the realists-school I guess...
Robin Gross
01:09:34
The shifting of the burden is the slippery slope
Justine Chew
01:10:18
@Robin, shifting of the burden to whom?
Robin Gross
01:10:46
applicants and or ICANN
Katrin Ohlmer
01:11:04
@Robin: which burden?
Jorge Cancio
01:11:23
It would be a shame if we don't at least make a small step in the direction of solving these issues... I feel that support for adjectival country names was strong enough acrossthe community to take it forward
Annebeth Lange
01:12:35
@Jorge, I agree with you here, it is a shame if we have to give up
Robin Gross
01:12:41
I think it would be a shame if we put any more restrictions on legitimate speech.
Justine Chew
01:13:15
@Robin, I don't understand how it is a burden if it were to be an auto-generated notification by ICANN Org.
Robin Gross
01:13:15
especially if it is just for the sake of saying we accomplished something.
Jorge Cancio
01:13:26
@Robin: getting people to speake amongst each other is a strange vision of restricting speech
Robin Gross
01:13:58
Nothing stops people from speaking. This is a requirement with the aim of restricting lawful speech.
Marita Moll
01:14:08
If I want to use .canadian to sell beer (yes, there is such a beer), the Canadian government should know about that. That's all we are trying to put in place here. I don't see the harm.
Annebeth Lange
01:14:16
We are trying to avoid conflicts, and many thinks that we should at least try
Yrjo Lansipuro
01:14:31
A notice procedure would be a sign of an open play from all sides.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:14:39
@Robin: How are we restricting speech? Applicants can apply for whatever they want - independent from the proposals.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:14:54
+1 Yrjo
Justine Chew
01:15:02
+1 Katrin +1 Yrjo
Jorge Cancio
01:15:10
@Robin: there is a wide world out there unaware of ICANN... if they don't know, they cannot speak - that's really chilling speech
Marita Moll
01:15:43
I agree, Javier. I felt there was a lot of support and it's hard to know how this went so far backward.
Nkem Nweke (DigitalSENSE Africa)
01:15:44
@Marita Moll +1
Martin Sutton
01:16:01
@Javier - agree, close again but seems to repeat what we had with the language discussions.
Sophie Hey
01:16:41
While there isn't unanimous support for adjectival forms, I think that there is general support for adjectival forms in Proposal 1. The stumbling block seems to be that we want unanimity
Greg Shatan
01:17:13
It went backward because some were still pushing to move even further “forward”.
Marita Moll
01:17:24
I also think there is more support than opposition
Robin Gross
01:17:39
And a number of us asked last week during the call that we didn’t want our opposition ignored.
Justine Chew
01:19:12
WT5
Jorge Cancio
01:21:05
I feel we have a clear case of broad support and some (vocal) opposition - on adejectival forms of country names...
Marita Moll
01:21:29
+1 Jorge
Robin Gross
01:22:28
I have heard today opposition from govts, from commercial users, and from non-commercial users. that is broad opposition.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:24:05
So the proposal/recommendation is to allow anyone to be able to search the public revealed list and applications for a list of terms to be found within the list
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:24:09
Back on zoom
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:24:23
Dev - those proposals are being addressed within the Full WG apready
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:24:26
already
Greg Shatan
01:24:45
All applications, or only allegedly geo-applications?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:24:55
All applications
Justine Chew
01:24:55
@Robin, correction, 1 govt
Jim Prendergast
01:24:56
This begs the question which I have asked for several times - how exactly will leadership determine consensus on the plenary level? We need that methodlogy written down and circulated via email to the entire WG. Early on we had questions about weighting comments from SG/AC/SOs vs individuals that still has not clealry been resolved. It doesnt need to happen on this call but I would strongly encourage the leadership to address this sooner rather than later. thanks
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:25:02
So the full group is discussing for ALL applications searchbility, easily readable
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:25:04
etc.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:25:18
searchability (sorry my typing is terrible today)
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:25:54
@jeff so the goal is to allow a list of terms to be submitted at once and not just one at at time
Jorge Cancio
01:26:08
I feel that Robin is mixing some with concerns and some fewer who oppose
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:26:20
I must leave for another call - bye all
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:26:28
Bye David
Annebeth Lange
01:26:34
Bye, David
Greg Shatan
01:29:35
We don’t need everybody — consensus is “rough consensus”
Sophie Hey
01:30:23
We do have this from the last round https://gtldresult.icann.org/
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:30:54
@Dev - I am not sure we are talking about bulk searches, but there are proposals to enable better searchability of applications using keywords, etc.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:31:07
@Sophie and is quite poor to allow for proper searches
Robin Gross
01:32:13
how are stakeholders weighted in such a poll?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:32:13
@Jeff - I think the bulk search capability would alleviate concerns, especially by govts or communities
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:32:16
@Dev - yes we are discussing having better functionality than what currently exists
Marita Moll
01:32:28
I think a straw poll would at least tell us where the group (as a group) stands
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:32:54
@Jeff (continued) having to repeat a search for each permutation isn't practical
Jorge Cancio
01:33:13
I feel that the straw poll was actually made during the last days, and radical opposition came only from a couple of people
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:33:31
@Dev - I do not disagree, but that adds much more complexity into the application system and ICANN Org was expressing some reservation about the time, costs and resources of building that kind of system
Jorge Cancio
01:34:35
I hear Greg as willing to work out a compromise... you may understand that whilst I am also willing to compromise, I would still think that it would have been better to do more ;P
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:37:15
@Jeff - it would be an investment in better buyin by stakeholder communities
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:39:46
@jeff (continued) - governments, brand owners, communities
Sophie Hey
01:39:56
@Alexander I have explained on the mailing list multiple times why the .brand text does not alter the status quo or create additional rights for dotBrands
Marita Moll
01:40:56
Various jurisdictions define cities differently. We went through this on the list early on
Sophie Hey
01:40:58
The definition of a city for the purposes of the AGB 2012 as I understand it is "a city name as listed on official city documents"
Nkem Nweke (DigitalSENSE Africa)
01:41:26
@Alexanda +1
Alexander Schubert
01:41:31
Is a 100,000people town a "city"?
Sophie Hey
01:41:35
As Marita says, this reflects the different defintions of cities
Marita Moll
01:42:57
Size is not necessarily the rule. Small towns in Italy can be called cities if the pope says so -- if I recall the earlier discussion properly
Greg Shatan
01:42:57
“City” often has a meaning that is independent of the population, though there is a high correlation between those criteria and population size.
Jorge Cancio
01:43:38
groundhg day? ;P
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
01:44:13
@jorge indeed!!
Jorge Cancio
01:45:00
let's at least reserve .groundhog to the ICANN community ;P
Katrin Ohlmer
01:46:51
@Alex: I think there have been more than enough good arguments why we cannot single out .brands.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:00
time check only around 10 mins eft in todays call team...
Annebeth Lange
01:49:22
@Alexander: Either or
Annebeth Lange
01:50:08
@Alexander, perhaps that depends on the size of the country?
Alexander Schubert
01:51:36
15k people cities won't apply for a gTLD. But people will get support letters from a tiny city to avoid public tenders of big cities
Sophie Hey
01:51:51
I get the impression we should just abandon both proposals. We aren't getting anywhere
Katrin Ohlmer
01:52:47
@Annebeth: That is why the addition has been proposed next to the UN list. Also, smaller cities would be reflected in (b)i.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:48
5 mins left in todays call....
Greg Shatan
01:52:51
Also the opposite, where the big city is the newer one, e.g., Boston.
Jorge Cancio
01:53:04
as said and proposed: we need to rely to national legislation regarding what is considered a "city"...
Annebeth Lange
01:53:05
@Katrin, good point
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:06
You hsve covered a large amunt today Team
Greg Shatan
01:53:44
Please collect all national legislation defining “city” and we could consider that....
Jorge Cancio
01:53:58
+1 Katrin
Katrin Ohlmer
01:54:19
The UN list is better than nothing and woudl add to predictability and transparency.
Jorge Cancio
01:54:43
@Greg: that's a implementation task, not a policy issues... I think...
Sophie Hey
01:54:48
@Katrin disagree
Sophie Hey
01:55:04
"better than nothing" is not a basis for a policy recommendation
Marita Moll
01:55:16
There was lots of discussion on the list on this already
Katrin Ohlmer
01:55:33
@Sophie: Thank you for your personal opinion.
Greg Shatan
01:55:36
@Jorge, hard to decide policy in a vacuum.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:42
Thanks everyone... Bye for now...
Robin Gross
01:55:48
We covered a lot of ground today. Thanks, Javier, and all!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:12
Special thanks to the WT5 Leadershp Team they are doing heroic work including planning fo9r these calls etc.,.
Jorge Cancio
01:56:13
of ground(hog), sorry ;P !!
Greg Shatan
01:56:24
It depends what weight is placed on any given list, as to whether good enough is good enough.
Sophie Hey
01:56:25
@Katrin, my point is we should have good reasons for our policy recommendations
Susan Anthony
01:56:31
Yes, thank you to the Leadership Team!
John Rodriguez
01:56:33
Thanks, Javier and to the co-leads!
Katrin Ohlmer
01:56:33
Thanks, Javier!
Annebeth Lange
01:56:33
Thanks, everyone
Greg Shatan
01:56:35
I’ve seen my shadow.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:56:37
take care all
Jorge Cancio
01:56:38
bye!
Harold Arcos
01:56:39
Thanks all
Marita Moll
01:56:42
Thanks for the minute bye