Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Javier Rúa-Jovet
39:24
hi to all!
Jorge Cancio
40:16
hi everybody...
Heather Forrest
42:30
Apologies, all, for joining 4 mins late.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:39
Welcome @Heather we are just beggining
Andrea Glandon
46:31
We have a phone number ending in 144, please provide me with a name. Thank you!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
47:26
Welcome Jorge, Welcome Heather
Justine Chew
48:38
Just a provisional update to my SOI - provisional as it won't take effect until the end of ICANN66 AGM. I have been selected by NomCom as ALAC Member for Asia/Australia/Pacific Islands. But for current WT5 purposes, I remain a member of At-Large and serve as ALAC/At-Large liaison for subsequent procedures (including WT5).
Heather Forrest
49:07
Congratulations, Justine!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
49:18
Congrats Justine!!!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
49:37
that Nomcom knows how to choose!!!
Justine Chew
50:30
Thank you :)
Javier Rúa-Jovet
50:47
Its quiet out there
Javier Rúa-Jovet
51:03
yep!!!
Jorge Cancio
51:14
there was some support for my latest proposal on list
Jorge Cancio
51:55
so perhaps we could work with it as a compromise solution and give a last week for comments
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
52:05
anything to avoid conflict and promote dialogue is a good thing
Annebeth Lange
52:10
Another provisional update to my SOI from me, same as Justine. I have been elected by ccNSO as member of NomCom 2020, starting at ICANN 66. I will continue as co-chair in WT5 until the work is completed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
52:25
Yes @Christopher we are well aware of your views on the AGB
Heather Forrest
52:42
Congratulations as well to you, Annebeth!
Justine Chew
53:08
I personally support the New Proposal Variation with Amendment on slide 7. I feel it is important for the intent of notice to the right parties be incorporated.
Katrin Ohlmer
53:28
I agree with the proposal by Jorge to give the proposal another week, as not all members were able to reach out to their SO/AC and get feedback.
John Rodriguez
55:01
General question: To have a better understanding of the proposal, what is envisioned that would happen next after notification?
Jorge Cancio
55:14
Alexander clarified that he supports my proposal, with an automated notification system
Heather Forrest
55:35
+1 John - I have the same question!
Jorge Cancio
57:10
@John/Heather: the requirement ends with that notification happening. What happens next is up to the parties...
Yrjo Lansipuro
57:17
I support Jorge’s proposal, and also Alexander’s suggestion on its implementation
Susan Anthony
57:52
How is "geo name string" defined?
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
58:08
if it were ICANN doing the notifications then that would solve the compliance question, so in principle I could support that
Justine Chew
58:20
@John, @Heather, we're talking about notification only, it doesn't stipulate that anything must happen after.
Heather Forrest
59:05
I'm not sure then that I understand the purpose of the notification when all applications will later be revealed.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
59:05
hand by Sonigitu
Javier Rúa-Jovet
59:30
hand gone
Jorge Cancio
59:43
this is about putting countries early on notice
Justine Chew
59:48
Re Alexander's suggestion on an automated notification system, I would just add that system records on delivery of notifications may need to be considered.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:00:57
there seems to be some level of support for Jorge's general proposal
Jorge Cancio
01:00:59
as we lack a precise definition we are going with lists
Heather Forrest
01:01:04
I understand Jorge's answer, ie, what happens next depends on the parties, but I don't understand how this improves predictability or transparency for the parties.
Jorge Cancio
01:02:10
predictability and transparency are increased in fact
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:02:22
I live in USA and used to work in London area in UK. The number of commercial entities named “American XXX” or “British XXX” (e.g., American Airlines or British Airways) are too numerous to mention - assume this phenomenon is global. These kinds of uses of adjectival form by new applicants would be affected by this proposal unless country opts out of protection – is that correct? Just want to make sure I understand proposal.
Jorge Cancio
01:02:31
and the application process cotinues
Katrin Ohlmer
01:02:59
+1 Jorge: I agree that predictability and transparency are increased with this proposal.
Jorge Cancio
01:03:22
@David: this is just a contact requirement. No non-objection whatsoever
Justine Chew
01:03:25
@Heather it improves awareness of applicants to "problematic" strings, and improves awareness of governments as to applications for such "problematic" strings.
Jorge Cancio
01:03:32
the proposal explicitly clarifies that
John Rodriguez
01:04:09
Is there any chance the notification would be creating an expected outcome of a conflict requiring a negotiated outcome where there isn't even any consideration as to the context or proposed use of the TLD?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:04:35
Thank you @Jorge
Jorge Cancio
01:06:09
+1 Susan Payne on exact matches
Justine Chew
01:06:19
+1 Susan
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:06:23
That was my question, Susan, thank you - better stated as does this proposal limit itself to exact matches
Heather Forrest
01:06:29
To Justine's reply ("problematic strings") and John's comment ("Is there any chance..."), Justine's reply assumes that all strings are "problematic", where John's presumes that not all may be "problematic".
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:06:44
I was simply unclear on this
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
01:07:16
yes, the adjectival form was just to catch ‘british’ or ‘american’ not combinations
Jorge Cancio
01:07:17
the proposal just tries to help to further reduce "problematic" applications
Justine Chew
01:07:27
@Heather, "problematic" is limited to what's in the proposed repository.
Susan Anthony
01:07:29
Susan P - or Jorge - what is a "term with geographic meaning"?
Jorge Cancio
01:08:05
@Susan: as we have not a precise definition we go for lists
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:08:23
Agree with Susan that more clarity around this would be welcome, especially vis-a-vis exact match limitation - and agree with those who feel that closure must await a chance for all to weigh in on list
Jorge Cancio
01:08:40
with the requirement of the term be protected under national law/public policy
Susan Anthony
01:08:52
Then, Jorge, how would a government know what to put on the list?
Jorge Cancio
01:09:05
law and public policy
Jorge Cancio
01:09:12
will tell you..
Susan Anthony
01:09:29
not sure how "public policy" is defined....
Katrin Ohlmer
01:09:51
@Susan A: Governments should know their national law.
Jorge Cancio
01:10:27
happy to refine the wording for sure
Susan Anthony
01:10:44
Katrin - my question goes to "public policy" as the proposal refers to "national law and public policy"
Katrin Ohlmer
01:10:45
Olga: Let's try to find a compromise on this proposal and defer one week.
Justine Chew
01:10:58
I wouldn't mind further word-smithing by the proposers
Jorge Cancio
01:11:02
send it in a separate email andsk for specific wording improvements
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:11:05
agree that more time is needed, but I also feel there is traction here
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:11:07
Another week indeed seems reasonable for this very important effort at reaching a consensus / solution
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:11:57
PLease do however further the proposed text development on the email list between now and Monday's meeting
John Rodriguez
01:12:14
At this time, still have concerns with the proposal. The main concern being that we are ignoring the context of the proposed TLD and whether it will or will not create an association with a place.
Jorge Cancio
01:13:52
the intended use is an information that might be relevant for the corresponding relevant authority...
Annebeth Lange
01:14:10
Thanks, everyone, for trying to find a compromise
Yrjo Lansipuro
01:15:26
Governments that want to protect place names within their jurisdictions use different level of instruments for that. That’s why “national law and public policy” is a appropriate formulation.
Mzia Gogilashvili
01:16:03
Hello everyone, sorry for being late
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:16:26
Welcome Mzia
Jorge Cancio
01:17:24
as said before: ok with A; disagree with B
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:18:20
Hi Mzia!
Justine Chew
01:18:37
@Katrin, does Part B apply to non-capital city name strings only ?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:19:18
@Justine: Yes, like .kiel and .kiel.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:19:30
One in Germany, one in the US.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:20:24
@Susan P: It is not about to elevate any applicant, just to reflect national law.
Susan Payne
01:21:25
@Katrin but you are seeking to impose one country's national law on all comers, regardless of location
John Rodriguez
01:21:31
+1 Susan
Katrin Ohlmer
01:22:03
@Susan: As mentioned, the proposal seeks to reflect relevant national law, not more.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:22:38
@Olga: That would be appreciated!
Jorge Cancio
01:22:50
perhaps those with issues may offer specific improvements to the text
Susan Payne
01:23:01
I do not think this needs more time
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:23:06
dont see very strong support for text as currently drafted, maybe further work will progress things
Susan Payne
01:23:25
WE have had no discussions on this in the last week, and on last call significant opposition
Justine Chew
01:23:52
+1 Jorge, further word-smithing would be appreciated
Annebeth Lange
01:24:10
It would help if participants support or oppose on the list during the week.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:24:13
+1
Katrin Ohlmer
01:24:21
@Annebeth: +1
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:02
Recognisong that unless there is significant development OF new text or agreement then we must finish off the issues we can not give everything another week at this stage ;-)
Annebeth Lange
01:25:57
@Cheryl: Agree. If nothing happens on the list during the week, I think we should close this issue. Then we will go back to the original text from the AGB.
Justine Chew
01:26:52
I do not support the added blue text on slide 16. We should not promote adoption of anything "as taken", best to have specific text declared for avoidance of doubt.
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
01:27:23
I think the blue additional wording makes sense (sorry Justine!)
Katrin Ohlmer
01:27:24
I'm concerned about "intend" as this leaves the door open to amendments.
Jorge Cancio
01:27:55
I tend to share the concerns from Justine and Katrin...
John Rodriguez
01:28:14
Seems the blue text just adds more clarity and reassurance.
julie.hedlund
01:28:19
Sorry, I have been remiss in putting up the timer. I will do so from now on.
Sophie Hey
01:28:21
@Katrin is there language that you could suggest that would enable you to support this?
Annebeth Lange
01:29:03
I am specifically concerned about the word “primarily”. This opens for using the TLD not only as a .brand, but also for other use as a generic TLD with subdomains
Katrin Ohlmer
01:29:11
Also, the rationale says that governments could file their own application - but this is not possible as they only would be made aware of the application after the reveal day.
Susan Payne
01:29:11
@Justine, can you clarify. I am not sure I understand your concern as you also say "best to have specific text" which is what this is trying to do
Jorge Cancio
01:29:58
"will be taken", "primarily" etc. are indeed especially problematic
Katrin Ohlmer
01:30:27
@Sophie: I would have to consult with the geoTLD group.
Heather Forrest
01:30:31
The term "primarily" derives from the 2012 AGB
Sophie Hey
01:30:41
@Katrin that would be great if you could!
Heather Forrest
01:30:48
2.2.1.4.2 which specifies Geo Names Requiring Govt Support says: It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name; and
Susan Payne
01:30:56
+1 Heather - that is the test we had for the last round
Heather Forrest
01:31:10
Susan's proposal uses this exact language
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:31:38
Agree that "primarily" is used consistently in AGB
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
01:32:00
perhaps add that the TLD is to be exclusively for dot brand use?
Annebeth Lange
01:32:38
@Nick: Exactly.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:32:46
+1 @Olga
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:32:54
de nada!
Jorge Cancio
01:32:57
I don't agree with the intended use rule - but if this is consensus, there could be a mention that applying under spec 13 is an "indication that your intended use is non geographic"
Annebeth Lange
01:35:12
Sorry, I have to leave. Meeting in the Supreme Court today that I cannot skip. Have a wonderful week, everyone.
Justine Chew
01:35:42
Why can the applicant be compelled to state their intentions clearly and completely instead of having something stated considered being "taken as" more?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:46
Thanks @Annebeth
Jorge Cancio
01:36:21
+1 Justine...
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:36:43
Bye @Annebeth!
Susan Payne
01:36:44
But Justine they would be stating their intention quite clearly. I think that concern could be addressed by tweaking the drafting
Katrin Ohlmer
01:36:46
+1 Justine
Sophie Hey
01:37:07
I am happy to submit something more specific to the list later today on the proposal
Jorge Cancio
01:37:18
we support proposal 8...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:28
Thanks @Sophie
Katrin Ohlmer
01:38:33
We also support proposal 8
Susan Payne
01:38:42
strongly oppose
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:39:02
quiet...
Jorge Cancio
01:39:26
pls show on screen
Justine Chew
01:39:57
How are expressions of support/objection now viewed against those already submitted through public comments?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:40:41
@Justine I think all expressions are equally valid
John Rodriguez
01:41:26
I note in the document there are various parties who oppose.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:12
Yes there is no clear direction rather bipolarity with the Public COmments here
Justine Chew
01:42:18
@Javier, Okay, I am just confused as to whether I need to repeat what ALAC has already said.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:10
Move on Yes
Justine Chew
01:43:55
Unless there is a way to break the bipolarity ....
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:44:01
2:00 am in PR...
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:44:11
wow
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:14
and that would need to develop on the email list
Jorge Cancio
01:44:38
I saw some support for 8... on 9 and 10 I see less traction...
Steve Chan
01:44:41
Wednesday, 28 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:04
See if that can develop on the list then @Jorge
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:25
It would be great indeed @Olga!
Justine Chew
01:45:31
Apologies. Where and how do we consider the constitution of the Geo Names Panel? Would that still exist?
Justine Chew
01:46:45
@Olga, didn't expect an answer from you specifically. Maybe staff?
Justine Chew
01:47:30
@Steve, thank you for refining my question!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:47:54
good call
Jorge Cancio
01:47:55
where are we now?
christopher wilkinson
01:48:01
Support GNP with broader mandate; existing ToR appear to be inadequate in the light of the problems which arose.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:48:01
Can we put the topic (define geo Names Panel) on the todo list, please?
Jorge Cancio
01:48:27
+1 Katrin
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:48:36
yes @Katrin
julie.hedlund
01:48:37
Noted Katrin.
Jorge Cancio
01:48:40
we jumped from 10 to 37?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:48:41
thx
Justine Chew
01:49:05
Redrafting my question: Where and how to do we consider the constitution and scope of the Geo Names Panel?
Jorge Cancio
01:49:23
it would be good to look at all the proposals
Jorge Cancio
01:49:32
on screen...
julie.hedlund
01:49:33
@Jorge: That is the list of proposals related to this topic. Not all proposals were related.
julie.hedlund
01:50:04
These are proposals related to Changes in the scope of protections.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:50:05
that sounds reasonable
Jorge Cancio
01:50:05
especially those proposals with a good amount of support
julie.hedlund
01:50:14
The text is in the public comments — the link was included.
julie.hedlund
01:51:15
We can send the link again to the public comments. That has the full text and all of the comments.
Jorge Cancio
01:51:16
sounds good
Justine Chew
01:51:22
Cool.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:38
Good progress in todays call, and thanks so much @Olga a lot planned over then next week however so do remember to use the list... bye for now then...
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:51:39
sleep time
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:51:41
Thanks Olga, staff and all
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:52:07
Ciao to all!!
Susan Payne
01:52:11
thanks all
Jorge Cancio
01:52:13
have some well-deserved rest ;P
Katrin Ohlmer
01:52:14
Thanks, Olga!
Justine Chew
01:52:20
Thanks all
John Rodriguez
01:52:21
Thanks, Olga!