None from me.

Helpful summary and recap, thank you

Thanks for the summary

thanks for great summary annnebeth

Full text of the comments is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKSC_pPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs/edit?usp=sharing

As a reminder, the document currently on display is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb_w1kms_E9n29XL1_lw3Yp9XQ4TeCY/edit?usp=sharing

I'm here - yes, it is about IDNS

Thanks, Katrin

Christopher is right about th need to have consent - regardless what the "intention" of the applicant entity is! Applicants have usually no specific "intentions" at all: they want to make their shareholders happy. The question is: How will the PROSPECTIVE REGISTRANT use the gTLD?

As mentioned in our comment, we would be ok with the small addition to handle non-ASCII terms identical to ASCII terms.

@Alexander, I disagree. That ignores the control that Brands have over the allocation of names

Thanks @Katrin

...Just trying to get some bridge positions!...

+1 Javier

Agreeing with Christopher on his remarks on the TM Lobby!

It has to be possible (I hope)...!

We have noted your continued concern on this Christopher and so ag

i

n now

Thx Christopher, your concerns are noted.

I'm a litle confused by this logic Donuts owns .solar. There is a town in Northern Ireland called Solar. Are you saying that Donuts should not have been allowed to obtain the .solar gtld?

Perhaps there should be a negotiation process, a panel or something to that affect to determine what happens with a name like "golden"

I agree with Morita

@colin: The geographic names panel should have reached out to Donuts about .solar.

But I don't know if they've done so, I know they missed quite a few terms.

geonames panel looks like a way forward

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

I continue to have concerns with overly broad claims of ownership/exclusivity to supposed geo terms especially when there is no association with the alleged place identified.

@Javier: With much better processes - yes.

@Katrin - why woud they? It did not fall within the AGB lists

@Javier, geonames panel with sufficient expertise and research resources etc

@Javier, that seams like the best way forward

@Susan: because the geonames panel would have to verify if a support letter woudl be required or not.

I believe that is what @Javier may indeed be referring to

Support Advisory Panel, but a major issue over languages scripts and geographical knowledge etc.

@Justine: Yes, exactly!

How would the proposed Advisory Panel be any different from the Geo Names Panel envisioned in the AGB?

Point taken @Susan

@Kristina: I remember that the proposal was to have GAC representatives being part of this panel.

+1@ Susan

Maybe, as Christopher has suggested, all names should be assumed as geographic unless they can be proven otherwise. i.e. change the assumption

great points @Martin

There is a .charity. A wikipedia search indicates there are six geographical places called Charity see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity How is possible to decide who gets to give permission? Does the gltd applicant have to get permission from each region.

@Marita, why? Why are we according the geographic use primacy over other uses. There is no justification for that at law

+1 Colin

@Marita - setting aside the lack of legal basis, how does that work in practice? The applicant has to submit global atlases that don't show the name?

The justification is avoiding problems like .amazon

+1 Chris, I also support geo names panel with GAC members, it must not be just advisory in nature, but whatever it says must able be to stand. Remember all names especially of places have geo significance, and someone to claim they chose the name not for its geo significance is rather not true,

@Susan: There are countries with national law which gives rights to geos over other entities.

.mobile has been granted. There are three towns in America called Mobile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile

@Katrin - and there are plenty of countries which don't!

.hosptial has been granted. There is a town in Ireland called Hosptial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital,_County_Limerick

A curative mechansim (rather than preventive) which addresses actual evidence of a false association with govt authority could be more amenable... but still have concerns with blanket and across the board prohibitions.

@Susan: Correct. So we agree that some countries have national law which gives priority over geos, and some don't. So we cannot say "there is no law".

+1 John that would be a more reasonable solution since it recognises context

All of these examples justify, to me, the fact that there needs to be an intermediary body. There are no black and whites here. A negotiated solution is necessary

+1 John for curative mechanisms

@Colin: These are all great examples that the geo names panel has to be equipped with the sufficient resources, as Justine pointed out.

we hear you

@Katrin I disagree - they demonstrate how ludicrous it is to give primacy to the geo use over others. Are you seriously suggesting that Hospital should be given a geo meaning over the standard English definition? Or are you suggesting some panel of Governments is goinbg to be charged with making that judgment on a case by case basis? Hardly giving anyone certainty!

I would appreciate if we could agree to 1. The official language of the country/territory/capital city. and 2. Translations of the country/territory/capital city in UN languages and the addition of 3. Transliterations into ASCII and conversion to DNS labels. Otherwise capital cities such as Den Haag or São Tomé would not be able to be protected with denhaag/den-hag or sao-tome/saotome.

Katrin .rogers has been granted. There are 26 places in the world called Rogers! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers It would take years to get clearance from each location. This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

This should be do-able as the addition is also set-up in the red-cross protection list.

Agreement: All placenames in ALL languages doesn't make sense.

Re translations, if we are trying to create expectation and certainty for future rounds, then just saying "any languages" doesn't necessarily create that expectation or certainty. So, being able to specifically point to specific translations (official languages or some sort) would be helpful in creating that expectation and certainty.

@Colin: Neither the current AGB nor our discissions recommends to get clearance.

@Katrin re your translation eg, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'm not clear on your item (3). The addition of "-" gets captured by a different provision doesn't it?

To me, the definition of all languages seems to be overly broad - in researching I see https://iso639-3.sil.org/about/types mention "living languages" as distinct from extinct and ancient languages

@Susan: To which provision you refer?

3. Transliterations into ASCII and conversion to DNS labels. Otherwise capital cities such as Den Haag or São Tomé would not be able to be protected with denhaag/den-hag or sao-tome/saotome.

Maybe we can take this offline and clarify?

Apologies - I need to drop for another meeting at the top of the hour.

.hot granted. Two places called Hot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot

yes maybe we can do offline

Can you repost the suggestions please.

There is really no such thing as a transliteration into ASCII.

From Katrin Ohlmer to Everyone: (10:48 AM)
I would appreciate if we could agree to 1. The official language of the country/territory/capital city. and 2. Translations of the country/territory/capital city in UN languages and the addition of 3. Transliterations into ASCII and conversion to DNS labels. Otherwise capital cities such as Den Haag or São Tomé would not be able to be protected with denhaag/den-hag or sao-tome/saotome.

With clarification of what is meant by #3.

quiet...

I also must leave at this time, thanks Annebeth, thanks all.

thanks @Kavouss

It might be helpful to try and determine and identify any issues that may have arose as a result of the 2012 string contention resolution rules around geographic names. Similar to what Kavouss said.

I would also appreciate some fleshed out text (per Jaapand some reasonable time onward with which to consult colleagues

hand by NKEM

I would also appreciate some fleshed out text (per Jaap's comment) and some reasonable time onward with which to consult colleagues

I remember that during our talks in Marrakesh someone pointed out that not all governments are able to participate - legally.

in auctions

Maybe we can refer this issue back to our GAC representatives in the WT5 - they shoudl better know if resolving contention via an auction is doable.

@Javier - that fits under non-AGB terms

yep

Just would like to know if a Geo name is auctioned and later someday a ligitimate application from a government is made what happens

@Nkem: you have a conflict this group cannot solve

I need to drop for another meeting I'm afraid

Thank you, Susan

@Nkem: As per the current AGB, the government has no rights.

what if its a new country?

Anybody support the idea of putting concepts like "catalonia", "Basque Country", "Kurdistan", "Flanders" under a "protected" or "considered" non-agb catergory?

agree we cant slove it all.

A new country will have rights for a 2-character ccTLD

@Nkem: Once a string is delegated and is not returned to the pool for some valid reason then it's gone.

@Katrin, that is one of the reasons that they are protected -since it is not the responsibility of ICANN to decide what is a country and what is not

..."placenames with a stated claim to autonomy or independence" as geoname TLD

Javier I wouldn't object to that idea if members of the community reach out to ICANN rather than ICANN trying to determine which terms should be blocked.

good point @Colin

@Colin, it shouldn't be ICANN determining which terms should be blocked, this is where the geonames panel could come in with input from the community.

point taken @Greg

I am hearing some support developing for that approach @Greg

@Colin: Also, we have to keep in mind to increase the predictability for applicants.

+1 Greg

a posteriori (curative) vs a priori (reservations/protections)

@Katrin +1

I'm on same page with @ Annebeth. let Geo names be.

@Javier: Exactly, preventative are reliable, whereas curative rights lead to different results (like the objection procedures).

I have said this before, and I will say this again -- if we were to rely more on curative rights, then curative right processes should be REALLY available to all and not just paid lip service.

Well Noted @Justine

Curative rights should be relatively predictable and really available, or else they are seriously flawed.

@Greg: They can't be predictable, that is the nature of i.e. the objection mechanisms. We had many examples in the last round, where similiar situations led to different results.

Curative approach puts the burden on governments, most of which are not really able to engage in objection processes

Preventative measures, can at times, ignore context.

+1 Yrjo, communities also.

+1 Yrjo and Justine

My last post on gtlds that are also Geo names. Sorry for being repetitive but it is necessary to show how complicated things would be if all geo names must be cleared or barred as Christopher insists on every call. .dodge granted. 22 geographic names for Dodge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_(disambiguation).sling granted. There are two towns the United Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling.gap granted. There are six places in the world called Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap.fidelity granted. There are three places in the United States called Fidelity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidelity_(disambiguation).target granted. There are two places called Target https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target.lilly granted. There are four places called Lilly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly.duck granted. There are two towns in the United States called Duck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_(disambiguation)

Yrjo and Justine, why do you believe that to be the case? And how can the issue be improved?

Bye. Got to go

+1 to John R., preventative measures work best when they are clear-cut regardless of context. Trying to use preventative measures to resolve nuanced situations is a mismatch.

@Greg, a proper review of objection criteria for a start.

@Justing, that is certainly something we should be doing regardless....

“Justine”

Duck? really!

@Greg, good let's do that regardless :)

For governments, cities and communities in developing countries - and in many developed ones, too - it’s hard even to be aware that somebody is eying their name as a possible new gTLD. Not to speak of initiating the objection proceedings etc

exactly @yrijo. Thx

+1 Yrjo, we tend to forget that there is a wide world outside of ICANN.

+1 Yrjo

So, we have identified awareness, objection criteria and some issue with initiating proceedings. Let’s continue the list.

You have actualy covered a *lot* o f ground today team....

@Katrin +1 'Maybe we can refer this issue back to our GAC representatives in the WT5 - they shoudl better know if resolving contention via an auction is doable.

good call!

ciao, bye, to all!!!

Thank you Annebeth and all - enjoy the rest of your day

Thanks, Annebeth!

Bye all

Thanks everyone... do pursue these matters on the list :-) more next week Bye for now

Agreed @Javier, even if I was forced to join the call late. Bye all.

Thanks Anna Beth!

Thanks all!

Very good call nice job Annebeth. Bye all

@All, good bye

bye

Bye, bye

Mange takk!