Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
martinsutton
40:50
Morning Javier et al
Heather Forrest
48:54
May I ask a follow-up question, Javier
Heather Forrest
48:56
?
Heather Forrest
49:12
After Martin - I don't mean to step in front of him
Javier Rúa-Jovet
51:00
of course, Heather
Justine Chew
53:40
I support Yrjo's point about lack of problem needing resolution from 2012 round on this issue.
Heather Forrest
54:02
Countries could be asked to nominate their national languages, just as the Red Cross was recently asked to identify the various names of its worldwide National Societies
Katrin Ohlmer
56:05
@Heather: I remember we discussed this proposal a few calls back, and came to the clonclusion that not all countries will provide feedback on such a request. So it will likely lead to a incomplete list.
Jim Prendergast
56:15
ICANN refused to provide applicants/operators a defintive list of country and territoy names covered by spec 5. I cant see how they would agre to provide a list of 7,000 official languages.
Heather Forrest
56:27
I strongly support limitation here to narrow the AGB. A restriction on 7000+ languages does not support consumer choice or competition
Justine Chew
56:36
I still don't see the need to "fix" something that has not been a problem, especially since country names (unlike capital/city names, are unique.
Heather Forrest
57:52
Unfortunately, country names are not unique. Consider the multiple "guinea" examples
Justine Chew
01:00:46
@Heather, which is what? Need geography tips :)
Christopher Wilkinson
01:01:17
@Heather - since the only application for a geographical name should be made by, or with the agreement of, the local authorities, they can choose the languages they want to use. No problem.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:01:55
@Javier: I mentioned this earlier, that asking countries to provde input on such a language list, will lead to inclomplete lists.
Heather Forrest
01:03:59
Predictability is certainly not provided by the 'any language of 7000'.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:11
Indeed!
Heather Forrest
01:04:33
+1 Martin - this rationale makes sense to me, as it aligns with the citizens of the country
Katrin Ohlmer
01:04:38
@Heather: Why not?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:44
remembering that predictability is a key objective to our work
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:23
SOme countries don't of coure have *an official language*
Mzia Gogilashvili
01:05:56
Hello everyone and sorry for joinning late, I was on my way to my office
Heather Forrest
01:06:09
Good reminder, @ Cheryl. @Katrin, I don't believe that restricting on any existing language helps applicants who may not be aware of obscure or little used languages. This could have a distinct chilling effect on applications, and cause the rejection of applications for reasons that an applicant could not have reasonably foreseen.
Jaap Akkerhuis
01:06:38
Picking a number is adding randomness ahain
Jaap Akkerhuis
01:06:46
shw
Christopher Wilkinson
01:07:15
The problem with any restricted list, is that - as I gather from the discussion - that any other translation would NOT be protected. That would not be acceptable.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:07:16
@Heather: It is predictable for applicants, which is what we want to achieve.
Justine Chew
01:07:21
@Heather, which is fine with me insofar as country name strings go.
Martin Sutton
01:07:23
1. English1.121 billion total speakers2. Chinese1.107 billion total speakers3. Hindi534.2 million total speakers4. Spanish512.9 million total speakers5. French284.9 million total speakers6. Arabic273.9 million total speakers7. Russian265 million total speakers8. Bengali261.8 million total speakers9. Portuguese236.5 million total speakers10. Indonesian198.4 million total speakers
Martin Sutton
01:08:11
The above is an example list from Babbel.com
Justine Chew
01:12:37
Don't have anything in writing but something that would prevent the repeat of .amazon would be good to consider.
Heather Forrest
01:13:18
+1 Martin - You've articulated exactly my concern
Katrin Ohlmer
01:13:20
I just checked the UNESCO World Heritage list, but this one seems to be overly broad and not practicable.
Heather Forrest
01:13:59
The Final Report should also provide a clearly articulated rationale for any changes or new recommendations.
Heather Forrest
01:14:13
so there is no misunderstanding or confusion as to the intention behind the recommendation/change.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:14:22
@Martin: As Justine pointed out, the debate was about the .amazon case and if we were able to come up with a list to avoid this scenario.
Jaap Akkerhuis
01:15:13
Lost connection for 5 minutes, zoom died
Katrin Ohlmer
01:18:21
@Martin: The scenario is that there are countries which consider some terms being relevant geo terms and how to protect them.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:18:41
beyond their country and capital city name
Justine Chew
01:18:49
@Martin, having a list with strings that cover .amazon and have them treated as geographic names attracting preventative protection.
Justine Chew
01:19:28
*cover strings like .amazon,
Martin Sutton
01:20:09
@Katrin & Justine - how does that reconcile with the public comment responses?
Christopher Wilkinson
01:20:20
Leaving the call, Apologies. CW
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:20:55
International placenames - published lists and web searchesUnited Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names - list of searchable geographical names databasesAmerican Name Society - list of international resources for names (including placenames)GeonamesGetty Thesaurus of Geographic Names Online
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:21
consistant my friend
Justine Chew
01:22:47
@Martin, there is bound to be opposing opinions in answer to your question. But on the basis, that .amazon has been a problem, I think it raises a question that begs resolution.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:23:02
@Martin: The discussion around this topic has been articulated by many community members, also in the public comments.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:54
Not up to me ;-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:16
and f course some places are accross several country and government jurisdicyions as well
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:26
ergh typos
Heather Forrest
01:29:53
In the spirit of moving forward and reaching agreeable compromise, on the earlier point of languages, some of my concerns are alleviated if we can justify this on the basis that this gives applicants and evaluators certainty.
Heather Forrest
01:30:44
Sorry, I should have been more specific: I was referring to the 6 UN languages. I can support this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:30:47
indeed certainty for evaluators to work with seems an issue well worth addressing
Heather Forrest
01:31:38
Rationale will be extremely important to the Council.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:55
yup
Emily Barabas
01:33:14
The document on screen is available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb_w1kms_E9n29XL1_lw3Yp9XQ4TeCY/edit?ts=5ce64d6d#heading=h.j7jy935ryg4k
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:33:30
thanks @Emily
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:33:31
thanks Emily
Emily Barabas
01:34:00
we are now doing a substantive review of public comment responses to questions included in the Initial Report
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:34:03
Thanks Emily - what page?
Heather Forrest
01:34:10
The comments here on screen reinforce all of our earlier comments about the overarching importance of "more predictability"
Emily Barabas
01:34:13
25
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:34:21
thank you
Emily Barabas
01:34:59
As a reminder, the purpose of this exercise is to determine if any of the comments impact the WT’s overall thinking about its approach to preliminary recommendations
Heather Forrest
01:35:54
To Emily's point, it's notable that some of these comments are in direct conflict with certain preliminary recommendations.
Heather Forrest
01:37:34
This makes providing a rationale for WT5 recommendations all the more important
Martin Sutton
01:39:35
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKSC_pPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs/edit?pli=1#gid=543808477
Emily Barabas
01:40:05
full text of the responses is available on the fourth tab
Emily Barabas
01:40:13
Questions for Community Input
Mzia Gogilashvili
01:40:24
Thank you
Emily Barabas
01:40:31
Questions e2: e2. The definition of the term “geographic name” could impact development of policy and implementation guidance, as well as program implementation details, such as guidance for the Geographic Names Panel in the New gTLD application process. In your view, how should the term “geographic name” be defined for the purposes of the New gTLD Program? Should there be any special requirements or implications for a term that is considered a “geographic name”? Is “geographic name” the appropriate term to use in this context, as opposed to, for example, “term with geographic meaning”? Why or why not? Please see deliberations section f.1.2.4 on pages 34-36 for context on this question.
Emily Barabas
01:46:17
e3. Work Track 5 has discussed different types of mechanisms that can be used to protect geographic names in the New gTLD Program. These mechanisms fall broadly into two categories, noting that the categories are not mutually exclusive and measures from both categories can be used in combination:• Preventative: Measures in this category include reserving certain strings to make them unavailable for delegation or requiring letters of support/non-objection from relevant governments or public authorities, either in all cases or dependent on intended usage of the TLD.
Emily Barabas
01:46:29
Curative: Measures in this category include objection mechanisms, contractual provisions incorporated into the registry agreement, enforcement of those provisions, and post-delegation dispute resolution mechanisms.In your view, what is the right balance or combination of preventative and curative rights mechanisms in relation to protection of geographic names in the New gTLD Program? Please see deliberations section f.1.2.2 on pages 28-29 for context on this question.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:49:44
@Martin: The comment from the geoTLD.group supports preventative measures.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:50:20
This is not listed in the second bullet under "Favor preventative"
Katrin Ohlmer
01:51:00
The second bullet has to be added for "geoTLD.group"
Katrin Ohlmer
01:51:16
correct
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:51:43
Emily hand up
Katrin Ohlmer
01:52:46
ok, will check
Emily Barabas
01:54:35
ALAC: The ALAC reiterates its stand that there has yet to be a discussion about whether or not another gTLD round, or even an expansion of the gTLDs, is needed or desirable.In the event such expansion is found to be necessary or desired, the ALAC supports the application of Principle A, and notes that predictability, avoiding of conflicts and simplification of processes and policies are best facilitated by preventative measures, known to all before the process starts, rather than curative ones that make uncertainty prevail long into the process.
Emily Barabas
01:55:00
Sorry, wrong comment
Emily Barabas
01:55:18
ALAC comment: Believes preventative and curative can co-exist: The ALAC suggests that preventative and curative measures can co-exist.In respect of city names, and although there wasn’t consensus on extending preventative protection measures to all city names, it was suggested that the number of people impacted (read Internet end-users) could be a distinguishing factor -- i.e. cities over 1M inhabitants could be handled with preventative measures while cities of 10,000 might be curative.
Justine Chew
01:55:35
@Emily, @Martin, can I come back to you on that later?
Emily Barabas
01:55:44
of course, thanks Justine
Heather Forrest
01:57:44
For example (just off the top of my head), on languages we could say that a defined set of languages (UN, most used, other?) is preventative, and others are curative?
Emily Barabas
01:58:30
Correct, Martin, this was discussed as part of the core proposal on last week’s call
Heather Forrest
01:58:42
And I mean this should be considered beyond just languages, but more broadly in our recommendations where we are having difficulty finding compromise on purely preventative measures
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:58:46
Yes it has been mentioned before but it needs to be remembered and captured if it gains sufficient carriage
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:59:16
Sounds interesting but does that solve predictability issue?
Katrin Ohlmer
02:00:36
@David: Preventative measures add to predictability while curative measures can lead to uncertainty for applicants.
Heather Forrest
02:00:42
Good question, David.... at least it provides more initial predictability to the applicant that outright rejection follows preventative. There's never going to be certainty/predictability in anything that might be subject of a later legal dispute (whether UDRP, URS, litigation, WTO dispute, etc).
Emily Barabas
02:01:36
e4. Work Track members have considered a series of principles that may be used to guide the development of future policy on geographic names. The principles were discussed in the context of city names and terms not included in the 2012 Application Guidebook, but they may be applicable more broadly. Proposed principles include:
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:01:37
Thanks Heather and Katrin
Emily Barabas
02:01:49
• In alignment with Principle C from the 2007 GNSO recommendations on new gTLDs, the program should allow for the introduction of new gTLDs.• In alignment with Principle A from the 2007 GNSO recommendations on new gTLDs, enhance the predictability for all parties.• Reduce the likelihood of conflicts within the process, as well as after the process concludes and TLDs are delegated.• Policies and processes should be simple to the extent possible.Do you support these principles? Why or why not? Are there additional principles that Work Track 5 should consider? Please explain. Please see deliberations section f.1.3 on pages 42-43 for context on this question and additional discussion of these principles.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:04:06
:-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:04:49
carry on from here next cal then... Good progress again today though
Terri Agnew
02:06:11
Wednesday, 31 July 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Emily Barabas
02:06:13
14:00 UTC
Emily Barabas
02:06:17
thanks Terri :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:06:22
Thanks everyone... Bye for now then...
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:06:25
Thanks Javier and Martin and all
Jaap Akkerhuis
02:06:35
bye bye
Katrin Ohlmer
02:06:36
thanks all