Morning Javier et al

May I ask a follow-up question, Javier

?

After Martin - I don't mean to step in front of him

of course, Heather

I support Yrjo's point about lack of problem needing resolution from 2012 round on this issue.

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

@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.

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.

I strongly support limitation here to narrow the AGB. A restriction on 7000+ languages does not support consumer choice or competition

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.

Unfortunately, country names are not unique. Consider the multiple "guinea" examples

@Heather, which is what? Need geography tips :)

@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.

@Javier: I mentioned this earlier, that asking countries to provde input on such a language list, will lead to inclomplete lists.

Predictability is certainly not provided by the 'any language of 7000'.

Indeed!

+1 Martin - this rationale makes sense to me, as it aligns with the citizens of the country

@Heather: Why not?

remembering that predictability is a key objective to our work

SOme countries don't of coure have *an official language*

Hello everyone and sorry for joinning late, I was on my way to my office

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.

Picking a number is adding randomness ahain

shw

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.

@Heather: It is predictable for applicants, which is what we want to achieve.

@Heather, which is fine with me insofar as country name strings go.

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

The above is an example list from Babbel.com

Don't have anything in writing but something that would prevent the repeat of .amazon would be good to consider.

+1 Martin - You've articulated exactly my concern

I just checked the UNESCO World Heritage list, but this one seems to be overly broad and not practicable.

The Final Report should also provide a clearly articulated rationale for any changes or new recommendations.

so there is no misunderstanding or confusion as to the intention behind the recommendation/change.

@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.

Lost connection for 5 minutes, zoom died

@Martin: The scenario is that there are countries which consider some terms being relevant geo terms and how to protect them.

beyond their country and capital city name

@Martin, having a list with strings that cover .amazon and have them treated as geographic names attracting preventative protection.

*cover strings like .amazon,

@Katrin & Justine - how does that reconcile with the public comment responses?

Leaving the call, Apologies. CW

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

consistant my friend

@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.

@Martin: The discussion around this topic has been articulated by many community members, also in the public comments.

Not up to me ;-)

and f course some places are accross several country and government jurisdicyions as well

ergh typos

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.

Sorry, I should have been more specific: I was referring to the 6 UN languages. I can support this.

indeed certainty for evaluators to work with seems an issue well worth addressing

Rationale will be extremely important to the Council.

yup

The document on screen is available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb_w1kms_E9n29XL1_lw3Yp9XQ4TeCY/edit?ts=5ce64d6d#heading=h.j7jy935ryg4k

thanks @Emily

thanks Emily

we are now doing a substantive review of public comment responses to questions included in the Initial Report

Thanks Emily - what page?

The comments here on screen reinforce all of our earlier comments about the overarching importance of "more predictability"

25

thank you

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

To Emily's point, it's notable that some of these comments are in direct conflict with certain preliminary recommendations.

This makes providing a rationale for WT5 recommendations all the more important

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKSC_pPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs/edit?pli=1#gid=543808477

full text of the responses is available on the fourth tab

Questions for Community Input

Thank you

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.

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.

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.

@Martin: The comment from the geoTLD.group supports preventative measures.

This is not listed in the second bullet under "Favor preventative"

The second bullet has to be added for "geoTLD.group"

correct

Emily hand up

ok, will check

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.

Sorry, wrong comment

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.

@Emily, @Martin, can I come back to you on that later?

of course, thanks Justine

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?

Correct, Martin, this was discussed as part of the core proposal on last week’s call

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

Yes it has been mentioned before but it needs to be remembered and captured if it gains sufficient carriage

Sounds interesting but does that solve predictability issue?

@David: Preventative measures add to predictability while curative measures can lead to uncertainty for applicants.

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).

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:

Thanks Heather and Katrin

• 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.

:-)

carry on from here next cal then... Good progress again today though

Wednesday, 31 July 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

14:00 UTC

thanks Terri :)

Thanks everyone... Bye for now then...

Thanks Javier and Martin and all

bye bye

thanks all