Hi everyone

hello to all

Hi everyone

Document available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb_w1kms_E9n29XL1_lw3Yp9XQ4TeCY/edit#

Thanks @Steve

no comments

no hands

Can we let clarify how the INTA proposal should work in case there is a second applicant for the name being the city itself?

E.g. Brand applicant = .marseille, second applicant: CIty of Marseille

@Martin, you mean way of existing private resolution of contention sets? Or an auction as mechanism of last resort?

*by way

Command of English!

great wording

So, the question for NTIA will be if there have a new suggestion for solution?

Subject to any changes to WG deliberation on auctions, charge requests etc

Thanx @Justine

*change requests

apologies for typos!

no prob

And I of course meant INTA, not NTIA

Welcome to all those that have kept on joining.

Hello all - apologies for coming in late...

Bienvenido Jorge

gracias!

Hi Jorge

With regards to the portion on "Reliance on curative mechanism" I would express a personal concern on the standing to file objections.

@Justine, noted.

Is "INTA" the same as "NTIA" or are these two different entities?

+1 for parking lot per @Martin's suggestion

@Martin, good idea

what idea is being referred to?

@Jorge, Katrin's question was what happens if a brand and a city authority applies for a city name string.

what were the rules in 2012?

contention resolution mechanisms like auction as the mechanism of last resort

No priority of either I believe, just the normal contention resolution mechanisms

No priority FOR either I believe, just the normal contention resolution mechanisms

if the brand and city woudl not be able to agree, the last step woudl be an auction

ok - then there is Need for a conversation...

@Jorge, so the question is if there should be any changes to this or not

@Annebeth - exactly

INTA: International Trademark Assoc. '

@Jorge, yes, hence put onto parking lot.

@Javier, INTA != NTIA

@Martin, exactly. Relevant for other geonames further down the hierarchy

Thanks Steve. I think this only applies to two geo applications, not one brand and one geo applicant.

but the "intended use" only applies to"city names"

And it boils down to whether a string is CONSIDERED as a geoname string

@Steve, can you put in the chat what you just said please?

@Justine, sure

Here is the text from the AGB for TWO geographic names: An auction will not take place to resolve contention in the case where the contending applications are for geographic names (as defined in Module 2). In this case, the applications will be suspended pending resolution by the applicants.

@Steve, thanks!

If there is a contention set with say, a brand or a generic string and then also a geographic name, that would have been allowed to proceed to auction under the 2012 rounds.

@Justine, that doesn’t necessarily need to be two…I should have said two or more.

Yes, understood. Contention set implies two or more.

Yes. @Jorge. You got it.

@Exaactly, Jorge, it could be a very interesting discussion to find better solutions both for city names and non-AGB terms

A good topic for Marrakech

@Jorge, any chance of some breakfast for WT5 members - now feeling very hungry!

Ha!!

Happy belated Father's Day to all, by the way. No breakfast for kids, if there are no dads to prepare it!

I said that there is no single standard for tranliteration

A critical issue indeed.

I completely forgot about the timer! Sorry Jorge, you’re the first on the timer.

@Jorge - maybe you have examples of geo names where this would apply?

+1 Jorge. Plus if we are in support of the principle of broad accessibility to under-served communities, then their languages should matter.

@Justine, this is a relevant comment

go on pls

What if we require letters of support/non-objection in the languages that the government publishes official translations of laws in or the language(s) the government operates in?

I’m not aware of any language protection mechanisms for identifier

Interesting @Sophie

Nice articulation of this complex issue, Annebeth

+1 Annebeth, I would express my personal on the standing to file objections in the respect also.

*in THIS respect also.

*I I would express my personal CONCERN on the standing to file objections in THIS respect also.

hand by Steve

the advisory panel would help and give certainty to applicants - based on the policy, and the Research done by ICANN

I'm afraid I got thrown out of the room for about 5 mins

Wikipedia is quite useful...

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_country_and_territory

See also: www.ethnologue.com

+1 Javier

@staff: Could you please add the compromise proposal from the geoTLD as a comment to the section?

@Katrin, are you referring to the suggestion about the transliterations? Or something else?

+1 agree it would be useful to add in the compromise Katrin proposed

Thx @Martin

@Steve: Transliterations into ASCII and conversion to DNS labels

but the current rule isnt restrictive, its the opposite...

Thanks for confirming @Katrin

will do

there could be evidence from the GeoNames Panel - and Research on Problems could have been done - I raised this many months ago

thx

thanks @jorge.

@Jorge - but that would still ignore any potential applicants deterred by what they perceived to be restrictive rules

Thinking out loud on languages (and I know my place is not to make suggestions) ; if WT were to settle for a status quo type solution (all lanuages), I wonder if one way forward might include excluding "fictional" or "made up" languages. And I'm not kidding here.

I do have a comment on the proposal from USG regarding the use requirement. I will send an email as follow up. I missed the start of the call

@Martin: reserach could have tried to cover such potentially deterred applicants

@All, it’s anticipated that this document currently being displayed would be serve as the basis for some discussions during session 1.

Steve - can you repeat link to this doc -

and it is at least telling that we have never heard about such a case

@item 11 I think is what I want to comment on

btw: documents should have a date a version number and be archived in a stable URL

@David, what Olga just said. We are updating the document on a weekly basis and sending with the agenda.

thks

i had closed it and agenda

agree w Jorge on that

just standard document management :-)

just confirmomg all the Monday sessions for WT5 as well as the others in the afternoonfor the full WG are in rm Orangeraie...

Thanks Olga and all

can we rename it the Orange Room?

See, it’s hard to pronounce!

Ciao to all

Thank you all, very good discussions

Thanks, Olga!

bye & thanks

bye all

bye al!

Thanks everyone... Bye for now safe travels for those who are doing so...

bye all

Thanks all