David McAuley (Verisign)
Hello Cheryl - I get prize for early - tried to joing this call yesterday
that *is* keen @David :-)
The link to the zoom room on the recent email is not directing properly
Ohh Sorry about that... I must say I use the iCal link where possible... please send staff a copy of the bad link to they can sort that out
OK thanks @Cheryl
The first presented proposal sounds sound and sane. We can't "protect" 7k languages. It also doesn't make ANY sense.
@Ejikeme - I will look into the zoom link issue on the invite
I can hear you :)
Yes, hearing you fine
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
We hear you!
Thank you @Michelle
@Alexander: That rule came from the AGB 2012.
Katrin: Yes, true! It was bad then and it is still bad.
@Alexander: Why has it been bad then - we did not have any issues with that language rule, did we?
If it makes sense to limit it, is a different issue.
the un and country official languages as a side benefit in that it is relatively pro freedom of expression.
@Michelle, my name is Nkem Nweke. It was difficult joining via Dial-out. Thanks
the un and country official languages has a side benefit in that it is relatively pro freedom of expression.
Katrin: I think nobody realy cared back then, Has anybody checked whether there WAS a violation? We DID have a violation of the permutation of 3 letter country codes ban: One was applied and went through. Nobody ever found out.
Good way forward @Martin/Annebeth
@Martin: As far as I remember we had no real opposition against the recommendation to limit it to the official, UN languages and the addition put forward by the geoTLD group.
So is it proposal to narrow the scope translation meant to apply to all country & territory names, and capital city names?
*So is this proposal ....
Agree that the 2012 AGB treatment was overly broad with regards to any langugages and this proposal seems to go in a positive direction.
@Justine, it would apply to these terms: long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard; short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard; separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List.
And capital city names
so as long as there is no objection on the call, would be good to make clear in follow up to WT 5 members
thank you Annebeth
is the second bullet in the zoom screen the end of the proposal or does it go over the page?
@Katrin thanks for clarifying.
@Susan, that is actually an example of the proposal
:Steve, yes understood, I was just wanting to see the full text
@Alexander, I believe translations only applied to the categories I listed above.
@steve Thanks, let's just be sure and check it.
your language would be a National or Common use or defacto language so is covered
India has 19 official languages
as are the 25 or more languiages in India etc.,
I thought more @Jim it might be sects
support the proposal
to support the predictablity principle of Sub Pro- any list of languages has to be authroitative. Im not sure who keeps such a list.
I personally still do not think there is a need to change the AGB 2012 in respect of translations.
The geoTLD opposes that contention sets including a geoname goes to auction.
We'll provide a proposal.
@Annebeth, and you have a comment from Katrin
Sorry; I meant geoTLD group.
@Steve, I forgot check the highlighted text in the comment attributed to ALAC. What does "other principles" in "Supports the other principles" refer to please?
@Justine, it means that the ALAC stated it supported the 4 principles identified in the Initial Report.
Here is the text from the ALAC: 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.
@Steve, thanks, I will do another check to make sure that is accurate. :)
@Justine, great, let us know if the summary language is not accurate.
@Steve, will do, asap but not immediately.
That BC coment doesn't really seem to be in the right place. No ref to "norms and values"
But i'm not a BC member
@Susan, we will check that out
@Susan, the header is probably imperfect. The reference to treaties can probably fall into the “and/or other sources”
I think the basis should be the natural needs of the members of geo-communities: Namely to protect their ability to register/use domain names based on geo-name gTLDs to identify themselves. I don't think we specifically need to protect "Governments" but instead more the Internet users of a cetain geo-location.
Nkem, diagree that they are saying "these names should be protected"
Annebeth, can I get in the queue?
@Alexander -- appreciate the end-user perspective you have outlined
Steve will probably answer :-)
Thanks Steve, very helpful
No, thanks perfect
@Marita: Thanks. In the end of the day we do all of this to further the evolution of the DNS in a way that improves the ability for registrants and Internet users to "find" each others! And in a geo-community they have "one shot": their geo-name gTLD.
@Susan, that's my understanding from the comments by ALAC, NCSG
The United States placement was misplaced and actually should be placed in the second group, "strings should be generally available to applicants."
Note that Question e7 has a direct relation to preliminary recommendation 3, which seeks to protect alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. That preliminary recommendation appears to have the support of WT5, which seems to make this question less relevant at this stage.
Yes, because there is no consensus to allow application/delegation of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes, these comments are effectively rendered academic.
Yes @ Susan. Thanks for pointing out my comment in the chat.
Yes, I agree Annebeth
But I have absolutely no issue with parties asking for comments to be placed or assigned correctly.
Yes, we will look to revise the summary after the call
@Alexander — If they have “one shot,” that would seem to argue against protecting variations on their “one-shot” geonames? Also, that seems to show a lot of shots — not just one.
Does "using the TLD for geographic purposes" equal "using the TLD for purposes primarily associated with that city"?
@Greg -- I didn't think the comment by Alexander was about variations on a name
@Mechelle, please let have the comments by US posted here. Thanks
I agree with Susan
The proposal of the US does not reflect that the applicant has no control how the TLD will be perceived - since the sales channel aka registrars decide autonomously how to market the TLD.
@Nkem, here is the comment from the US: If a category of geographic names is included in the AGB for future rounds, it should be amended to require a letter of support or non-objection only where it is clear from the applicant’s statements in its application that the proposed use of the string would create a false or deceptive association with the government or the public authority. Suggests adding a PIC that would ensure that the gTLD would not be used in a way that would falsely create a connection with a city governmental authority. (United States - variant on proposal presented in the Initial Report)
A PIC could not solve the issues as it would require the registry to enforce it vis-a-vis all registrars.
The US proposal recognizes that we must balance between competing legitimate interests, including freedom of expression, in determining our policy.
@Alexander — Since the beginning of DNS, registrants have found options when their “first choice” is not available. Also, we have all those protected variations....
+1 to Katrin: Domains are "sold" by registrars - not by registries. The "intentions" (or their absence) of the registry are virtually irrelevant!
Greg: This would be true for "brands" as well.....
Alexander: Correct, which is why the default rule should continue to be “first come, first served.”
@Greg: on the Second Level, not the Top Level.
Alexander, if geo-registries’ intentions are irrelevant, why are we talking?
@Katrin, correct. that is the reason why I don't understand how we allow preventative protection to be excluded simply by the applicant not declaring a use predominantly associated with a city. When we have no control of how the RO/registrars/etc sells SL domain names.
Katrin, why do you believe that to be the case?
A lot of ground covered today indeed!
@Martin I think this is a feature of the document structure. If I understand, the sectiosn we are going through now are all the proposals which haven't got support - yes?#
yes Susan, that’s correct
Next call: Wednesday, 07 August at 20:00 UTC
Important to underscore that we have not chosen to prioritize certain applications.
TNX: great job!
Annebeth - sorryfor lack of help while roaming France
Thanks everyone... Special thanks to you Annebeth
Thanks, Annebeth and all, bye!
Bye fir now