Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
David McAuley (Verisign)
29:47
Hello Cheryl - I get prize for early - tried to joing this call yesterday
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
29:55
LOL
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
30:12
that *is* keen @David :-)
Ejikeme Egbuogu
31:01
The link to the zoom room on the recent email is not directing properly
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
32:07
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
Ejikeme Egbuogu
33:59
OK thanks @Cheryl
Alexander Schubert
35:08
The first presented proposal sounds sound and sane. We can't "protect" 7k languages. It also doesn't make ANY sense.
Michelle DeSmyter
35:35
@Ejikeme - I will look into the zoom link issue on the invite
Katrin Ohlmer
36:05
I can hear you :)
Marita Moll
36:07
Yes, hearing you fine
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
36:08
We hear you!
Ejikeme Egbuogu
36:13
Thank you @Michelle
Katrin Ohlmer
37:51
@Alexander: That rule came from the AGB 2012.
Infinix X510
38:23
@Alexandra Thanks
Alexander Schubert
39:02
Katrin: Yes, true! It was bad then and it is still bad.
Katrin Ohlmer
39:42
@Alexander: Why has it been bad then - we did not have any issues with that language rule, did we?
Katrin Ohlmer
40:28
If it makes sense to limit it, is a different issue.
Dessalegn Yehuala
41:45
the un and country official languages as a side benefit in that it is relatively pro freedom of expression.
Infinix X510
41:49
@Michelle, my name is Nkem Nweke. It was difficult joining via Dial-out. Thanks
Dessalegn Yehuala
42:27
the un and country official languages has a side benefit in that it is relatively pro freedom of expression.
Alexander Schubert
43:11
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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
43:12
Good way forward @Martin/Annebeth
Katrin Ohlmer
43:33
@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.
Justine Chew
43:42
So is it proposal to narrow the scope translation meant to apply to all country & territory names, and capital city names?
Justine Chew
43:57
*So is this proposal ....
John Rodriguez
44:12
Agree that the 2012 AGB treatment was overly broad with regards to any langugages and this proposal seems to go in a positive direction.
Steve Chan
44:25
@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.
Steve Chan
44:35
And capital city names
Martin Sutton
44:52
so as long as there is no objection on the call, would be good to make clear in follow up to WT 5 members
Martin Sutton
45:03
thank you Annebeth
Susan Payne
45:25
is the second bullet in the zoom screen the end of the proposal or does it go over the page?
Martin Sutton
45:49
@Katrin thanks for clarifying.
Steve Chan
46:05
@Susan, that is actually an example of the proposal
Susan Payne
46:13
Thanks Annebeth
Susan Payne
46:52
:Steve, yes understood, I was just wanting to see the full text
Steve Chan
47:45
@Alexander, I believe translations only applied to the categories I listed above.
Alexander Schubert
48:43
@steve Thanks, let's just be sure and check it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:02
your language would be a National or Common use or defacto language so is covered
Jim Prendergast
49:11
India has 19 official languages
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:17
as are the 25 or more languiages in India etc.,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:37
I thought more @Jim it might be sects
Susan Payne
51:30
support the proposal
Jim Prendergast
52:28
to support the predictablity principle of Sub Pro- any list of languages has to be authroitative. Im not sure who keeps such a list.
Justine Chew
53:13
I personally still do not think there is a need to change the AGB 2012 in respect of translations.
Katrin Ohlmer
57:05
The geoTLD opposes that contention sets including a geoname goes to auction.
Katrin Ohlmer
57:17
We'll provide a proposal.
Steve Chan
57:37
@Annebeth, and you have a comment from Katrin
Katrin Ohlmer
58:51
Sorry; I meant geoTLD group.
Justine Chew
01:03:36
@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?
Steve Chan
01:04:43
@Justine, it means that the ALAC stated it supported the 4 principles identified in the Initial Report.
Steve Chan
01:05:01
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.
Justine Chew
01:06:14
@Steve, thanks, I will do another check to make sure that is accurate. :)
Steve Chan
01:07:23
@Justine, great, let us know if the summary language is not accurate.
Justine Chew
01:07:48
@Steve, will do, asap but not immediately.
Susan Payne
01:14:50
That BC coment doesn't really seem to be in the right place. No ref to "norms and values"
Susan Payne
01:14:56
But i'm not a BC member
Annebeth Lange
01:15:25
@Susan, we will check that out
Steve Chan
01:17:07
@Susan, the header is probably imperfect. The reference to treaties can probably fall into the “and/or other sources”
Alexander Schubert
01:17:37
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.
Susan Payne
01:20:40
Nkem, diagree that they are saying "these names should be protected"
Justine Chew
01:21:00
+1 Alexander.
Steve Chan
01:21:08
Annebeth, can I get in the queue?
Annebeth Lange
01:21:27
Yes, Steve
Steve Chan
01:21:31
Thanks!
Marita Moll
01:22:17
@Alexander -- appreciate the end-user perspective you have outlined
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:41
Steve will probably answer :-)
Taylor Bentley
01:24:10
Thanks Steve, very helpful
Taylor Bentley
01:24:26
No, thanks perfect
Alexander Schubert
01:24:51
@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.
Nkem Nweke
01:27:01
@Susan, that's my understanding from the comments by ALAC, NCSG
John Rodriguez
01:30:56
The United States placement was misplaced and actually should be placed in the second group, "strings should be generally available to applicants."
Steve Chan
01:32:08
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.
Justine Chew
01:32:32
Yes, because there is no consensus to allow application/delegation of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes, these comments are effectively rendered academic.
John Rodriguez
01:34:06
Yes @ Susan. Thanks for pointing out my comment in the chat.
Susan Payne
01:35:14
Yes, I agree Annebeth
Justine Chew
01:36:56
But I have absolutely no issue with parties asking for comments to be placed or assigned correctly.
Steve Chan
01:39:04
Yes, we will look to revise the summary after the call
Alexander Schubert
01:40:09
Wait
Greg Shatan
01:41:15
@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.
Justine Chew
01:42:44
Does "using the TLD for geographic purposes" equal "using the TLD for purposes primarily associated with that city"?
Marita Moll
01:43:55
@Greg -- I didn't think the comment by Alexander was about variations on a name
Nkem Nweke
01:45:25
@Mechelle, please let have the comments by US posted here. Thanks
Robin Gross
01:46:15
I agree with Susan
Katrin Ohlmer
01:46:19
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.
Steve Chan
01:46:41
@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)
Katrin Ohlmer
01:47:34
A PIC could not solve the issues as it would require the registry to enforce it vis-a-vis all registrars.
Nkem Nweke
01:47:51
@Steve, Thanks
Robin Gross
01:48:51
The US proposal recognizes that we must balance between competing legitimate interests, including freedom of expression, in determining our policy.
Greg Shatan
01:49:13
@Alexander — Since the beginning of DNS, registrants have found options when their “first choice” is not available. Also, we have all those protected variations....
Alexander Schubert
01:49:16
+1 to Katrin: Domains are "sold" by registrars - not by registries. The "intentions" (or their absence) of the registry are virtually irrelevant!
Alexander Schubert
01:49:52
Greg: This would be true for "brands" as well.....
Greg Shatan
01:50:46
Alexander: Correct, which is why the default rule should continue to be “first come, first served.”
Katrin Ohlmer
01:51:18
@Greg: on the Second Level, not the Top Level.
Greg Shatan
01:51:31
Alexander, if geo-registries’ intentions are irrelevant, why are we talking?
Justine Chew
01:51:43
@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.
Greg Shatan
01:51:46
Katrin, why do you believe that to be the case?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:58
A lot of ground covered today indeed!
Susan Payne
01:51:59
@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?#
Martin Sutton
01:52:38
yes Susan, that’s correct
Michelle DeSmyter
01:52:59
Next call: Wednesday, 07 August at 20:00 UTC
Robin Gross
01:53:05
Important to underscore that we have not chosen to prioritize certain applications.
Alexander Schubert
01:53:12
TNX: great job!
Martin Sutton
01:53:13
Annebeth - sorryfor lack of help while roaming France
Katrin Ohlmer
01:53:15
Thanks, Annebeth!
Martin Sutton
01:53:17
thx
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:18
Thanks everyone... Special thanks to you Annebeth
Robin Gross
01:53:21
Thanks, Annebeth and all, bye!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:22
Bye fir now