Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Javier Rúa-Jovet
23:44
hello to all! / hola a todos y todas!
Emily Barabas
27:14
Available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111389559/Proposals%20on%20Languages%20-%20updated%2022%20July%202019.docx?version=2&modificationDate=1565202935028&api=v2
Terri Agnew
27:21
Reminder to mute when not speaking
Katrin Ohlmer
27:35
sorry for being late, have issues with my connection being on a tiny greek island
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
31:37
@katrin - Small price to pay for being on a tiny Greek island (Yes I am somewhat jealous) :)
Javier Rúa-Jovet
31:48
hand by christopher
Javier Rúa-Jovet
32:04
and hand by Chris
Jorge Cancio
32:07
thanks Olga!
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
33:53
By Closure, we mean that we have heard all of the arguments on multiple occassions and it is time to declare whether there is or is not consensus
Paul McGrady
34:03
Apparently, there are 6500 languages, but around 2000 of them are spoken by 1000 people or less. https://www.infoplease.com/askeds/how-many-spoken-languages
Annebeth Lange
36:45
What we are discussing here, is whether we are able to recommend another solution than the 2012 AGB, based on public comments, discussions and meetings, both F2F and teleconferences
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
37:21
@Christopher, can you be a little more specific as to what the group is not considering
Paul McGrady
37:25
I'm confused by what appears to be a process complaint from Christopher when I thought we were talking substance of the language proposal...
Annebeth Lange
38:50
@Paul, you are correct. We are discussing substance.
Paul McGrady
40:04
@Annebeth - thanks. Just want to make sure I'm able to track the discussion.
Katrin Ohlmer
40:59
Jorge is right - we should consider not only the last comments on this list, but also all comments from the comment period.
Justine Chew
41:46
Yes, the ALAC is still on record as supporting "any languages" on the issue of translation, ie no change to 2012 AGB.
Annebeth Lange
41:57
@Jorge, I agree. As long as we cannot find a compromise that is acceptable for all, we have said that status quo it will be. We have tried to find another option based on input, but there are still very divergent opinions
Katrin Ohlmer
42:20
I would like to note that the geoTLD group does not support the proposal to limit the protection to the official and UN language unless we were to agree on „the transposition of accented and diacritic characters in Latin-based scripts to their equivalent ASCII root“ will be included“.
Alexander Schubert
43:41
What do we try to protect? Example: China in Hebrew is "Sin"! So nobody can apply for .sin - because why exactly? Because someobody could "mix" it with CHINA?
Katrin Ohlmer
43:44
thx Olga
Annebeth Lange
45:13
@Katrin, do you mean by the transposition that this should be included even if we end up with status quo?
Christopher Wilkinson
45:55
@Jeff: It is the job of staff and co-chairs to compile the positions, ALL positions, including all calls, list and chats. I think the issue has been clarified by several statements today. Need I say more?
Susan Payne
46:12
I am mystified about Christopher's objection to the translation proposal this week. On 17 July he supported it, stating tha all languages was clearly unmanageable and un-implementable
Katrin Ohlmer
46:22
Will these slides be available afterwards so I can consult with the group?
Annebeth Lange
46:40
@Katrin, I am sure they will be available
Emily Barabas
46:40
Hi Katrin, you can find them here: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-08-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5
Katrin Ohlmer
46:52
thanky, emily!
Christopher Wilkinson
47:07
@ Susan - I expressly withdrew that position at the time. Perhaps others could do likewise.
Alexander Schubert
47:22
Currently hyphens aren't even allowed as characters in TLDs, no?
Katrin Ohlmer
47:33
I'll have to consult with the geoTLD group.
Matthew Johnson
47:55
I recall staff had assembled Christopher's and all other comments in the initial report earlier this year and read them out in the meetings over a period of a few months.
Jaap Akkerhuis
48:29
Hyphens are not allowed for the start of the end of a label nor on the position 3 AND 4 of the label
Javier Rúa-Jovet
48:44
Thanks you @annebeth for saying it much better than I!!!
Alexander Schubert
49:05
Thats for 2nd level DOMAINS! No?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
49:07
Thank(sic)
Annebeth Lange
49:12
@Javier :-)
Jaap Akkerhuis
49:19
Also, you should consult the LGR rules
Paul McGrady
49:52
No consensus to make this change.
Katrin Ohlmer
50:10
@Olga: will do so
Katrin Ohlmer
50:41
I have not seen those "Questions raised" before....
Jorge Cancio
52:32
please consider my improed proposal
Emily Barabas
53:15
“terms beyond the 2012 AGB rules with geographic meaning (e.g. adjective forms of countries, such as „Swiss“) which may be identified as such with a modicum of diligence by the prospective applicant and/or after consulting, under confidentiality terms, the Advisory Geonames Panel, shall be subject to a contact obligation with the relevant public authorities, in order to put them on notice.”
Susan Payne
55:25
Object to the Advisory Geo Panel since we have not reached agreement to have such a thing
Susan Payne
55:51
haven't considered the proposal in full
Javier Rúa-Jovet
55:57
Thx for comment @Paul
Jorge Cancio
56:02
thanks Paul for a constructive reaction - let's discuss it on list
Matthew Johnson
56:26
Appreciate the comment Paul.
Justine Chew
56:49
The ALAC wishes to have more time to consider new proposals coming up recently.
Katrin Ohlmer
57:36
That applies to the geoTLD group as well.
Paul McGrady
58:09
Apologies, all, if I sounded terse. I just didn't want silence to be viewed as assent. Hopefully, I didn't trample anyone or anything in my haste.
Annebeth Lange
58:10
When we sent out the mail after the last meeting we asked for new ideas. Here we have one from Jorge. We should give us all one more week to think about this and discuss it at next meeting
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
58:59
@Paul - we understand.
Paul McGrady
01:02:16
@Jorge, thank you for your comments, which were very helpful. Lots to think about. I'll be better prepared for the next call and will consult with my IPC colleagues on this issue.
Marita Moll
01:02:57
Thanks for the explanation as it was not entirely clear to me
Yrjo Lansipuro
01:03:48
“Contact obligation” is not too much to ask. A simple matter of courtesy…
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
01:04:53
@Jorge - Is it your proposal that one would have to contact the applicable GAC rep for the country in which the geographic term could apply?
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
01:05:32
[I am asking a clarifying question, not voicing support or objection]
Jorge Cancio
01:05:47
it's just an example
Katrin Ohlmer
01:06:18
@Yrjo: Agree
Jorge Cancio
01:07:19
as I said it would be obviously geographic terms - why I taled of "modicum of diligence"
Susan Payne
01:07:28
if just an example, which was indeed how i read this, then strongly oppose for the reasons just given
Jorge Cancio
01:07:42
the text can be improved for sure!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:07:48
a bit muffled
Susan Payne
01:08:04
@Jorge, but what is that? your modicum of diligence may not be mine, or the geo panel's
Justine Chew
01:08:48
@Jorge, yes please! If the concerns raised can be addressed in a rewrite .... I can consult ALAC/At-Large on it.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:09:12
@all: Is a category of "national demonym of a country or territory" a non AGB geoname WT5 members could support?
Matthew Johnson
01:09:42
@Yrjo - A contact obligation may seem less demanding, but the language change to "shall" in the second example seems to indicate a stricter interpretation that the applicant would need more the Panel's approval.
Jorge Cancio
01:10:23
@Susan: I feel we need to make an effort to avoid that obvious geographic terms beyond AGB generate new conflicts just because they are applied without a contact between all parties
Christopher Wilkinson
01:10:49
I would have had several points to raise under the previous 5th bullet. Shall we return to that?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:11:17
I would think that applications that are identical to "national demonyms" could be objected to by community or public interest grounds
Jorge Cancio
01:12:30
we can define the level of minimal diligene (google the term, consult the UNGGE databases, consult wikipedia...) - an Advisory Geographic Panel could of course help, facilitating expertise...
Susan Payne
01:14:26
I would saty there has been significant disagreement on the email list
Katrin Ohlmer
01:15:22
If I recap the comments correctly, the opposition seems to come from WT5 members only representing the IPC.
Jaap Akkerhuis
01:15:39
(I have to drop of for another call within 5 minutes)
Jorge Cancio
01:16:03
@Matthew: if "shall" is a problem - let's work on that
Katrin Ohlmer
01:16:05
The BC stated already in their comment in the comment period, that they support this proposal.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:16:36
@Jorge: We can work on a better proposal.
Paul McGrady
01:16:41
Strong disagreement on these. It seems like a proposal designed to do an end run around the community based application process by granting communuty based priority without the scrutiny of community evaluation.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:16:56
I alos must drop now due to another call
Susan Payne
01:17:20
+1 Paul - absolutely right
Katrin Ohlmer
01:17:25
@Paul: Not really, it is not about prioritization.
Susan Payne
01:17:51
@Katrin in what way is this not about prioritisation?
Alexander Schubert
01:18:29
Paul: It's next to impossible to survive a CPE with a city-community. One city mnaged to do: but ONLY because their "opponent" didn't briefed the evaluator.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:18:45
@Susan: It is about reflecting national law and not setting up new priorities which woudl indeed be odd.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:19:27
To summarize, IPC members oppose the proposal, and other SO/AC members did not comment yet.
Alexander Schubert
01:20:27
Katrin is right: The only ones that oppose geo-prioritizations are the TM lobby....
Jorge Cancio
01:20:30
as Olga mentioned I see meit in A, Katrin :-)
Jorge Cancio
01:20:39
merit
Susan Payne
01:21:03
Actually I oppose this as a Regiistry (Brand). People wear multiple hats, you cannot pigeon hole them
Jorge Cancio
01:21:31
But I disagree on B i.e. with priorizing cities on population - let's stick to 2012 rules for such cases
Jorge Cancio
01:22:15
more time on A
Justine Chew
01:22:22
Again, the ALAC wishes to have more time to consider new proposals coming up recently.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:22:24
@Christopher: If you have a proposal how to incentivise governments how to reach agreements, please pt that forward on the list
Katrin Ohlmer
01:22:41
pt -> put
Paul McGrady
01:24:48
Toledo, Ohio, Founded 1833 AD Population 276,491 Toledo Spain. Founded 193 BC Population 84,282. This is the problem with trying to rank and give priorities under nearly any criteria. Too much possiblty for bizarre outcomes. Better to stick with the imperfect contention set resolution in the current AGB then to go down these weird paths.
Susan Payne
01:26:54
thank you for educating me on IP Christopher
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
01:27:10
@Christopher - to be fair, in the United States, there is no recognition of rights for Geographic Indications and no signs that there will be any time soon
Matthew Johnson
01:27:11
+1 Paul - Local law would not likely agree to ICANN attempting to interpret their own laws for them. Better for applicants to contend in the venues where the laws exist.
Susan Anthony
01:28:08
@Jeff Neuman: we protect GIs as Trademarks in the U.S.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:28:27
@Jeff: In other cuntries it is, so really depends on the location.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
01:28:40
Right, but they have to be filed as Trademarks
Katrin Ohlmer
01:28:48
cuntries->counties
Jorge Cancio
01:28:53
@Susan Anthony: I was about to mention that ;-)
Katrin Ohlmer
01:29:03
counties-> countries
Susan Anthony
01:29:27
@Jeff Neuman: don't have to be filed; we are a common law country in the U.S.
Paul McGrady
01:30:56
But there is an endless list of potetial issues. Christopher is worried about the proliferation of .wine disputes. But, the world is a weird place - for example, Eggnog, Utah (not kidding). https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eggnog,+UT+84533/@37.7724888,-110.8541832,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x87361324e480f78f:0xffba6869dfd9757f!8m2!3d37.7724896!4d-110.8454284
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
01:31:18
@Christopher - it is on the agenda of the PDP and will be tackled at the same time we tackle Reserved Names
Paul McGrady
01:31:56
We can't prep for every possible problem. We have to adopt principles that make sense and can handle 99% of the issues. Not chase down every corner case
Christopher Wilkinson
01:32:21
@Jeff: That is why the Articles of Incorporation refer to applicable local l<w.
Christopher Wilkinson
01:32:31
law
Emily Barabas
01:32:52
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb_w1kms_E9n29XL1_lw3Yp9XQ4TeCY/edit?ts=5ce64d6d#heading=h.j7jy935ryg4k
Matthew Johnson
01:33:56
@Christopher - Yes, however the balance in the statement must be considered. "ICANN must operate in a manner consistent with these Bylaws for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole...in conformity with principles of international law, conventions, and applicable local law". There are many considerations and must benefit the Internet community as a whole.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:36:29
Have to drop out, thank you all!
Susan Payne
01:37:33
Can you explain what you want from us please? This seems to be a summary of the different viewpoints - are we supposed to be flagging if this is inaccurate? These arent recommendations are they?
Christopher Wilkinson
01:38:10
I would need to read the summary document of public comment, not seen that since several months, Sorry.
Jorge Cancio
01:38:29
regarding page 32 and following I feel that co-leads should be specific and Limit discussion to those proposals that seem to have at least a critical mass of support according to the record
Annebeth Lange
01:39:20
@Martin, well said
Emily Barabas
01:39:28
@Susan: Based on the mix of feedback received on the proposals, the co-leaders do not believe that any will receive consensus support at this stage. If someone believes that the co-leaders are mistaken and one of them could achieve consensus support, they should raise this.
Jorge Cancio
01:39:29
it would help if you circulate such proposals onlist
Emily Barabas
01:40:06
to clarify these are old proposals that were included in the Initial Report for public comment
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:40:31
dropping off
Terri Agnew
01:41:38
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level call on Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:42:21
None from me
Jorge Cancio
01:42:30
Thanks very much all and bye!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:42:33
Ciao!
Annebeth Lange
01:42:41
Thanks all!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:42:45
Thanks all, Gracias @Olga!