See PDP WT5 Wiki for details: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-02-21+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates (5 mins) 


2. Changes to WT5 Leadership (5 mins) 


3. Review of existing defined geographic terms (65 mins) (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQu91FDqo/edit#gid=976415709[docs.google.com])

4. Additional geographic terms (10 mins)  


5. AOB (5 mins) 

Notes/ Action Items

1. SOI Updates: No updates.

2. Changes to WT5 Leadership (5 mins)

-- Christopher Wilkinson stepped down as a Co-Leader representing the ALAC; Javier Rua-Jovet has joined as Co-Leader from the ALAC.

3. Review of existing defined geographic terms (65 mins) (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQu91FDqo/edit#gid=976415709[docs.google.com])

Slide 5: Review of existing defined geographic names

a) Is it a valid geographic term for the purposes of new gTLDs?

b) What were the positive impact/merits based on the treatment applied to the term in the AGB?

c) What were the negative impact/opportunities lost based on the treatment applied to the term in the AGB?

Slide 7: Permutation or transposition of any of the names on the list

Policy: Available, but challenge mechanism to government to initiate an objection.

AGB: Not available as gTLD.

Excerpt for Reference: 2012 AGB section 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names:

Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this application round. A string shall be considered to be a country or territory name if: i. it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. ii. it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language. iii. it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language. iv. it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. v. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module.

...It is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.”vii. it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization.

Discussion:

-- Should try to find examples and use them to see if this is necessary.

-- The transposition part of it should only apply to long forms of names, not short forms. 

-- Looked at ordering of words, not letters within words.

-- Consider removing this since we have the objection process.

-- Are there examples of problems with this in the last round?  Lost opportunities: Couldn't apply because of this rule?  None identified that we are aware of.

-- Does this also apply to translations?

From the chat:

Justine Chew: Someone brought up the example of NER before ?

Emily Barabas: Nick Wenban-Smith mentioned this example on the last call: NER is the alpha 3 for Niger, but .REN is a new gTLD under the 2012 round.

Susan Payne GNSO/IPC: We discussed 3 letter codes last week and staff confirmed that they had not interpreted this provision in a way that would allow re-ordering of 3 letter codes.  which makes complete sense

Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: I agree, Susan

Emily Barabas: (three letter transposition)

Steve Chan: In line with other comments, Short Form does not refer to the alpha-3 code

jeff neuman (SubPro PDP Co-Chair): Right, just want to make sure we are clear

Slide 8: Name by which a country is commonly known

Example is Holland for the Netherland

Policy: Available, but challenge mechanism to governments to initiate an objection.

AGB: Not available as gTLD.

Positive Impacts: predictable.

Negative Impacts:

-- Any experience of any countries applying?

-- Do we want to prohibit a country from applying for its own common name?

-- Similar to the short and long-form names on the previous call.

Slide 9: Representation, in any language, of a capital city name of any country or territory listed in ISO 3166-1

Examples: London-Londres-Llundian/Berlin-Berlijn-Berlino

Policy: Available, but challenge mechanism to governments to initiate an objection.

AGB: Requiring support/non-objection from relevant governments or public authorities.

Positive Impacts: Predictable and worked well.

Negative Impacts:

-- Hard to find the appropriate contact/authority in the relevant government or public authority.

-- The problem with this was two-fold...the length of time meant that quite often political representatives changed and the second was resolving competing applicant bids in a way that was easily assessed...

-- We could make it easier for applicant to find the relevant authority. GAC should be of help here - at least for the countries attending ICANN.

Slide 10: City name, used for purposes associated with the city name.

Examples: Bath, Florence, Frankfurt

Policy: Available, but challenge mechanism to government to initiate an objection.

AGB: Requiring support/non-objection from relevant governments or public authorities.

Negative Impacts:

-- There are quite a few cities with the same name, and many cities with generic-type word names.  Not sure how cities could be restricted by ICANN.

-- Cities are geonames, but sometimes also generic names and brands.

-- Problem could be that the use changed. If applyed for as not used for city, but still were

-- No established list -- so who determines if a city is a city?

Slide 11: City name, used for other purposes

Examples: Bath, Florence, Frankfurt, Spa

Policy: Available, but challenge mechanism to government to initiate an objection.

AGB: No requirements

Negative Impacts: Subsequent changes to operation of a TLD that started out as a non-geographic purpose.

Slide 12: Exact match of a sub-national place name, such as a country, provide, or state listed in ISO 3166-2

Example: Badakhshan (AF-BDS) in Afghanistan

Policy: Available, but challeng mechanism to governments to initiate an objection.

AGB" Requiring support/non-objection from relevant governments or public authorities.

Negative Impacts: 

-- Similar to city names in terms of practical implementation. 

-- Thinking about how the policy is applied and implemented.

-- Signficant variation from GNSO Council adopted policy.  Should be flagged and addressed.  Look at whether the AGB worked.

From the chat:

Elsa Saade: some territories are not represented as a "sovereign government" that could possibly have representation in GAC for instance

Elsa Saade: Western Sahara for instance

Elsa Saade: there are territories that are "contested" and the example of Western Sahara is a good one I'd say

Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): like my “Territory”: Puerto Rico (PR)

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre LACRALO: +1 Annebeth

Goma Serge Parfait: but what can be te case of congo bassin?

Robin Gross: Agree that we must focus on what falls under the definition of geo term for these purposes first.

Goma Serge Parfait: is like not a country or a state

Goma Serge Parfait: is not a country

Ann-Cathrin Marcussen, ccNSO 2: Thank you for clearifying this, Annebeth - I wil lreapet that in my view this is clearly geographic term

Alan Greenberg: Generic  is in DNS terms, anything other than ccTLDs.

Liz Williams: @Martin...just a thought...where do we put things like africa which is a continent and a collection of countries...I may have missed this but it was a very difficult example as we all know...

Greg Shatan: Maybe we should find out how .asia was delegated.

Paul McGrady: There are some really common terms out there in the US for counties: Baker, Barber, Bath, Bond, Butler, Canyon, etc. 

Christopher Wilkinson: @Kavrous: .EU was delegated to the EU with the agreement of all the Member States.

jeff neuman (SubPro PDP Co-Chair): .asia got the majority of the active ccTLDs at the time to agree

Justine Chew: That's REGION under the next point

Alexander Schubert 2: I think you needed 70 of the nations supporting the regionial application (.frica)

Liz Williams: With respect to .europe, we could explore what happened with the establishment of .eu...

Alexander Schubert 2: (.africa)

Justine Chew: @Alexander: 60%

jeff neuman (SubPro PDP Co-Chair): It wasnot all of the countries, no.  BUt no one objected

Liz Williams: @Kavouss...it was a small group of countries and people that came together to agreement on it. 

Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: .EU is very special, because it is considered a ccTLD, but is actually a TLD for the Union, not for the geographic Europe

Alexander Schubert 2: Thanks  Justine!

Justine Chew: 60% + no more than 1 objection

Liz Williams: @Annebeth...yes I agree with you but I think the principles are useful to look act particularly with respect to agreement of countries, consistent policies, serving the needs of a very distinct but diverse group. 

avri doria: Paul, your musical?

jeff neuman (SubPro PDP Co-Chair): .asia had the support of the ccTLDs for China, Iran, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Phillippines and a bunch of technology pan-asian groups like APTLD, AAPNIC, etc.