See PDP WT5 Wiki for details: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-05-23+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5

Action Items:  WT5 members should continue the discussion on the list and review the full chat from this call when it comes out.

Notes:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates.

2. Administration/capturing and managing input – compilation document

-- How to keep up with all the comments on the email list?  We will compile comments and ideas – not a position paper – and will share the document once it is prepared.

-- Outcome of this process (discussion of what happened in 2012 and the flow charts) is to find solutions for how to improve the processes.

-- The compilation document will be sent out later after the Co-Leaders have reviewed it.

-- Geographic names that were not in any of the lists – if we stick to the lists we may have the same problem as previous rounds.

-- Re: having an advisory panel: need to have a way to check if the name has a relevance for the community.

-- Really appreciate the email conversations.

-- Trying to determine a way forward.  Trying to pick out the things that are new and are reinforced in conversations.

From the chat:

-- from kavouss arasteh to All Participants: Advisory panel is just to assists the people and should have sufficient knowledge and background which enable it to provide correct and valid advice

-- from Javier Rua Jovet to All Participants: Thank you for comment, Kavouss

-- from Annebeth Lange to All Participants: Kavouss, this idea will be taken into the compilation document

from Jorge Cancio to All Participants: @Olga: the possible Advisory Board would help applicants at a very early stage to determine if their intended string has a geographic meaning, even if it is not within the specific categories established in the AGB... this would raise predictability and avoid conflicts popping up further down the road...

-- from Greg Shatan to All Participants: Before we get to the idea of an Advisory Panel, we need to determine when the existence of a geographic term is relevant at all.  The Advisory Panel can’t just sit with  a huge Atlas at hand and say that every name in the index is relevant.

3. Process Mechanisms

Slide 17: Preventative Protections – Geographic names

-- Need to work through how to make useful rules for the next round.

-- Question: What does always mean in this statement: “Certain types of Geographic Names alwaysrequired governmental support or non-objection:”?  Answer: These specific terms in the AGB required governmental support whether or not that was the intent.  For example, in slide 19: “Certain types of Geographic Names only required governmental support or non-objection depending on intended use”.

-- How to align the policy with the public interest?  The 2012 AGB seems to be clear that certain strings are protected.  Then there were other strings that you needed government support.  Where you needed government support you had an impotent list – such as UN regions.  If we protect cities or sub-regions should we not try to protect not to many to not prevent applications to go forward.  Every protection you make with harm others.

-- If we have generic terms then it is harder to address how protections should be applied.

-- Context and clarification on the slides:  They are intended to capture the 2012 process, not to try to determine whether that was appropriate as an implementation.  The intention was to show that every geographic name went through the review process, whether that was the intent, based on the evaluation of the geographic review panel.

-- First, understand what we are protecting and why, then say what we are preventing, and the correct mechanism for doing it.  Then think about whether we’ve got the right language around prevention.

-- We’ll park the flow charts as a representation of the process and use it as a basis for the conversation as we move forward.

-- As we go down the scale from capital cities, how much protection should be provided to other geographic names (places, rivers, etc.).

From the chat:

-- from Heather Forrest to All Participants: On what basis are we requiring government support or non-objection - if 'public interest', how do we define this explicitly so applicants understand why they are required to provide this information?

-- from Greg Shatan to All Participants: @Annebeth, understood, which is why saying always and then emphasizing it seems overblown.

-- from Annebeth Lange to All Participants: @ Greg, agreed

-- from Jorge Cancio to All Participants: Policy has to pursue the global public interest, through a multi-stakeholder process, considering the interests of all parties involved, and also of the communities most affected...

-- from Javier Rua Jovet to All Participants: Greg, point taken.  This language shall be corrected.

-- from Jorge Cancio to All Participants: I object to the framing of open vs. closed or between market and restriction. The issue at stake is to have all interests involved in early stages of the process. As said many times, the non-objection letter allows for many outcomes that are a positive-sum outcome for all (applicants and public authorities). The success of the overwhelming majority of geoTLDs shows this is a good framework...

-- from Katrin Ohlmer to All Participants: We should amend the headline to reflect the AGB2012 properly - e.g. Categories of Geographic Names Requiring Government Support instead of making an judgement like "Preventative Protections"

-- from Jorge Cancio to All Participants: +1 Katrin (more precisely: "requiring Public authorities' "non objection"")

-- from Christopher Wilkinson on  (reconnecting) to All Participants: 1. All geo names are potentially protectable. Granularity and exceptions will have to be negotiated with governments. 2.  What are the existing brands/TMs which cincide with geo-names? There are manyu, but not in relation to the totality of geo-names. 3.  My only substantive comment on the 2012 slides (which id not a repeatable procedure) is to delete the loophole for non-geo use.