See PDP WT5 Wiki for details: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-02-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5min)

2. Update since last meeting (5min)

• ToR completed. (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Terms+of+Reference[community.icann.org]) 
• Webinar prepared for WT5 members - History of Geographic Names at the Top Level at ICANN (8th Feb, 19:00 UTC).

3. Review of existing defined geographic terms (70min)

A spreadsheet was circulated to WT5 members 1 Feb which lists all of the individual geographic terms that were included in the AGB, together with the treatment determined by 2007 GNSO policies/principles and the treatment applied in the final AGB. The document can be accessed here - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQu91FDqo/edit#gid=358523414[docs.google.com].

WT5 will focus on each of the terms listed in column A of the spreadsheet, which are all the terms included in the existing AGB. 

For each item, we will be discussing:

a) if it is a valid geographic term for the purposes of new gTLDs 

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

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

Please ensure comments are relevant to these points and note that we will not be discussing future treatment at this stage.  However, the information gathered will help to inform our discussions at subsequent meetings. 

4. Additional geographic terms (5min)

Members will be invited to submit additional geographic terms that are not covered by the existing terms. These will be considered at a subsequent WT5 meeting.

5. AOB (5min)

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

ACTION ITEM 1: Communicate to Work Track 2 that number-letter and letter-number codes are out of scope for Work Track 5.

ACTION ITEM 2: WT members should the annex of the AGB, Module 2, to the list relating to "Separable Country Name List".  The separable names list is available beginning on page 88 here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf

Notes:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates: No updates to SOIs.

2. Update since last meeting:

-- ToR completed. (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Terms+of+Reference[community.icann.org])

-- Webinar prepared for WT5 members - History of Geographic Names at the Top Level at ICANN (8th Feb, 19:00 UTC).

3. Review of existing defined geographic terms:

Slide 6: Review of existing defined geographic names

Discussion points:

a) is it a valid geographic terms 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?

Summary of terms we will discuss today: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQu91FDqo/edit#gid=358523414

Slide 7: 2.2.1.3.2 DNS Stability: String Review Procedure

Alpha-2 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard

Example: AF for Afghanistan

Policy:

Discussion:

-- When we say this was adopted to avoid conflict with current and future country codes based on the ISO 3166-1 -- was the concern about misdirected traffic, competition, or both?

-- It is not just that it is already a ccTLD, ones that have not yet been registered are also not available for registration because countries change names, so it is a relatively small number of two letter combination.

-- Might be interesting to understand the volume of additions to the two-letter list.  Blocking access to all two-letter characters, but we may not actually use all of them.

-- ICANN needs the ISO to provide their policy on the use of codes that have not yet been assigned.

-- ISO 3166 there is an understanding that ICANN conforms to the list and will only use that for ccTLDs.  The understanding goes back to 2000.  If you want to use it for something else then you need to get ICANN to change that understanding/policy.  You cannot pick and choose elements from the standard that you like and disregard those you don't like.

-- aa.com was mentioned -- that was an example of a two-letter code that was reserved to the public; it cannot be assigned to a country as it is exempted.

-- Need to distinguish between two-letter codes from number-letter, letter-number, number-number, as they don't fall within ISO 3166.  Can't say that all two-letter codes operate as ccTLDs. 

-- Is it reasonable still to use 3166 as a basis for policy requirements?  Is this a good list to include in the geo terms? 

-- The AGB and the policy said said two-letter alpha codes were not allowed -- but the slide says, "two-character ASCII strings".   What is the actual language in the policy?  "Part III - Policy Requirements for Generic Top-Level Domains – These requirements apply to all prospective top- level domain strings applied for as gTLDs.3.1 Applied-for gTLD strings in ASCII must be composed of three or more visually distinct characters. Two- character ASCII strings are not permitted, to avoid conflicting with current and future country codes based on the ISO 3166-1 standard."

-- Negative impact and opportunities lost -- don't have the answer to that.  Don't see any reason for why this is not a good list.

Positive impact/merits based on the treatment in the AGB:

-- Consistent rule that was easy to apply and was objective.

-- Question to ask: should we limit the two-character restriction to letter-letter combinations?  Or should we allow number-letter, letter-number combinations?  Consider the letter-number combinations as out of scope -- would need to say this before Work Track 2 would take it up.  Isn't there a current prohibition against numbers in TLD strings? (2.2.1.1.3.2 (1.2.1) But we are only looking at geographic terms.

-- Longstanding rule that domains should not start or end with numbers. 

ACTION: Communicate to Work Track 2 that number-letter and letter-number codes are out of scope for Work Track 5.

Slide 8: 2.2.1.4.1 Country or Territory Names

Alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166 standard

Example: AFG for afghanistan

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

AGB: Not available as gTLDs.

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

-- Unlike the alpha two codes, only the alpha three codes -- it is undeniable to say that there is a geographic connection.

-- Refer to the application for .bar -- treated as a geographic term because it is in 3166, then three-letter country names are even more valid.

-- We are NOT talking right now about how we treat the 3 character codes.  We are just talking about whether there is a connection between  3 characters and geographic terms. 

-- Not a question that .com broke the rule since there wasn't a rule.  How we treat them is something we need to discuss clearly, but we do know that the 3-letter codes are in the ISO list to designate countries, but not to say that they get the same treatment.

-- As far as the three-letter codes listed at the time it makes sense to consider them as geographic terms; but all three-letter codes that aren't on the list wouldn't get the same treatment.

-- ccNSO has a detailed policy on this matter.

-- ISO 3166 doesn't belong to ICANN, so ICANN should formally request from ISO a response on these questions.

-- On negative/opportunities lost -- we can't answer that.  Very few opportunities on there.  ICANN wasn't gathering data.

-- There are some brands on that list, but they knew they couldn't apply.  The 3-letter combinations included some common words and abbreviations.

-- GIN would have been applied for but it was blocked.

-- Positive impact is that the alpha-three is strongly associated with a country name as a common abbreviation.

-- Permutations also are not allowed -- such as AFR and FRA -- bit of overprotection: "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.”

-- Applicants that may have reached agreement with the respective "owner" of the 3-letter were banned.

2.2.1.4.1 Country or Territory Names

Long-form name in the ISO 3166-standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language

Example: The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

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

AGB: Not available as gTLD.

Discussion:

-- It is a reference point, but they are not always right, and depending on other sources and may be different than what is in use.  Can only treat it as a source, not the source.

-- Positive impact:  It was an easy, objective standard to follow

-- It was predictable.

-- Negative Impact: If a country wanted to apply for their long name as TLD, they were not allowed.

Slide 10: 2.2.1.4.1 Country or Territory Names

Short-form name in the ISO 3166-standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language.

Example: Afghanistan

Policy: Available, but challenge mechanism.

AGB: Not available

Slide 11: 2.2.1.4.1 Country or Territory Names

Short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as "exceptionally reserved" by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency

Example: UK for United Kingdom

Policy: Available but challenge mechanism

AGB: Not available

Discussion:

-- A better example could be EU for European Union.

Slide 12: 2.2.1.4.1 Country or Territory Names

Separable component of a country name designated on the "Separable Country Name List" or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language, according to annex in AGB.

Example: Aoland, separable component of Aland islands.

Policy: Available with challenge mechanism

AGB: Not available

The separable names list is available beginning on page 88 here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf

Discussion:

-- Would want to review the list before stating an opinion.

-- WT members should review the separable names list.

Slide 20: Additional geographic terms

-- Members will be invited to submit additional geographic terms that are not covered by the existing terms. These will be considered at a subsequent WT5 meeting.

-- These are potential geographic names, but for the purpose of WT5 that these are not yet geographic names.

4. AOB:

1. Board discussion on Geo Names:

-- At the Board Workshop there was a public session on geo names.  These sessions are informational; no decision making.  Session to inform the Board of the work that is going on here and the status, open questions and issues, projections for when the Board would need to look at the outcome.

2. Work Plan and ICANN61:

-- Leadership is developing a Work Plan for discussion by the WT.

-- Developing the program for the WT5 session at ICANN61.