[Ctn-crosscom] notes taken during the CWG-UCTN call on 29 august at 21 UTC

Tue Aug 30 17:13:15 UTC 2016

Please accept my apologies. I was sitting up waiting for the call and fell
asleep at my desk.
Jacqueline Morris

On 30 Aug 2016 03:55, "Joke Braeken" <joke.braeken at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find the notes taken during the CWG-UCTN call on 29 august at 21
> UTC below.
>
> The most recent version of the strawman paper, as shown during the call,
> will be shared with the WG list shortly.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Joke Braeken
>
>
>
>
>
> CWG – Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains
>
> Monday 29 August 2016 at 21:00 UTC
>
>
>
> *Agenda*
>
>
>
> 1.      Welcome
>
> 2.      Discussion strawman paper post-Helsinki
>
> 3.      Next call
>
> 4.      AOB
>
>
>
> *Apologies*
>
>
>
> Laura Watkins, Paul Szyndler, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Sanna
> Sahlman, Ron Sherwood
>
>
>
> *Notes *
>
>
>
> Chair: Heather Forrest.
>
> Role call
>
>
>
> First meeting since F2F in Helsinki.  draft strawman
> paper was sent out.  Comments by Heather Forrest, Annebeth Lange, Susan
> Payne.
>
> This WG has 4 co-chairs, but unfortunately there is
> an overlap with another call, so only 2 co-chairs are
> present at the meeting today.
>
>
>
> Helsinki: cross-community forum on topic of geographic names
>
>
>
> Strawman paper was commented by the co-chairs and some participants
>
> Any comments?
>
>
>
> Susan Payne:
>
> No substantive comments, but those included relate to the final part with
> the recommendations.
>
> If this group decides it cannot develop a harmonized framework, in the
> recommendations we should include who should do it.
> Suggestion is to go to PDP on Subsequent Procedures
>
>
>
> Heather:
>
> we should clarify the rationale for the recommendations.
>
> Concern about setting up as CCWG: CCWG has an uncertain form
>
> but uncertain as to PDP
>
> But not PDP body by itself
>
>
>
> Annebeth:
>
> Difficult to find to a way forward. Agree that output
> needs to included in PDP's
>
> Most logical that it will be PDP
>
> Be mindful that others may need to have a say on par
>
> Agree on way forward that there is a result
>
>
>
> Cheryl:
>
> As particpant in Subsequent procedure. A specific need for balanced input
>
> Not necessary bias to specific part or interests
>
> Equal participation needs to be warranted.
>
>
>
> Heather:
>
> sensitive to concern about representation
>
>
>
> Certain groups in the community might need to be able to participate for
> various reasons, for example competing efforts
>
>
>
> However not a structural problem.
>
> PDP charter
>
> Flaws this group limited charter.
>
> Because dealing with harmonised framework should be broader.
>
>
>
> Annebeth:
>
> Difficult for other stakeholders to participate in PDP by the GNSO.  it
> feels like foreign territory.  How can we work even better together?
>
>
>
> Bart:
>
> 2 observations:
>
> 1. limited framework is first and foremost an issue for
> participants in this WG from the GNSO side. The ccNSO does
> not have issues with other geographic names. But to move
> this fwd, it needs the support of all groups. it is
> really a GNSO issue, not a ccNSO
>
> 2. staff support on PDP for selection of IDN ccTLDs.
> moving forward, there might be some overlap between the
> subsequent round, and the work of this WG. Overlap and definitions.
>
>
>
> Heather:
>
> Cheryl’s comment regarding motivation. PDP’s meet weekly.
>   there is pressure to do things in a timely way. Monthly webinars for
> newcomers. How to participate in WGs, and in the work of the GNSO?
>
>
>
> Annebeth:
>
> webinars are useful. groups such as ccNSO and GAC are
> interested in a few of the total aspects that are of
> interest of the GNSO. too overwhelming to follow it all.
>
>
>
> Heather:
>
> Reference to our talk with Jeff Neumann in Helsinki. their charter
> covers the issues related to geographic names more broadly.
>
> ability to deal with things in more substantive ways.
>
> Work Stream 2 deals with this issue.  We could go back to
> the leadership of the workstream and the PDP working group, whether it
> could be consolidated into a substream.
>
>
>
> Cheryl Langdon Orr:
>
> agrees this is a good idea. Definite and proactive approach, to look for
> opportunities to have specified outreach and engagement.  We need to make
> sure we are as inclusive as possible.
>
>
>
> Bart:
>
> using the PDP on subsequent procedures does not resolve
> that in some areas (full names of countries), there
> will be an overlap with a policy remit of another SO (
> the ccNSO in this case). if something comes out that
> affects the ccNSO policy, that needs to be avoided.
> That is why this CWG was created: trying to avoid
> overlap between policy remits. However, it seems that a
> harmonized framework is not possible. So this was raised as
> a future concern.
>
>
>
> Heather:
>
> in the AGB are other areas of overlap probably.  engage the
> SO's involved.
>
>
>
> *Next steps:*
>
>
>
> strawman paper: progress report to be finalised and to be
> sent out to the community.  WG members are invited to
> take time to raise comments, or questions Everything
> that may impact the draft, should be sent to the list, as comments inside
> the document itself, not included in the body of an email.  Deadline: in 2
> weeks.
>
>
>
> Timeline: next F2F meeting in Hyderabad.
>
> process: desire to have some conclusion on where we are
> with this before Hyderabad.  2 weeks on the list to review
> the comments, and to respond to questions. I n the next call we will
> discuss the next version of the draft. that should allow
> us to make it to the deadline.
>
>
>
> Nigel Cassimire
>
> agrees with the proposal.  We should agree on a way forward.
>
> perhaps include clearer articulations agreed upon
>
>
>
> Strawman background, contextual information would be helpful and should be
>  included: footnotes should not just include the URL, but be more
> detailed.
>
>
>
> *Action Items*
>
>
>
> 1.       Staff to 2 present 2 documents at the next meeting:
> substantive document + progress report post Helsinki.
>
> 2.       WG members to comment on the strawman paper to date. Deadline:
> 12 September
>
>
>
> Next call: TBD
>
>
>
> Joke Braeken
>
> ccNSO Policy Advisor
>
> joke.braeken at icann.org
>
>
>
> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
>
> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
>
> http://ccnso.icann.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ctn-crosscom mailing list
> Ctn-crosscom at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160830/40530f6a/attachment-0001.html>