[Ctn-crosscom] Reminder: Review Action Items and Feedback For Next Monday's Call

Tue Feb 9 17:43:42 UTC 2016

Dear all,

Just to note that we have received very limited feedback on the documents 
which we will take as support for them (unless we hear otherwise before our
next meeting). 

If you have any suggestion on how to proceed from here on out, please also
share that with the Group. We will make a proposal on next steps during
Monday¹s call but your early feedback would be much appreciated.

Many thanks and best wishes,
Lars

From:  <ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Lars HOFFMANN
<lars.hoffmann at icann.org>
Date:  Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 08:50
To:  "ctn-crosscom at icann.org" <ctn-crosscom at icann.org>
Subject:  [Ctn-crosscom] Review Action Items and Monday's call cancellation

Dear all,

Please make sure to review the documents and share any concerns, as per the
Action Items below:
1. Check summary of responses document to check if responses are captured
properly

2. Is the diversity of responses a concern for you (and why)?

3. Please provide a suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of
the diversity

Note, that only three responses have been submitted so far. Following a
discussion among the co-Chairs we will postpone our next meeting to Monday 8
February 2016 21:00 UTC.

Many thanks and best wishes,
Lars

From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel
<bart.boswinkel at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, 12 January 2016 at 02:17
To: "ctn-crosscom at icann.org" <ctn-crosscom at icann.org>
Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Informal notes CTN call 11 January 2016

Dear all,

Please find included the informal notes from yesterdays call. The chat and
recoding will be published separately.

Please also note the Action item for all.

Kind regards,

Bart

Action all: 

1. Check summary of responses document to check if responses are captured
proporely?

2. Is the diversity of responses a concern for you (and why)?

3. Please provide a suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of
the diversity

Request to share on email list (the sooner the better)

Staff will not summarise the responses to the 3 questions above.

Next meeting:  25 January 2016, 21.00 UTC

Informal Notes

--------------------------------------------------

CWG  Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains  Monday 11
January 2016 at 2100 UTC

1. Welcome

2. Tour de Table on community feedback (esp. Staff overview/analysis paper)

3. Next steps, incl work plan until Marrakech

4. AOB

1. Welcome

No  Apologies received

First meeting in 2016

Summary of community feed-back on Survey on 3-letter codes as TLDs.

Survey is NOT a public comment process, but gathering information.

By Dublin, few responses, following the Dublin meeting several additional
responses. To date still awaiting 3 responses

It was important as prep for this meeting. All to look at summary of
comments.

Important to note that all responses are captured in original wording, they
have NOT been changed.

2. Tour de Table on community feedback (esp. Staff overview/analysis paper)

Lars to provide overview

Document based on feed-back received. Other, second document includes full
submissions. Caveat, not all responses received yet

>From page 3 onwards summary overview of responses.

Staff observation: GNSO realtively cohesive, compared to ccTLD responses (
see overview).

Some of the arguments are more a justification of desired outcome.

Group is advised to work other way around. Start from existing policy and
then move into what is needed

Emphasise: no changes made to input recevied.

When you go through to comments, NOTE this is NOT a public comment. It is a
starting point for discussion. Feed-back not be treated as comment in Public
comment process

Tour de table

Heather Forrest: What is helpful from piechart overviews: wide range of
input. No unanimaty from community. Secondly note some of responses are
constituency based, for example the IPC. They reflect view of larger group.
Example: from GNSO input per constituency, consituency could reflect more
then one entity

Ohter comments?

Move forward as with two-letter ?

Check general principles?

Annebeth Lange Members asked to share their views. Members should share
their thoughts. (From chat) Co-chairs, really need you as WG members to come
with your views. We are here as facilitators, but it is difficult without
comments from you. Lars and his team have done an excellent job to summarize
and tried to make an analysis, but we really need your views on that.

Carlos: Co-chairs are interested in putting for a strawman bfeore Marrakesh
meeting.

Laura Hutchinson (from chat): I support the idea of using the document
created by staff as a starting point.  The strawman document worked very
well for the first part of our work so think it would make sense to follow
that method again this time.

General discussion: What policy rationale can drive the outcome. Need to
defend the recommendation

No uniform position. Be careful what policy can drive

Suggestion for change: First goal is whether it is possible to define a
framework? Is it possible to find a common ground

Defintion in CTN documents should reflect purpose in charter: not to develop
policy. The terms are "Feasibility" and "definitional framework"

Paul Szyndler:  Staff needs guidance to start work. It is in remit of CTN to
talk about agreed principles. An acceptable outcome could also be that there
is no acceptable set of principles.

Action all: 

1. Check if responses are captured proporely?

2. Concern is there is diversity?

3. Suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of the diversity

Request to share on email list (the sooner the better)

Staff will not summarise the responses ot 3 questions.

3. Next steps, incl work plan until Marrakech

Based on responses to 3 questions, chart work to Marrakesh

Include general observations in document what "status quo² means for use of
3 letter-codes as TLDs. Working definition of status quo: Confirm policies
and their implementation (add examples of 3 -letter codes, including
overview/number of 3-letter codes resulting from new gTLD process and Fast
Track process).

4. AOB

Staff support: Understanding that GAC would like to have meeting with
leadership of the group ( tentatively and preferably on Sunday afternoon, 6
March 2016).

Suggestion: not to make it a leadership meeting from CTN side.

Staff understanding: Whole of the GAC, needs to be confirmed.

No further comments.

Closure at 21.55

Next meeting 25 January 2016, 21.00 UTC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160209/24deeee6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CWG-UCTN_community_response_staff_overview& analysis[1].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 680389 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160209/24deeee6/CWG-UCTN_community_response_staff_overviewanalysis1-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3-character-Overview_Q1-4-20160121.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 157390 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160209/24deeee6/3-character-Overview_Q1-4-20160121-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3-character-Overview_Q5-7-20160121.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 125852 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160209/24deeee6/3-character-Overview_Q5-7-20160121-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5091 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160209/24deeee6/smime-0002.p7s>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160209/24deeee6/ATT00001-0001.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5091 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160209/24deeee6/smime-0003.p7s>