[Ctn-crosscom] Informal notes CTN call 11 January 2016

Fri Feb 12 17:46:26 UTC 2016

In response to the action items from the last meeting

2. The diversity of responses does not really surprise or concern me.  I think it demonstrates that we are flushing out a full range of views, although I do consequently have some doubts on whether we will be able to reach any consensus position.

3.  Whilst I found the staff summary with the pie charts a really useful overview, they do rather simplify the range of views, in that sometimes the answer "no" is for diametrically opposed reasons.  Taking Q2 as an example, should 3 letter codes be allocated as gTLDs where not on the ISO list, the GNSO respondents have said "no" because they believe all 3-letter codes should be allocated to gTLDs regardless of whether on the ISO list.  When you look at other respondents, however, they also may be saying "no" but in some cases because they think no further 3-letter codes should be allocated for use to gTLDs (eg .pa), or because they think other restrictions besides the ISO list might rule out additional names (eg .hk response).

I had been considering suggesting some revision to the staff summary to reflect these nuances therefore, although was reluctant to suggest further work on this.  Having read Heather's suggested way forward I think that this would be a really sensible approach since it would allow us to identify where there are common views.  I support Heather's suggestion therefore.

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy, Valideus Ltd
susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>

Sent from my iPad

On 19 Jan 2016, at 23:03, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>> wrote:

Dear CWG colleagues,

Please find my responses to our action items from our meeting of 11 January.

1. Check summary of responses: On behalf of the IPC, I confirm that the IPC's comments are fully captured in the table prepared by Lars and circulated to the CWG on 8 January.

2. Diversity of responses: I fully expected a broad range of responses based on earlier discussions on 3-letter codes within the ccNSO Study Group. I believe the fact that we received such a diversity of responses reflects positively in that the community is engaged with our work and they have had an opportunity to voice views on this challenging topic, even if that makes our work more challenging.

3. Proposal for how to move forward:

  *   Step 1: Review comments received to determine whether there are any commonalities across responses.
  *   Step 2: Draft one-paragraph summaries of the responses to each question. Avoid attributing significance to the quantity of responses or characterising responses as, for example, GNSO vs ccNSO. Focus on comments which include rationale, rather than comments that do not expressly provide rationale or whose rationale is limited to 'maintain status quo simply because it is status quo'. Plan to complete this for presentation to the CWG at Marrakech.
  *   Step 3: Communicate our work on 2- and 3-letter codes to the newly formed GNSO Policy Development Process on Next Round Procedures and establish communications links with the PDP to ensure the CWG's work is taken into consideration in the PDP.

With very best wishes to all,

Heather

________________________________
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org> <ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel at icann.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 20:17
To: ctn-crosscom at icann.org<mailto: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 quo” 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

_______________________________________________
Ctn-crosscom mailing list
Ctn-crosscom at icann.org<mailto: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/20160212/ac041fbb/attachment-0001.html>