[Ctn-crosscom] Response on action points CTN call 11 January 2016

Mon Jan 18 17:09:46 UTC 2016

Dear all,

Please note that my input for future discussion on the action points raised
during the January 11th CTN call is that the simplest, and possibly most
acceptable, resolution would be:

Status Quo?

1. Maintain all currently delegated 2 and 3 character strings as having
"grandfathered status".

2. Provide "sovereign status" to all countries and territories in the complete
ISO 3166-1 encoding list of the countries which are assigned official
codes. These 2 and/or 3 character strings to be reserved; used; or licensed
for use as TLDs by the listed country or territory, for whatever purpose
has been determined by (or may be determined in the future by) the ISO...
 on a one time, irrevocable basis.

3. Any non-delegated (and non-ISO 3166-1 listed) 2 or 3 character strings
to be available for delegation as a Top Level Domain under the current (or
any future) ICANN delegation process and conditions.

N.B. This subject addresses only Top Level Domain names and does not
address issues related to domain names at the second or lower levels.

Best regards,
Ron Sherwood

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at uninett.no>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Please find my tentative answers on behalf of the Norwegian ccTLD .no
> to the questions posed after our last CTN call.
>
> Kind regards,
> Annebeth
>
> *Annebeth B. Lange*
>
> *Head of Legal and Policy*
>
> *UNINETT Norid AS*
>
> *P.O.Box 6979 St. Olavs plass*
>
> *NO-0130 Oslo*
>
>
> *annebeth.lange at uninett.no <annebeth.lange at uninett.no> *
>
> *Mobile: +47 959 11 559*
>
>
> From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org>
> Date: Tuesday 12 January 2016 10:17
> 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 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*
>
> *S*taff 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160118/e581a305/attachment-0001.html>