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

[Sahlman Sanna]

Dear all,

Please find my tentative answers on behalf of the Finnish ccTLD .fi to our action items.

------
1. Check summary of responses document to check if responses are captured properly

It is hard to check if responses are captured properly, because not all respondent have answered by "yes" or "no" (e.g. we Finns).
To clarify .fi registry's answers, the short answers would be 1.) No, 2.) Yes, 3.) No, 4.) Yes, 5.) No, 6.) Yes. 

I would also like to agree with Annebeth's opinion regarding General observations. "It could possibly be clearer if observation 2, instead of writing “status quo”, using the phrase, “Allowing 3-letter combinations not conflicting with ISO 3166-1 and not conflicting with any applicable string similarity rules – as gTLDs”. Status quo to day according to AGB is that those on ISO 3166-1 list are protected –all other 3-letter combinations are available as gTLDs."

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

Diversity of responses is not a concern for .fi. It is important to show this diversity by clear visual elements (diagram/graft/chart).

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

I think that in the current graphics (in the summary document) the amount of "Unsure" answers is confusing. Should the WG send another questionnaire, where the questions were more clear and the respondent could only answer "yes" or "no" and then rationalize the answer (if necessary)? The questionnaire could be an electronic form and the answers could be given with bulleted list (yes/no)...? Or is it too much or waste of time? 


Kind regards,
Sanna Sahlman
Legal Counsel
FICORA (.fi)