[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 5 Sub Team Meeting 29 November

Steve Chan steve.chan at icann.org
Wed Nov 29 06:11:30 UTC 2017

Dear Work Track members,


Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 29 November.  These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording.

The documents referenced on the call are attached and some excerpts from the chat room are included below.


Kind regards,





1. Welcome

2. SOIs

-- none

3. Presentation of different scope options for the ToR

-- Reading slides. Red bracketed text represents possible options for text, for which the co-leads are specifically seeking feedback.

4. Comments from participants about scope

-- For slide 3, suggestion to replace "cognizance" with perhaps "consideration"

-- Slide 3: Farzaneh Badii: jurisdiction of SOs and ACs? First time I hear such a thing. you probably just mean mandate ?

-- Cross community session in Joburg discussed classification of geographic names as gTLDs versus ccTLDs. WT5 will not consider this question.

-- Nick Wenban Smith, Nominet UK, ccNSO & RySG: It seems sensible to me to start with the current rules for names of a geographic nature as currently set out in the AGB plus the mountains/ rivers etc questions which have arisen subsequently

-- jaap akkerhuis: Let's insert a footnote to the CCWG reort as well.

-- Slide 1, what does "approval" and related footnote refer to? This seems to be a substantial change from the 2012 round.

ACTION ITEM: Get clarification around footnote from proposer of text.

-- @Liz, request to explain why she believes the scope is overly broad. Liz Williams: What I am aiming for is to make sure that we don't run into the exact same problems we've had in the past...not just in the 2012 round but also the 2004 and 2000 round of expanding the domain name space.  Whatever we do has to make reference to clear lists (ISO3166) or clear protocols (UNESCO World Heritage Sites) or clear policy (RFC1591).  We cannot be making sweeping limitations on the new potential for the next round without thinking about the negative effects on potential  applicants.  We want simplicity, ease, clarity and fairness.

-- In 2012 round, if meeting criteria, awarded TLD (in absence of objections, contention). Adding an approval step element is a substantial change and could require discussion as a full WG.

-- Some support for regional approval

-- Scope for ToR is not about solutions, more about what will be discussed by WT5. Is the scope broad enough to allow for adequate discussion? Approval is in brackets - seems to assume an outcome and may be redundant to consent or non-objection.

-- Further discussions is needed for the scope of the ToR

Heather Forrest: Picking up on comments here on the Terms of Reference, it seems to me that the most productive approach would be to say simply that geographic names are in scope, and make defining geo names one of our substantive objectives (rather than attempt to do so in teh Terms of Reference) - I'm speaking from experience in the CWG Use of Country and Territory Names, where defining geo names took us some months

5. Presentation of the Risk Based approach

-- Reading slides

-- Slide 2 - attempts to remove "gut sense" and substitute with more guided decision-making. Living document that can be adjusted as discussions progress.

-- Identify Risks: What are we trying to prevent and/or Who are trying to protect

-- Impact: Whay are we trying to prevent the risk

-- Likelihood: Based on what evidence?

-- Mitigation: How can we effecrively manage this risk?

-- Slide 3: Why risk-based? Other approaches have no worked. Plugs well into policy (What  and why) and implementation (how).

-- Slide 4: How do we apply risk-based for WT5? 1) Identify risks 2) Assess risks (impact/severity, likelihood, what is acceptable,unacceptable) 3) Address the risks 4) Monitor effectiveness / continual improvement

-- Slide 5: Feed into a Risk Register, which helps support objective analysis

-- Slide 6: Addressing the risks through controls, which might take place under different phases (e.g., pre-application, application, post-delegation). May make sense to go in reverse order in building controls.

-- Nov-Jan could be spent on identifying risks and utilizing reviews.

-- Consider how different aspects of geographics names should be prioritized for review

-- Through March, develop controls to identified risks

-- Slide 7: 

6. Comments from participants about the Risk Based approach

-- Some concerns about the risk-based approach.

-- Helps in understanding why decisions are ultimately reached. If there are objections to this approach, what are alternatives?

-- Ching Chiao: I am not quiet sure about the "likelihood" part ... and how this can be measured quantitatively. 

-- On a frequent basis or once every 100 years? 

-- Alexander Schubert: Jeff: In 2012 we denied countries to apply for their country based gTLDs (e.g.  .spain  or  .turkey) on the sole basis of "RISK management" - never anybody considered the POSITIVE impact of such applications. If potential positive impacts outweighs potential "risks" then we have to look "beyond" just managing risks......

7. Next steps

-- Next calls are 6 and 20 December.  

ACTION ITEM: circulate Terms of Reference on list. Comments will be due by 20 December.

-- Discuss ToR again on 6 December meeting, though additional comments may be forthcoming.

8. AOB

-- Mentor/Buddy program: 11 volunteers. Next step is to see what members might want to work with a buddy. Next steps will be circulated to list.







Steven Chan

Policy Director, GNSO Support



12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

steve.chan at icann.org

mobile: +1.310.339.4410

office tel: +1.310.301.5800

office fax: +1.310.823.8649


Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.


Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171129/b169a462/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WT5 Scope 28 Nov 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 180599 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171129/b169a462/WT5Scope28Nov2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Risk-based approach for WT5.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 993828 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171129/b169a462/Risk-basedapproachforWT5-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171129/b169a462/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list