[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 16 May 2018

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Work Track 5 members,

 

Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (16 May).  These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-02-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5. 

 

See also the slides at: https://community.icann.org/x/4BcFBQ. 

 

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

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

Notes/Action Items:

 

Action Items:  WT5 members should continue the discussion on the list.

 

Notes:

 

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates.

 

2. Administration/Capturing and Managing Input:

 

-- Great discussions on the list and on the calls.

-- Draft a document that captures the different threads and positions in a way that people can easily understand, to help with discussions.

-- Question: Is there somewhere, somehow, that we can be recording comments other than these super long email threads? Answer: That is the intention with the document.  It is not word-for-word, but it captures the positions.

-- Staff is working diligently to sort through that information and structure it in a more coherent way.  This will evolve as a way to encourage discussions and a tool to help structure conversations. 

-- Welcome feedback on how other ways to help the group stay on track.

-- Important to map where the different people are coming from as that will give an impression of where the traction is going.

-- Make sure that we keep the barriers to entry as low as possible.

-- Re: building a “temperature gauge” – Staff is capturing a summary of points of view, but not gauging consensus, which is not the role of staff.

 

>From the chat:

-- From Heather Forrest to All Participants:  Can we more effectively communicate with the WG wiki, or a Google doc, or some other method?

-- from Heather Forrest to All Participants: I just hesitated to add a detailed reply to what was already a VERY long email thread

-- from Liz Williams to All Participants: @Heather...yes please and I, like you, always hesitate to both post things and make interventions in the call.  We need to positively capture input and also not criticise enthusiatic/knowledgable/engaged people from participating.

-- from Annebeth Lange to All Participants: Heather. all that is sent on mail will be taken aboard. So if you want to write it in a separate mail.

-- from Cheryl Langdon-Orr to All Participants: Regardless of method Heather there are challenges to effective and efficient data capture unless we run **very prescriptive**  processes  However as the Capture Document  being described will also be open to comment and proposed edits  this will also we trust assist...

-- from Heather Forrest to All Participants:  I do wish we had a way to get the comments into a single, organised space in the first hand rather than staff having to create a second resource

-- from Cheryl Langdon-Orr to All Participants: I understand Heather  but that probably requires a high level of prescription in input methodolies...  

-- from Annebeth Lange to All Participants:  I see your point, Heather, that discussion was very confusing. But when the narrative is finished, it will be easier to add comments

-- from Liz Williams to All Participants:  @Emily...could you take another look at my idea of a schematic that shows, like a temperature gauge, about where we might be getting some illustration of consensus...always happy to help.

 

3. Geographic Names Process Review:

 

General notes: 

-- Flow charts focus on the current procedures to help us understand what they are now and how they can be improved.

-- Going through the existing process is to provide a basis for understanding what the current process looks like, and to look for areas that might be problematic.  Also, look at points in the process and look at different ways to solve the issue.

-- Got to slide 17, will continue for the next call.

 

Discussion:

--  Not sure that we can use this as the basis to go forward.  This may be what was supposed to happen in 2012, but not sure it is what happened.

-- Submitting your application:  Note, should include intent -- how the applicant is intending to use it.

-- If we assume there are some categories in the future AGB, such as city names, there might be cases whether their string fits a city name or not.  The idea of an advisory panel would help the applicant to go to the panel with the idea about the string and get some level of certainty – whether there is a geographic name that might be affected.

-- There is a fundamental difference of opinion.  There are many different meanings for names and connotations.  There are situations where a name could be geographic in one context and not in another.

 

4. AOB:  None

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180516/25686b61/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180516/25686b61/smime-0001.p7s>