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

Wed Nov 29 06:14:20 UTC 2017

Thank you Steve, will review and revert.

On Nov 29, 2017 7:11 PM, "Steve Chan" <steve.chan at icann.org> wrote:

> 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,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> *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
>
>
>
> *ICANN*
>
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>
> steve.chan at icann.org
>
> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 <(310)%20339-4410>
>
> office tel: +1.310.301.5800 <(310)%20301-5800>
>
> office fax: +1.310.823.8649 <(310)%20823-8649>
>
>
>
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and
> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages
> <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>
> .
>
>
>
> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
>
> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171129/28995c58/attachment-0001.html>