The SOPWG has submitted its input onICANN’s FY 2017 Ops Plan and Budget on 25 April 2016 (see: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-sop-wg-comments-26apr16-en.pdf and for full overview of all comments submitted: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-op-budget-fy17-five-year-05mar16/)

On behalf of the SOPWG Giovanni Sepia, participated in call on 9 May 2016 organised by the ICANN staff to improve the understanding of the comments submitted both for members of the ICANN Board Finance Committee and staff, to allow them to better respond to the comments made. The recording of the calls, including the call with Giovanni are available at: https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/Calls+with+Community+on+Public+Comments+Submitted+on+the+Draft+FY17+Operating+Plan+and+Budget

Following the dialogue in Marrakesh between the SOPWG and ICANN’s CFO ( Xavier Calvez) focus of comments was on the operational side of the FY 17 plan. Giovanni invited ICANN senior staff responsible for the Meetings, HR and Global hub infrastructure to the meeting to start the dialogue with the SOPWG on the operational side of the plan. Further, it will be discussed to broaden this discussion to a cross-community session in Helsinki.

The WG EPSRP is currently updating its draft review of guidelines to provide guidance for the Extended Process Similarity Review panel. This WG was created at the request of the ICANN Board and includes also participants from the GAC. Core issue is how to deal with strings that are only confusingly similar with UPPER CASE two-letter codes. Once completed, the draft guidelines will be published for public consultation.

The CTN has send out a survey to seek broader input on how to deal with 3-letter codes from a policy perspective. The survey is now closed. The response to date are not conclusive. They diverge in particular the responses received from the ccTLD community. Given the divergence the CCWG CTN intends to organise a forum, not limited to Country and Territory names ( although that remains to be the focus) but also broader, with the respect to use of geography names. Goal is to understand whether a harmonised framework is feasible ( which is one of the goals of the CCWG according to its charter).