January 2016 - Ctn-crosscom

Informal notes CTN call 11 January 2016
by Bart Boswinkel Feb. 15, 2016

Feb. 15, 2016

Dear all, Please find included the informal notes from yesterdays call. The chat and recoding will be published separately. Please also note the Action item for all. Kind regards, Bart Action all: 1. Check summary of responses document to check if responses are captured proporely? 2. Is the diversity of responses a concern for you (and why)? 3. Please provide a suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of the diversity Request to share on email list (the sooner the better) Staff will not summarise the responses to the 3 questions above. Next meeting: 25 January 2016, 21.00 UTC Informal Notes -------------------------------------------------- CWG – Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains Monday 11 January 2016 at 2100 UTC 1. Welcome 2. Tour de Table on community feedback (esp. Staff overview/analysis paper) 3. Next steps, incl work plan until Marrakech 4. AOB 1. Welcome No Apologies received First meeting in 2016 Summary of community feed-back on Survey on 3-letter codes as TLDs. Survey is NOT a public comment process, but gathering information. By Dublin, few responses, following the Dublin meeting several additional responses. To date still awaiting 3 responses It was important as prep for this meeting. All to look at summary of comments. Important to note that all responses are captured in original wording, they have NOT been changed. 2. Tour de Table on community feedback (esp. Staff overview/analysis paper) Lars to provide overview Document based on feed-back received. Other, second document includes full submissions. Caveat, not all responses received yet >From page 3 onwards summary overview of responses. Staff observation: GNSO realtively cohesive, compared to ccTLD responses ( see overview). Some of the arguments are more a justification of desired outcome. Group is advised to work other way around. Start from existing policy and then move into what is needed Emphasise: no changes made to input recevied. When you go through to comments, NOTE this is NOT a public comment. It is a starting point for discussion. Feed-back not be treated as comment in Public comment process Tour de table Heather Forrest: What is helpful from piechart overviews: wide range of input. No unanimaty from community. Secondly note some of responses are constituency based, for example the IPC. They reflect view of larger group. Example: from GNSO input per constituency, consituency could reflect more then one entity Ohter comments? Move forward as with two-letter ? Check general principles? Annebeth Lange Members asked to share their views. Members should share their thoughts. (From chat) Co-chairs, really need you as WG members to come with your views. We are here as facilitators, but it is difficult without comments from you. Lars and his team have done an excellent job to summarize and tried to make an analysis, but we really need your views on that. Carlos: Co-chairs are interested in putting for a strawman bfeore Marrakesh meeting. Laura Hutchinson (from chat): I support the idea of using the document created by staff as a starting point. The strawman document worked very well for the first part of our work so think it would make sense to follow that method again this time. General discussion: What policy rationale can drive the outcome. Need to defend the recommendation No uniform position. Be careful what policy can drive Suggestion for change: First goal is whether it is possible to define a framework? Is it possible to find a common ground Defintion in CTN documents should reflect purpose in charter: not to develop policy. The terms are "Feasibility" and "definitional framework" Paul Szyndler: Staff needs guidance to start work. It is in remit of CTN to talk about agreed principles. An acceptable outcome could also be that there is no acceptable set of principles. Action all: 1. Check if responses are captured proporely? 2. Concern is there is diversity? 3. Suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of the diversity Request to share on email list (the sooner the better) Staff will not summarise the responses ot 3 questions. 3. Next steps, incl work plan until Marrakech Based on responses to 3 questions, chart work to Marrakesh Include general observations in document what "status quo” means for use of 3 letter-codes as TLDs. Working definition of status quo: Confirm policies and their implementation (add examples of 3 -letter codes, including overview/number of 3-letter codes resulting from new gTLD process and Fast Track process). 4. AOB Staff support: Understanding that GAC would like to have meeting with leadership of the group ( tentatively and preferably on Sunday afternoon, 6 March 2016). Suggestion: not to make it a leadership meeting from CTN side. Staff understanding: Whole of the GAC, needs to be confirmed. No further comments. Closure at 21.55 Next meeting 25 January 2016, 21.00 UTC

4 4

Response on action points CTN call 11 January 2016
by Sahlman Sanna Jan. 28, 2016

Jan. 28, 2016

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)

2 1

Review Action Items and Monday's call cancellation
by Lars Hoffmann Jan. 21, 2016

Jan. 21, 2016

Dear all, Please make sure to review the documents and share any concerns, as per the Action Items below: 1. Check summary of responses document to check if responses are captured properly 2. Is the diversity of responses a concern for you (and why)? 3. Please provide a suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of the diversity Note, that only three responses have been submitted so far. Following a discussion among the co-Chairs we will postpone our next meeting to Monday 8 February 2016 21:00 UTC. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 12 January 2016 at 02:17 To: "ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org" <ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Informal notes CTN call 11 January 2016 Dear all, Please find included the informal notes from yesterdays call. The chat and recoding will be published separately. Please also note the Action item for all. Kind regards, Bart Action all: 1. Check summary of responses document to check if responses are captured proporely? 2. Is the diversity of responses a concern for you (and why)? 3. Please provide a suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of the diversity Request to share on email list (the sooner the better) Staff will not summarise the responses to the 3 questions above. Next meeting: 25 January 2016, 21.00 UTC Informal Notes -------------------------------------------------- CWG Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains Monday 11 January 2016 at 2100 UTC 1. Welcome 2. Tour de Table on community feedback (esp. Staff overview/analysis paper) 3. Next steps, incl work plan until Marrakech 4. AOB 1. Welcome No Apologies received First meeting in 2016 Summary of community feed-back on Survey on 3-letter codes as TLDs. Survey is NOT a public comment process, but gathering information. By Dublin, few responses, following the Dublin meeting several additional responses. To date still awaiting 3 responses It was important as prep for this meeting. All to look at summary of comments. Important to note that all responses are captured in original wording, they have NOT been changed. 2. Tour de Table on community feedback (esp. Staff overview/analysis paper) Lars to provide overview Document based on feed-back received. Other, second document includes full submissions. Caveat, not all responses received yet >From page 3 onwards summary overview of responses. Staff observation: GNSO realtively cohesive, compared to ccTLD responses ( see overview). Some of the arguments are more a justification of desired outcome. Group is advised to work other way around. Start from existing policy and then move into what is needed Emphasise: no changes made to input recevied. When you go through to comments, NOTE this is NOT a public comment. It is a starting point for discussion. Feed-back not be treated as comment in Public comment process Tour de table Heather Forrest: What is helpful from piechart overviews: wide range of input. No unanimaty from community. Secondly note some of responses are constituency based, for example the IPC. They reflect view of larger group. Example: from GNSO input per constituency, consituency could reflect more then one entity Ohter comments? Move forward as with two-letter ? Check general principles? Annebeth Lange Members asked to share their views. Members should share their thoughts. (From chat) Co-chairs, really need you as WG members to come with your views. We are here as facilitators, but it is difficult without comments from you. Lars and his team have done an excellent job to summarize and tried to make an analysis, but we really need your views on that. Carlos: Co-chairs are interested in putting for a strawman bfeore Marrakesh meeting. Laura Hutchinson (from chat): I support the idea of using the document created by staff as a starting point. The strawman document worked very well for the first part of our work so think it would make sense to follow that method again this time. General discussion: What policy rationale can drive the outcome. Need to defend the recommendation No uniform position. Be careful what policy can drive Suggestion for change: First goal is whether it is possible to define a framework? Is it possible to find a common ground Defintion in CTN documents should reflect purpose in charter: not to develop policy. The terms are "Feasibility" and "definitional framework" Paul Szyndler: Staff needs guidance to start work. It is in remit of CTN to talk about agreed principles. An acceptable outcome could also be that there is no acceptable set of principles. Action all: 1. Check if responses are captured proporely? 2. Concern is there is diversity? 3. Suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of the diversity Request to share on email list (the sooner the better) Staff will not summarise the responses ot 3 questions. 3. Next steps, incl work plan until Marrakech Based on responses to 3 questions, chart work to Marrakesh Include general observations in document what "status quo² means for use of 3 letter-codes as TLDs. Working definition of status quo: Confirm policies and their implementation (add examples of 3 -letter codes, including overview/number of 3-letter codes resulting from new gTLD process and Fast Track process). 4. AOB Staff support: Understanding that GAC would like to have meeting with leadership of the group ( tentatively and preferably on Sunday afternoon, 6 March 2016). Suggestion: not to make it a leadership meeting from CTN side. Staff understanding: Whole of the GAC, needs to be confirmed. No further comments. Closure at 21.55 Next meeting 25 January 2016, 21.00 UTC

1 0

Re: [Ctn-crosscom] Response on action points CTN call 11 January 2016
by Ron Sherwood Jan. 18, 2016

Jan. 18, 2016

Dear all, Please note that my input for future discussion on the action points raised during the January 11th CTN call is that the simplest, and possibly most acceptable, resolution would be: Status Quo? 1. Maintain all currently delegated 2 and 3 character strings as having "grandfathered status". 2. Provide "sovereign status" to all countries and territories in the complete ISO 3166-1 encoding list of the countries which are assigned official codes. These 2 and/or 3 character strings to be reserved; used; or licensed for use as TLDs by the listed country or territory, for whatever purpose has been determined by (or may be determined in the future by) the ISO... on a one time, irrevocable basis. 3. Any non-delegated (and non-ISO 3166-1 listed) 2 or 3 character strings to be available for delegation as a Top Level Domain under the current (or any future) ICANN delegation process and conditions. N.B. This subject addresses only Top Level Domain names and does not address issues related to domain names at the second or lower levels. Best regards, Ron Sherwood On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange(a)uninett.no> wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find my tentative answers on behalf of the Norwegian ccTLD .no > to the questions posed after our last CTN call. > > Kind regards, > Annebeth > > *Annebeth B. Lange* > > *Head of Legal and Policy* > > *UNINETT Norid AS* > > *P.O.Box 6979 St. Olavs plass* > > *NO-0130 Oslo* > > > *annebeth.lange(a)uninett.no <annebeth.lange(a)uninett.no> * > > *Mobile: +47 959 11 559* > > > From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> > Date: Tuesday 12 January 2016 10:17 > To: "ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org" <ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Informal notes CTN call 11 January 2016 > > Dear all, > > Please find included the informal notes from yesterdays call. The chat and > recoding will be published separately. > > Please also note the Action item for all. > > Kind regards, > > Bart > > > > *Action all: * > > *1. Check summary of responses document to check > if responses are captured proporely?* > > *2. Is the diversity of responses a concern for you (and why)?* > > *3. Please provide a > suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of the diversity* > > *Request to share on email list (the sooner the better)* > > *Staff will not summarise the responses to the 3 questions above.* > > *Next meeting: 25 January 2016, 21.00 UTC* > > > *Informal Notes* > > *--------------------------------------------------* > > *CWG – Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains * > Monday 11 January 2016 at 2100 UTC > > 1. Welcome > > > 2. Tour de Table on community feedback (esp. Staff overview/analysis paper) > > 3. Next steps, incl work plan until Marrakech > > 4. AOB > > > *1. Welcome* > > No Apologies received > > First meeting in 2016 > > Summary of community feed-back on Survey on 3-letter codes as TLDs. > > Survey is NOT a public comment process, but gathering information. > > By Dublin, few responses, following the Dublin meeting several additional > responses. To date still awaiting 3 responses > > It was important as prep for this meeting. > All to look at summary of comments. > > Important to note that all responses are captured in original wording, > they have NOT been changed. > > > > *2. Tour de Table on community feedback (esp. Staff overview/analysis paper) * > > *Lars to provide overview* > > Document based on feed-back received. Other, second document includes > full submissions. Caveat, not all responses received yet > > From page 3 onwards summary overview of responses. > > > > Staff observation: GNSO realtively cohesive, compared to ccTLD responses ( see overview). > > Some of the arguments are more a justification of desired outcome. > > Group is advised to work other way around. > Start from existing policy and then move into what is needed > > > Emphasise: no changes made to input recevied. > > When you go through to comments, NOTE this is NOT a public comment. It is a starting point for discussion. Feed-back not be treated as comment > in Public comment process > > > *Tour de table* > > Heather Forrest: What is helpful from piechart > overviews: wide range of input. No unanimaty from community. Secondly > note some of responses are constituency based, for example the IPC. They > reflect view of larger group. > Example: from GNSO input per constituency, consituency could reflect more then one entity > > Ohter comments? > > Move forward as with two-letter ? > > Check general principles? > > Annebeth Lange Members asked to share their views. Members should share > their thoughts. (From chat) > Co-chairs, really need you as WG members to come with your views. We are here as facilitators, but it is difficult without comments from you. Lars and his team have done an excellent job to summarize and tried to make an analysis, but we really need your views on that. > > Carlos: Co-chairs > are interested in putting for a strawman bfeore Marrakesh meeting. > > Laura Hutchinson (from > chat): I support the idea of using the document created by staff as a starting point. The strawman document worked very well for the first part of our work so think it would make sense to follow that method again this time. > > > General discussion: What policy rationale > can drive the outcome. Need to defend the recommendation > > No uniform position. Be careful what policy can drive > > Suggestion for change: > First goal is whether it is possible to define a framework? Is it possible to > find a common ground > > Defintion in CTN documents should reflect purpose in charter: not to develop policy. > The terms are "Feasibility" and "definitional framework" > > Paul Szyndler: Staff needs guidance to start work. It is in remit of CTN to talk about agreed principles. An acceptable outcome could also be that there > is no acceptable set of principles. > > > *Action all: * > > *1. Check if responses are captured proporely?* > > *2. Concern is there is diversity?* > > *3. Suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of the diversity* > > *Request to share on email list (the sooner the better)* > > *Staff will not summarise the responses ot 3 questions.* > > > > *3. Next steps, incl work plan until Marrakech* > > Based on responses to 3 questions, chart work to Marrakesh > > Include general observations in document what "status quo” means for use > of 3 letter-codes as TLDs. Working definition of status > quo: Confirm policies and their > implementation (add examples of 3 -letter codes, including overview/number of 3-letter codes > resulting from new gTLD process and Fast Track process). > > > *4. AOB* > > *S*taff support: Understanding that > GAC would like to have meeting with leadership of the group ( tentatively > and preferably on Sunday afternoon, 6 March 2016). > > Suggestion: not to make it a leadership meeting from CTN side. > > Staff understanding: Whole of the GAC, needs to be confirmed. > > No further comments. > > Closure at 21.55 > > > *Next meeting 25 January 2016, 21.00 UTC* > > _______________________________________________ > Ctn-crosscom mailing list > Ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom >

1 0

Re: [Ctn-crosscom] Response on action points CTN call 11 January 2016
by Annebeth Lange Jan. 18, 2016

Jan. 18, 2016

Dear all, Please find my tentative answers on behalf of the Norwegian ccTLD .no to the questions posed after our last CTN call. Kind regards, Annebeth Annebeth B. Lange Head of Legal and Policy UNINETT Norid AS P.O.Box 6979 St. Olavs plass NO-0130 Oslo annebeth.lange(a)uninett.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@uninett.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 12 January 2016 10:17 To: "ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" <ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Informal notes CTN call 11 January 2016 Dear all, Please find included the informal notes from yesterdays call. The chat and recoding will be published separately. Please also note the Action item for all. Kind regards, Bart Action all: 1. Check summary of responses document to check if responses are captured proporely? 2. Is the diversity of responses a concern for you (and why)? 3. Please provide a suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of the diversity Request to share on email list (the sooner the better) Staff will not summarise the responses to the 3 questions above. Next meeting: 25 January 2016, 21.00 UTC Informal Notes -------------------------------------------------- CWG – Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains Monday 11 January 2016 at 2100 UTC 1. Welcome 2. Tour de Table on community feedback (esp. Staff overview/analysis paper) 3. Next steps, incl work plan until Marrakech 4. AOB 1. Welcome No Apologies received First meeting in 2016 Summary of community feed-back on Survey on 3-letter codes as TLDs. Survey is NOT a public comment process, but gathering information. By Dublin, few responses, following the Dublin meeting several additional responses. To date still awaiting 3 responses It was important as prep for this meeting. All to look at summary of comments. Important to note that all responses are captured in original wording, they have NOT been changed. 2. Tour de Table on community feedback (esp. Staff overview/analysis paper) Lars to provide overview Document based on feed-back received. Other, second document includes full submissions. Caveat, not all responses received yet >From page 3 onwards summary overview of responses. Staff observation: GNSO realtively cohesive, compared to ccTLD responses ( see overview). Some of the arguments are more a justification of desired outcome. Group is advised to work other way around. Start from existing policy and then move into what is needed Emphasise: no changes made to input recevied. When you go through to comments, NOTE this is NOT a public comment. It is a starting point for discussion. Feed-back not be treated as comment in Public comment process Tour de table Heather Forrest: What is helpful from piechart overviews: wide range of input. No unanimaty from community. Secondly note some of responses are constituency based, for example the IPC. They reflect view of larger group. Example: from GNSO input per constituency, consituency could reflect more then one entity Ohter comments? Move forward as with two-letter ? Check general principles? Annebeth Lange Members asked to share their views. Members should share their thoughts. (From chat) Co-chairs, really need you as WG members to come with your views. We are here as facilitators, but it is difficult without comments from you. Lars and his team have done an excellent job to summarize and tried to make an analysis, but we really need your views on that. Carlos: Co-chairs are interested in putting for a strawman bfeore Marrakesh meeting. Laura Hutchinson (from chat): I support the idea of using the document created by staff as a starting point. The strawman document worked very well for the first part of our work so think it would make sense to follow that method again this time. General discussion: What policy rationale can drive the outcome. Need to defend the recommendation No uniform position. Be careful what policy can drive Suggestion for change: First goal is whether it is possible to define a framework? Is it possible to find a common ground Defintion in CTN documents should reflect purpose in charter: not to develop policy. The terms are "Feasibility" and "definitional framework" Paul Szyndler: Staff needs guidance to start work. It is in remit of CTN to talk about agreed principles. An acceptable outcome could also be that there is no acceptable set of principles. Action all: 1. Check if responses are captured proporely? 2. Concern is there is diversity? 3. Suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of the diversity Request to share on email list (the sooner the better) Staff will not summarise the responses ot 3 questions. 3. Next steps, incl work plan until Marrakech Based on responses to 3 questions, chart work to Marrakesh Include general observations in document what "status quo” means for use of 3 letter-codes as TLDs. Working definition of status quo: Confirm policies and their implementation (add examples of 3 -letter codes, including overview/number of 3-letter codes resulting from new gTLD process and Fast Track process). 4. AOB Staff support: Understanding that GAC would like to have meeting with leadership of the group ( tentatively and preferably on Sunday afternoon, 6 March 2016). Suggestion: not to make it a leadership meeting from CTN side. Staff understanding: Whole of the GAC, needs to be confirmed. No further comments. Closure at 21.55 Next meeting 25 January 2016, 21.00 UTC

1 0

IMPORTANT! To-dos for Monday's call
by Lars Hoffmann Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for today¹s meeting. Please note all relevant documents are attached to this message (see also forwarded message below). Best wishes, Lars CWG-UCTN, Monday 11 January 2016 at 2100 UTC (local time <http://tinyurl.com/zgoalmm> ) 1. Welcome 2. Tour de Table on community feedback (esp. Staff overview/analysis paper) 3. Next steps, incl work plan until Marrakech 4. AOB From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 7 January 2016 at 07:29 To: "ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org" <ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] IMPORTANT! To-dos for Monday's call Dear CWG-UCTN members, First of all, let me wish you all a happy new year! Second, back to work! For Monday¹s call, please try your very best to be as prepared as possible. We are now entering a very important work phase and it will be most beneficial to our progress if you could familiarise yourself with the two documents that are attached. Please note these have are the same documents that were circulated to the Group on 15 December 2015. During Monday¹s call, the co-Chairs are expecting to do a tour de table to gather your thoughts on these documents especially the summary. This will help determine our next steps and be an important indicator as to where our work is heading. Third, please note that the 2-part response overviews (DOCX files) are copy-paste documents that has NOT been edited by staff and thus represents the raw feedback submitted to the Group. The overview&analysis document (PDF file) has been prepared by staff and it would be very helpful to hear whether you think it is a fair representations of the views submitted. If you have any further questions, please get back to me (on or off list). Very best wishes and see you all on Monday. Lars PS: an agenda will be sent out shortly.

2 1

IMPORTANT! To-dos for Monday's call
by Lars Hoffmann Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

Dear CWG-UCTN members, First of all, let me wish you all a happy new year! Second, back to work! For Monday¹s call, please try your very best to be as prepared as possible. We are now entering a very important work phase and it will be most beneficial to our progress if you could familiarise yourself with the two documents that are attached. Please note these have are the same documents that were circulated to the Group on 15 December 2015. During Monday¹s call, the co-Chairs are expecting to do a tour de table to gather your thoughts on these documents especially the summary. This will help determine our next steps and be an important indicator as to where our work is heading. Third, please note that the 2-part response overviews (DOCX files) are copy-paste documents that has NOT been edited by staff and thus represents the raw feedback submitted to the Group. The overview&analysis document (PDF file) has been prepared by staff and it would be very helpful to hear whether you think it is a fair representations of the views submitted. If you have any further questions, please get back to me (on or off list). Very best wishes and see you all on Monday. Lars PS: an agenda will be sent out shortly.

1 0