- Ctn-crosscom - lists.icann.org

Notes from CWG on country and territory names - Monday, 17 October 2016 21 UTC
by Joke Braeken Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

Dear All, Please find below the notes from our latest call. CWG on country and territory names as TLDs Monday, 17 October 2016. 21 UTC Apologies: Paul Szyndler (.au) Agenda: 1. Welcome and Roll call 2. Progress report. Discussion recommendation 2 (Alternative A or B, other) 3. Presentation Progress report to community 4. Hyderabad meeting: o F-2-f session WG o Other sessions (ccNSO- GNSO Council meeting, ccNSO GAC- meeting, ccNSO-Board meeting) 5. Draft Interim paper staff update 6. AOB & Closure Notes: 1. Welcome and roll call call recorded. Apologies from co-chair Paul Szyndler (.au) Chair: Heather Forrest 2. Progress Report This is the shorter one of the 2 documents. We need to report back to community, via this document, to let them know where we are. There have been 2 consultation rounds of this document among the WG members, but not much more additional comments. We rapidly advance to the F2F meeting. The fact that there are no additional comments also shows that the doc is largely non-controversial, except towards the end (recommendations). Page 5: track changes, recommendations. In light of the timing it is not helpful to try to do another round of comments. But, ideally we would like to finalise this document so that we can use it in HYD. Send it to the SO/ACs for their input. Cheryl agreed. Suggestion: put the recommendations in brackets, to show that we are discussing them. Add a sentence on top of the paragraph: This is currently under discussion, we have not yet come to conclusions. Bart: Recommendation 1 and 3 were adopted unanimously. The only controversial one is recommendation 2, with alternative A and alternative B. Annebeth: it would be good if we could go to HYD with agreement on the entire recommendation. Much clearer with the 2 alternatives. We need to move forward, and collect input from rest of the community. Bart, explaining the primary differences between alternative A and alternative B: · mentioned that starting point is alternative A. Future work, starting with ICANN bylaws. Some people thought it was too much focused on GNSO PDP. (GNSO on Subsequent Procedures) · Alternative B. Future work could indeed go to one, but 1 PDP will have impact on the other. Major concern. One of the concerns Annebeth raised; if you would turn the AGB into policy, there will always be overlap with the definition in overall policy IDN fast track, meaninglul representation country/territory, with overlap in Annex B of this doc. these PDPs need to be aware of the impact on the other one, and you have to deal with them on the same time. Carlos: there is a backlog of issues waiting for HYD. (e.g. decisions on subsequent rounds) Version B goes too far into detail. flying into a CCWG is the worst case scenario. There is no agreement in GNSO how to deal with subsequent rounds. Situation of IGO's. We need to be prepared for a troubled ICANN meeting in HYD, therefor I prefer option A, which is more focussed. Heather: Largely agrees with Carlos. Alternative A focuses to fix on problems this group experienced. Alternative B has a lack of precision. It is not clear where future work would go. That leaves us in exactly same position we are in now. Nigel: both alternatives seem to make sure that PDP in future can be done via a more explicit process. The idea of an open implicit process could easily be incorporated in recommendation 1. Between the 2 alternatives: there is no difference in intent in his view. Heather: proposed way forward: we should set up a poll. Who supports alternative 2A, and who alternative 2B? Recommendation 2B would require some additional drafting to be comfortable with. Bart: if the group still wants to publish progress report prior to HYD, closing date would be Monday. We could count the votes casted. Leave it in brackets, if not too many people respond to the email. We leave both options in, and include poll results. Carlos: For either 2A or 2B to be successful, we need to bring it down to 1 place. clearly reflected in recommendation number 1. Heather: - staff will launch quick doodle poll - identify yourself, or your SO/AC, when responding to the poll Leave recommendations as alternative A and B. Add a statement, that these are alternatives. Group struggled with wording of recommendation B. The group agrees that some sort of PDP is needed. Suggestion to rephrase: Future work on this issue must clearly align and engage with ICANN policy development processes as per ICANN's bylaws Annebeth: interests from different stakeholders. even if the PDP is open to all, so many issues will be discussed, and this subject will drown in the rest of the discussions. Susan: understands Annebeth's concerns. But the PDP is divided in different work tracks, to make it more manageable. Carlos: This paper is the progress report. We still have the big document, the Interim Report, with the entire background and views. Substantial recollection of the history. Cheryl: theoretically it should be possible in work track 2 of subsequent procedures. Someone should own responsibility that flagging opportunity for input exists. make a poll: - recommendation 2A - recommendation 2B - shorter version, as 2C. Heather will take the pen for 2C. We need to close the poll on Friday. Informal poll results to be included in the progress report. 3. Presentation Progress Report to community 4. Hyderabad Meeting 4.1. F2F meeting WG Saturday, November 5 • 15:15 - 16:45 4.2. Other sessions - ccNSO- GNSO Council meeting, - ccNSO GAC- meeting, - ccNSO-Board meeting - The New gTLD Program Reviews session https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8dQV/new-gtld-program-reviews . November 5: 13:45 - 14:45 Question to be answered during pre-ICANN policy webinar on Thursday: (to be shared on email list) 4. Will the "CWG on Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains" provide policy recommendations to GNSO and GAC by the Hyderabad meeting on the following topics: a) ISO 3166 Alpha 3 code elements (NOT Alpha 2 codes - as these are NOT up for discussion in the next round PDP at the moment) b) Country and Territory names (and their short forms) as new gTLDs. If not: a) By when latest can such policy recommendation be expected? Month/Year b) What is the likelihood that the WG will provide tangible PDP (policy recommendations) input for the coming round? Reason for the questions: Both GAC and GNSO have been repeatedly told to NOT touch the subject to avoid "duplication of work" as the "CWG on Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains" was allegedly working on policy recommendations. At some point of time GAC and GNSO will have to stop waiting and start to discuss this subject. Of course the CWG's output could be factored in later - but it would be good to know whether a policy recommendation is to be expected by Hyderabad - or whether by then GNSO should start to work on the issue. Right now the GNSO and the relevant Track 2 are avoiding the subject as they wait for input from the CWG. 5. Draft Interim Paper staff update Little time left. When we send around our progress report, we should include our draft interim report. That paper is very valuable in its content. The finalization of the interim paper depends on some of the issues in the progress report. We should spend our time in HYD in working to agree on final version of the recommendations. 6. AOB & Closure Summary action items: · co-chairs will work with staff to develop a poll on the 2 alternatives. will close on Friday. Doc deadline for HYD is Monday progress report will contain statement with poll results · Bart will post to the mailing list the questions related to policy webinar pre-icann57 · co-chairs will work with staff to put together materials for new gTLD reviews session in HYD that we were invited to attend.The session is immediately preceding our F2F in HYD. Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as TLDs
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as TLDs meeting held on Monday, 17 October 2016 at 21:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ctn-17oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-ctn-13jun16-en.mp3> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: ccNSO: Annebeth Lange, .no Grigori Saghyan, .am Sebastien Pensis, .eu Timo Vohmar, .ee GNSO Carlos Raul Guttierez, NPOC (co-Chair) Griffin Barnett, IPC Heather Forrest, IPC (co-Chair) Maxim Alzoba, NTAG Robin Gross, NCSG Susan Payne, NTAG Alexander Schubert, RySG GAC Milagros Castanon Seoane, Peru Nigel Cassimire, CTU ALAC Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC CCWG Liaison Additional Members: Jaap Akkerhuis, ISO 3166 Expert Apologies: ICANN Staff: Bart Boswinkel Emily Barabas Steve Chan Joke Braeken Michelle DeSmyter Maria Otanes ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_g_4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle **************** Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 17 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, welcome to the CWG on Country and Territory Names as TLDs meeting on Monday, 17 October 2016 at 21:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… mcastanon:HIIIIII Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there - welcome Milagros! Grigori Saghyan:Hi! Michelle DeSmyter:Hello Grigori! Alexander Schubert:Hi. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi all Heather Forrest:Good morning, everyone Bart Boswinkel:Hi all Annebeth Lange:Hi everyone Joke Braeken:Hi All Carlos Raul Gutierrez:hello! Carlos Raul Gutierrez:woops Carlos Raul Gutierrez:no audio here Carlos Raul Gutierrez:please call me Annebeth Lange:I lost the audio too Carlos Raul Gutierrez:ahhhh Carlos Raul Gutierrez:ok Carlos Raul Gutierrez:is not only me . Thanks Annebeth Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Pretty unstable the adobe rooms of late Carlos Raul Gutierrez:the few last ones I had to dial 3 times in 1 hour..... Nigel Cassimire:Hello from Trinidad and Tobago, everyone. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi Carlos Raul Gutierrez:I lost audio Carlos Raul Gutierrez:please confirm Heather Forrest:Carlos - I heard you a few moments ago Carlos Raul Gutierrez:or call me at +506 8837 7176 Carlos Raul Gutierrez:yes Michelle DeSmyter:absolutely Carlos Raul Gutierrez:I da a few seconds of audio Michelle DeSmyter:one moment Carlos Raul Gutierrez:but it has been like this over the last few days Annebeth Lange:I am no on phone Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All, I finally managed to connect Bart Boswinkel:The document is scrollabel and please go to page 5 Carlos Raul Gutierrez:ok Carlos Raul Gutierrez:I´m on the phone now Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ask for feedback on bracketted text ... YES Annebeth Lange:If possible, we should try to complete on the progress report, if we can agree on which of the alternatives of recommendation 2 we prefer Annebeth Lange:Since we have, in my opinion, agreed on 1 and 3 as they are now Annebeth Lange:In my view, Alternative B is more of a compromise than Alternative C, and also visualize the problems of overlapping Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):My leanings are towards 2b. noting the nexus between the inteests of the GNSO and the ccNSO in the matter of new names and Use of CT Names Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):also inclusive of IDN's of course mcastanon:Is there any chance I could get this document through my email? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):And of course the Subsequent Procedureswork is aready advancing including geo (CT) names Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and IDN's ;-) Annebeth Lange:But Carlos, the overlapping between ccNSO and gNSO on these issues, ccNSO should be included through the process. I still think Alternative B best cover this. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:My pesonal postion is that we should try to avoid to end up in a small sentences in the GAC Communique, because in my view we would automatically loos control of our process. Sorry for using arguments beyond our work. But this is my feeling right now. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:loose control Carlos Raul Gutierrez:sorry Timo Võhmar:my support goes to B - it is unclear where the future work will go, A will not change that susan payne:sorry, mic not working Alexander Schubert:I support B as well! susan payne:i will need to dial in Annebeth Lange:Difficult to hear Nigel Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Perhaps a little poll with green ticks or red crosses for each alternative from the attendees here will assist the to bracket or settle on one issue susan payne:really I was just going to say I prefer a. I find b difficult to understand, and particularly what the outcome of the recommendation would be, ie what are we actually saying should happen. I think we are leaving it vague but that leaves things in limbo Heather Forrest:Thanks Susan Annebeth Lange:I understand you view here, Susan, but I am afraid that this issue, that is of great interest to many stakeholdergroups outside gNSO, will "drown" in the immense amount of issues that will be treated in the gNSO PDP for subsequent rounds Michelle DeSmyter:it should be any moment - they are dialing you now Michelle DeSmyter:for Susan Payne Annebeth Lange:I think that if we don't agree through a poll, both should be in brackets and discussed in Hyderabad as well. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):That works for me re the poll options Heather Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):better than just polling attendees here Steve Chan:I was going to make a quick comment, but I can type it here: the polling can be done easily through something like Doodle, so it shouldn't be a problem to put something together very quickly. Heather Forrest:Thanks Steve - I was thinking Doodle too susan payne:Carlos - I totally agree, and this is one of my concern about b as I think it implies there could be two spaces Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):GAC & us ... as usual Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Do we have to have a formal approval of our SO ? Bart Boswinkel:@susan, tha tis the reality of dealing ith this topic, ther is already aovelap in defintions in exisiting policies Annebeth Lange:One of the problems - we started in our WG to discuss only c & t names originated from ISO 3166. GACs discussion of all other geographicl names complicated the process. THere are different considerations behind those two "groups". Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if we need opinion of SO/SC - might be need for a formal letter Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Short and clear Nigel Cassimire:That sounds like the idea Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):echo Heather Forrest:Draft text: Future work on this issue must clearly align and engage with ICANN policy development processes as per ICANN's bylaws Alexander Schubert:Work Stream 2 handles this issue! Alexander Schubert:And they almost started to work on it last week! Alexander Schubert:The GNSO will handle our group this way: "Provide input if you have - we will factor it in" - and if we provide input then fine - if not nobody will care at all. Alexander Schubert:Work Track 2, right. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):What Susan says is importnt BUT IT WOULD NEED SHEEPHEARDING Heather Forrest:I think we could have a much longer discussion about the Subsequent Procedures PDP, but I think we want to avoid getting too bogged down in discussing the PDP. We're running out of time to HYD, so my inclination is to focus on these documents Annebeth Lange:Good to hear, Carlos Carlos Raul Gutierrez:CLO allways get the last word....... Carlos Raul Gutierrez::) susan payne:@Cheryl, I suppose that is why I would favour trying to get this topic dealt with as a sub work track so there isn't a risk of being told the input is too late Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes and I understand that attitude Susan especially when SO much goes on in these topics beynd our interest and remit Annebeth Lange:I support that, Heather Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes agree susan payne:agree Nigel Cassimire:+1 Steve Chan:The New gTLD Program Reviews session Heather is discussing now is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_… Annebeth Lange:Do you know when that session will be, Heather? Steve Chan:November 5: 13:45 - 14:45 Steve Chan::) Bart Boswinkel:4. Will the "CWG on Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains" provide policy recommendations to GNSO and GAC by the Hyderabad meeting on the following topics:a) ISO 3166 Alpha 3 code elements (NOT Alpha 2 codes - as these are NOT up for discussion in the next round PDP at the moment)b) Country and Territory names (and their short forms) as new gTLDs. If not:a) By when latest can such policy recommendation be expected? Month/Yearb) What is the likelihood that the WG will provide tangible PDP (policy recommendations) input for the coming round? Reason for the questions: Both GAC and GNSO have been repeatedly told to NOT touch the subject to avoid "duplication of work" as the "CWG on Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains" was allegedly working on policy recommendations. At some point of time GAC and GNSO will have to stop waiting and start to discuss this subject. Of course the CWG's output could be factored in later - but it would be good to know whether a policy recommendation is to be exp Maxim Alzoba (FAITID) 2:it feels like "contaminated" better describes 3letter codes situation :) Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Very important indeed!!!!!! Carlos Raul Gutierrez:They shold go together Annebeth Lange:Agreed Alexander Schubert:Bye! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID) 2:bye all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Bye susan payne:thanks Heather and all Nigel Cassimire:Bye all Heather Forrest:thank you everyone Timo Võhmar:bye Sebastien Pensis:goodbye, thank you.

1 0

Questions Policy webinar
by Bart Boswinkel Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

Dear all, As discussed today on the call, staff has received questions regarding to progress of the CTN These questions have been raised in the context of the policy webinar which will be conducted on Thursday 20 October 2016. The questions are: 4. Will the "CWG on Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains" provide policy recommendations to GNSO and GAC by the Hyderabad meeting on the following topics: a) ISO 3166 Alpha 3 code elements (NOT Alpha 2 codes - as these are NOT up for discussion in the next round PDP at the moment) b) Country and Territory names (and their short forms) as new gTLDs. If not: a) By when latest can such policy recommendation be expected? Month/Year b) What is the likelihood that the WG will provide tangible PDP (policy recommendations) input for the coming round? Reason for the questions: Both GAC and GNSO have been repeatedly told to NOT touch the subject to avoid "duplication of work" as the "CWG on Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains" was allegedly working on policy recommendations. At some point of time GAC and GNSO will have to stop waiting and start to discuss this subject. Of course the CWG's output could be factored in later - but it would be good to know whether a policy recommendation is to be expected As discussed on the call the responses to these questions are contained in the progress report. If someone has particular points they want me to rasie in relation to these questions, please let me know, Thank you and kind regards, Bart

2 1

Todays agenda
by Bart Boswinkel Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

Dear all, Please find included latest version of the Progress report and Interim paper. Proposed agenda: - Welcome and Roll call - Progress report. Discussion recommendation 2 ( Alternative A or B, other) - Presentation Progress report to community - Hyderabad meeting: o F-2-f session WG o Other session (ccNSO- GNSO Council meeting, ccNSO GAC- meeting, ccNSO-Board meeting) - Draft Interim paper staff update - AOB & Closure Kind regards, Bart Changes Progres report The recommendations have been updated follwing the discussions of two weeks ago. Although a long discussion was held on the impact of closure of this WG , to date no alternatives were suggested. Please note that recommendation 1 and 3 were adopted 4 weeks ago. Two weeks ago the discussion focused on the alternatives and no conclusion was reached. If the progress report needs to be out in time for the Hyderabad meeting, this is a matter of urgency. Recommendations Progress Report In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG makes the following recommendations: Recommendation 1 The CWG unanimously recommends that the ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. Recommendation 2 Alternative A The CWG could not agree unanimously on the following: Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. Some members of the WG raised the concern that issues that are in scope of both the ccNSO and GNSO policy development processes, for example how full names of countries and territories other than Latin scripts are dealt with, should be addressed through a coordinated effort under both processes. Recommendation 2 Alternative B To ensure that the conclusions and recommendations of a CWG will at one point have the authority of a policy developed through the relevant processes under ICANN’s Bylaws, future work should take place with a clear view on how this work at some point will reach the authority of a policy developed as or relates to and provides input to formal policy development processes. With regard to the subject matter, the use of country and territory names as TLDs the CWG notes that this should be defined with respect to both the ccNSO and GNSO Policy development processes. Due to the overlapping definitions used under existing policies, additional policy developed by one group, impact and has an effect upon the policy developed for another group. This may be achieved through a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how these policy development processes will be informed. This addresses a key deficiency this CWG has encountered, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. Recommendation 3 Future policy development work must facilitate an all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. Draft Interim Paper Staff has also been working on the interim paper. We have cleaned it up on the basis of the feed-back received to date, updating some of the sections and checking whether the “research questions” in section 4 of the paper (Methodology) are addressed in section 5. 1 on two-letter codes. If so that provides a starting point for the conclusion of no conclusion on 3-letter codes. As to section 4 methodology, it now includes a reference to the surveys/ questionnaires on two-and three letter codes. The results are included in Annex D. In addition, Annex C has been added: listing of the members, participants and observers of the WG We have also included the final section (6) the observations, conclusions and recommendations of the progress report.

2 1

REMINDER: Please RSVP: Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Terri Agnew Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANNpolicy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Hyderabad. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * New generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds Drafting Team * Cross-Community Working Group for Framework of Cross-Community Working Group Principles * Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains Community Engagement Team Update: * Community Recognition at ICANN57 and Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017 Process Launch * Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees Work Effort Inventory/Snapshot Update * Policy Staff Support in Community Charter Amendment Processes Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Update * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next-Generation Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) * IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community Update * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * Adaptation of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Processes to the new ICANN Bylaws * Government Advisory Committee Vice-Chairs Elections taking place in Hyderabad * Capacity Building Session for the Asia Pacific Region organized by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Working Group for Underserved Regions * The Government Advisory Committee developing further input for ongoing Policy Development Processes on Registration Directory Services and Future new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be run in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0

Please RSVP: Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en Please RSVP via this form<https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANNpolicy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Hyderabad. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * New generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds Drafting Team * Cross-Community Working Group for Framework of Cross-Community Working Group Principles * Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains Community Engagement Team Update: * Community Recognition at ICANN57 and Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017 Process Launch * Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees Work Effort Inventory/Snapshot Update * Policy Staff Support in Community Charter Amendment Processes Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Update * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next-Generation Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) * IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community Update * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * Adaptation of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Processes to the new ICANN Bylaws * Government Advisory Committee Vice-Chairs Elections taking place in Hyderabad * Capacity Building Session for the Asia Pacific Region organized by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Working Group for Underserved Regions * The Government Advisory Committee developing further input for ongoing Policy Development Processes on Registration Directory Services and Future new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be run in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available here<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en>. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form<https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0

Fw: RSVP: GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | 10 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC
by Heather Forrest Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

Dear CWG-UCTN colleagues, Following our discussions in the meeting before last about training for non-GNSO participants of GNSO PDPs, I am delighted to advise you of the training session advertised in the email below. Nathalie Peregrine and her team are fabulous and these sessions are extremely well run, so I hope as many of you who are unsure about PDP participation will be able to join. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> on behalf of Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 20:38 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RSVP: GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | 10 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | October 10 2016 | 20:00 UTC Please RSVP via [goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_rGI0HvuV8…>this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_rGI0HvuV8…> by 7 October 2016. Are you a new GNSO Working Group Member? Do you have questions you never asked about Adobe Connect or other participation tools that are used to facilitate Working Group deliberations? The upcoming Communication Tools Classroom is the place to look for answers to these and any other questions you may have in relation to Working Group tools. Please join the SO/AC Support team on October 10, 2016 at 20:00 UTC for the Communication Tools Classroom. In an informal setting, new Working Group members will be familiarized with the communication tools they will be using when taking part in GNSO Working Groups. Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Introduction to the SO/AC Support team & Policy Support Staff 3. Where to find relevant information: a. GNSO Master Calendar b. Individual Working Group Wiki pages. 4. Working Group Mailing lists: a. Difference between statuses (Observer/ Member) 5. Working Group Members a. Statements of Interests b. Email invitations c. Calendar invitations 6. Adobe Connect room 7. Questions This session will be recorded and the recordings will be made available on the GNSO Calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…>. We look forward to your participation! Please RSVP via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_rGI0HvuV8…> by 7 October 2016.

3 3

Call for RSVPs: GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | 10 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | October 10 2016 | 20:00 UTC Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> this form<https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> by 7 October 2016. Are you a new GNSO Working Group Member? Do you have questions you never asked about Adobe Connect or other participation tools that are used to facilitate Working Group deliberations? The upcoming Communication Tools Classroom is the place to look for answers to these and any other questions you may have in relation to Working Group tools. Please join the SO/AC Support team on October 10, 2016 at 20:00 UTC for the Communication Tools Classroom. In an informal setting, new Working Group members will be familiarized with the communication tools they will be using when taking part in GNSO Working Groups. Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Introduction to the SO/AC Support team & Policy Support Staff 3. Where to find relevant information: a. GNSO Master Calendar b. Individual Working Group Wiki pages. 4. Working Group Mailing lists: a. Difference between statuses (Observer/ Member) 5. Working Group Members a. Statements of Interests b. Email invitations c. Calendar invitations 6. Adobe Connect room 7. Questions This session will be recorded and the recordings will be made available on the GNSO Calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>. We look forward to your participation! Please RSVP via this form<https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> by 7 October 2016.

1 0

Re: [Ctn-crosscom] Notes and Action Items CWG-UCTN WG call
by Bart Boswinkel Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear all, Following yesterday’s call please find included the updated progress report. Major change: - Suggestion and Adjustment of recommendations: Also included is the 16 September version of the Interim report. Please note that the executive summary will include the recommendations from the progress report. Once the progress report is agreed the interim report needs to be updated accordingly. Could you be so kind to review sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 and Annex B and provide your feed-back and comments on list. Staff will consolidate these in next version for discussion by the group at its next call on 17 October, 21.00 UTC Kind regards, Bart From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Monday 3 October 2016 at 23:41 To: "ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org" <ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Notes and Action Items CWG-UCTN WG call Dear All, Please find below notes and action items for this call. Kind regards, Emily CWG on country and territory names as TLDs, Monday, 03 October 2016 Agenda: - Welcome and Roll Call - Reading of progress report (latest version included) o Reserved names and 3-letter codes o Recommendations - Call for feed-back Interim Report - AOB Notes and Action Items - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: Last call we were discussing preparation for Hyderabad. Two documents are pending for the meeting: Progress report and compilation of 2- and 3- letter codes reports. - Bart Boswinkel: staff sent an updated version last Friday and waited for feedback. None has been received. Bart updated bullets at the bottom of page 3 on inconsistencies in the framework and updated recommendations based on the discussions two weeks ago. Bart is unclear on bullet point number 4. It is Bart’s understanding that the existing reserved name restrictions operate as a general restriction, and not just for 3-letter codes on the ISO list. Do we want to introduce the issue of conflicts/overlap in different lists in this bullet or rephrase? - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: He believes is one issue where we may have we had different positions on our survey on 3-letter codes. - Bart Boswinkel: He found it odd the way it was framed in the current version of the report. - Annebeth Lange: This bullet refers to special 3-letter codes that were reserved for special reasons. - Bart Boswinkel: The alpha-three codes could be of interest to local communities Joke has noted an overlap with the existing reserved names list item .NIC. NIC is on the existing reserved names list (abbreviation for Network Information Center), but it also an assigned 3-letter code for Nicaragua. If the ISO list were liberalized, the reserved names list would still limit the use. - Annebeth Lange: .NIC is a special case, reserved not because it's a country code but because of its technical use. - Alexander Schubert: Does not see any conflict here in the rules. You cannot apply for this code (.NIC). It is not clear how this is a conflict. - Susan Payne: Agrees with Alexander. This is an example where there are some terms that have multiple meanings. This could be phrased differently to be more clear. There are existing reserve names restrictions that may include three-letter codes, but they are not all three-letter codes. This clarification may help. - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: Does not think we have an agreement if it should be reserved or not. [Action Item: Bart will update the bullet four to make it a bit clearer] - Bart Boswinkel: Moving to recommendations which are on page 5. Former recommendations 1 and 3 were supported unanimously on the last call. There was discussion on point 2 at the time regarding future work. Some members of the group felt that there are issues and topics that need to be addressed under 2 PDPs (GNSO and ccNSO) and ensure that there is no overlap. There was a reluctance among some ccTLD representatives to leave everything up to a GNSO PDP. Recommendation 2 was not adopted unanimously in the last meeting. Heather Forrest made the suggestion to separate out recommendations that were supported unanimously with those that were not. A second option is to try to combine the different perspectives into a single recommendation. - Recommendation 3 has been split into two alternatives for the path forward (now included at the end) - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: The GNSO Council is working towards answering the Board question about when and how new gTLDs can be delegated. There is a strong sense that the issue of geographic names is one of the issues that needs to be addressed before subsequent procedures move forward. Bullet #1 in this current draft provides a clear message, but it is less clear what #2 adds to this. - Bart Boswinkel: #1 and #2 are points #1 and #3 from the original version of the report that received support from the group in the previous call. - Alexander Schubert: The Subsequent Procedures PDP is waiting to see the output of this group. Soon they will see that there is no real input from this group. They will start their own work, factoring in the work that CWG has done. Right now we have the ownership of the issue, but not for much longer. - Annebeth Lange: We have found that it is difficult to find the harmonized framework we sought, and the perspectives are so different. If we continue our work in the CWG, we will continue to face this difficulty. - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: Just creating an exception for 2-letter and 3-letter codes is not a policy, it is temporarily setting them aside. As Annebeth said, the issue is much bigger than 2-letter and 3-letter codes. It's important to underline that the community has taken a much broader definition of geographic names. Our narrow group’s definition was limited to 2- and 3- letter codes and we realize now that the problem is much bigger. We must think about how we want to frame recommendations for the path forward. - Annebeth Lange: Nobody has the right to these names by law, but that does not mean that ICANN has to offer everything in its private contracts if using these names will have political or other implication. - Bart Boswinkel: Confirming with the group that the first recommendation is currently supported by the group [the group confirmed]. Recommendation 2 is also from the previous document. - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: #2 is not 100% clear or differentiated from #1 in the current document. - Alexander Schubert: Our scope and viewpoint is different from the people who are creating policy through the PDP. The perspective of the PDP group is much narrower. - Bart Boswinkel: The definitions in the Applicant Guidebook were not very clear. If the community is not careful, they will be treading on territory that is both within the remit of the ccNSO and the GNSO policy processes. - Alexander Schubert: Looking at real world outcomes, if we are not fast and come up with something concrete, they will create something on their own. If we want to impact the Applicant Guidebook for the next round, we have to produce something concrete this year. - Annebeth Lange: Is Alexander saying that those working with the subsequent round will respect the AGB on the ISO 3166 and keep it that way? My understanding has been that many wanted to change it, to remove the "protection" and open up everything - Susan Payne: Within the Subsequent Procedures PDP, the reserved names including geographical requirements are within scope. If there is advice from this working group, they will take it into consideration. If the CWG does not produce advice, they will take up the issue. The CWG still plans on producing a recommendation on 2-letter codes as addressed in the draft report. - Bart Boswinkel: Yes, geographic names are within the remit of the PDP. He is flagging the concern raised by others that geographic names are not just within the remit of the GNSO but also the ccNSO. - Susan Payne: The PDP currently chartered is open to all, all from this group can participate. Even if we don't produce recommendations, individuals from this group still have an opportunity to provide input. - Bart Boswinkel: Background on the progress report and recommendations – the goal was to express that based on discussions to date, knowing that other efforts exist as well, it's impossible to create a harmonized framework unless it's a collective effort, the only way to ensure that this is impactful is under a PDP. This is the focus of recommendation #1. - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: Agrees that recommendation #1 seems to stand. There appears to be less agreement or not a clear path on number 2 and 3. How can we wrap this up for the next meeting so we can focus on the other document? - Bart Boswinkel: Clarification -- first alternative for recommendation 3 begins "The CWG could not agree..." and second alternative begins "To ensure the conclusions..." [Action item: Bart will clarify text and recirculate so that it can be adopted.] - Bart Boswinkel: the purpose of the progress report is to give the community in Hyderabad an update on the direction of travel for this group. - Annebeth Lange: Even if we don't manage to come up with a framework for 3-letter codes we should flag that we came to a recommendation for 2-letter codes. From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Date: Monday 3 October 2016 at 18:25 To: "ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org" <ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for CWG-UCTN WG call Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as TLDs meeting held on Monday, 3 October 2016 at 12:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ctn-03oct16-en.mp3[audio.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> On page: [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#o[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…>ct[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_calendar…> Attendees: ccNSO: Annebeth Lange, .no Mirjana Tasic, .rs GNSO Carlos Raul Gutierrez, NPOC (co-Chair) Alexander Schubert, RySG Griffin Barnett, IPC Maxim Alzoba, NTAG (GNSO) Susan Payne (IPC) ALAC: Cheryl Langdon-Orr GAC: Mzia Gogilashvili Additional Members: Apologies: Jaap Akkerhuis ( ISO 3166 Expert) Jacqueline Morris Laura Watkins Joke Braecken (Staff) ICANN staff: Bart Boswinkel Steve Chan Emily Barabas Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ux2sAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie **************** Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 3 October 2016: Nathalie Peregrine: Dear all, welcome to the CWG on Country and Territory Names as TLDs meeting on the 3rd October 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 12:40) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nathalie Peregrine: Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/_A_4Aw ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 13:52) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Hello All ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 13:57) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- bart boswinkel: Hello all ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:01) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mirjana Tasic .rs: Hello all Nathalie Peregrine: Welcome everyone! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:05) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nathalie Peregrine: Mzia Gogilashvili has joined the call ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:06) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Raul Gutierrez: pretty small print Carlos Raul Gutierrez: can you zoon in? Carlos Raul Gutierrez: zoom in Carlos Raul Gutierrez: this is much better Carlos Raul Gutierrez: thanks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:10) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Raul Gutierrez: It is odd ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:13) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): .com ? Annebeth Lange: I agree with you here, Alexander. There are different reasons behind this reservation (for .nic). Steve Chan: The Reserved Names list is in section 2.2.1.2.1 of the Applicant Guidebook: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-… Carlos Raul Gutierrez: but 3 letter coes are allowed Carlos Raul Gutierrez: 3 letter words Annebeth Lange: Today 3-letter words are allowed, but not those on the ISO 3166-1 alpha 3. Annebeth Lange: If these are opened, .nic will still be reserverd, as I see it. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: thanks Annebeth: so it means the iso list is reserved Alexander Schubert: But we could recommend to ICANN to overthink whether ".nic" desprately HAS to be on the protected list. But that is not really our problem I think. Annebeth Lange: So far it has been reserved, Carlos, but what we are discussing is whether it should be opened in the next round Alexander Schubert: There is kind of an "overlap" - but no real "conflict" in my eyes. Annebeth Lange: Agree, Alexandaer. Alexander Schubert: :-) Carlos Raul Gutierrez: we should say that there is no agreement ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:18) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annebeth Lange: Could you scroll the document forward Annebeth Lange: OK Steve Chan: Rather than "conflict" or "overlap", it would seem like an exception because of the Reserved Names list. Annebeth Lange: Yes, Steve ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:26) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Raul Gutierrez: ok Carlos Raul Gutierrez: ok Carlos Raul Gutierrez: i see ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:36) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Raul Gutierrez: @Annebeth it was just to metion one of the positions on the floor Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Agree with Annebeth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:39) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): we need some kind of voting (not many people participate today) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): at least doodle poll or e-mail Carlos Raul Gutierrez: #2 in my view is not 100% clear or differentiated from #1 Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Maxim, this is only a progress report Carlos Raul Gutierrez: recommendations in my view would belong into the second paper Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): then it could be omited Carlos Raul Gutierrez: but we can change it Carlos Raul Gutierrez: I tend to support your postion Maxim on #2 Carlos Raul Gutierrez: either make it clearer (CWG vs. PDP) or out ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:44) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annebeth Lange: So Alexander, do you mean that those working with the subsequent round will respect the AGB on the ISO 3166 and keep it that way? My understanding has been that many wanted to change it, to remove the "protection" and open up everything ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:47) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annebeth Lange: I agree, Alexander, but the problem is that the views in this WG is widely apart, and I cannot see that we manage to deliver a "solution" that we agree on ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:48) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annebeth Lange: I agree with you, Susan, 2-letters are not the difficult ones Annebeth Lange: So at least we can give that advice to the PDP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:50) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annebeth Lange: Agree, Bart, therefore the alternative for recommendation 3 takes this into consideration ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:54) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): non objection whould one of the ways , after all we might write, that there was non-objection or something like ut Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:58) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Schubert: Do we expect to be mandated by gnSO and GAC to build another CWG? Or do we agree that if we do not come up with a solution the GNSO will take ownership of the task to develop a solution for Teritory names and ISO3166 Alpha 3 names in the next round? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 15:02) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mirjana Tasic .rs: I agree with Annebeth remark that our recommendation for two letter codes should be included in the progress report Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): 2100 Steve Chan: I do not see a conflict with the New gTLD group on the 17th. And this group is scheduled to meet at 2100 UTC. Steve Chan: The New gTLD PDP WG is scheduled for 0300 on the 17th of Oct Susan Payne: sounds good Mirjana Tasic .rs: Bye Alexander Schubert: bye everbody! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): bye all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): bye

1 0

Notes and Action Items CWG-UCTN WG call
by Emily Barabas Oct. 3, 2016

Oct. 3, 2016

Dear All, Please find below notes and action items for this call. Kind regards, Emily CWG on country and territory names as TLDs, Monday, 03 October 2016 Agenda: - Welcome and Roll Call - Reading of progress report (latest version included) o Reserved names and 3-letter codes o Recommendations - Call for feed-back Interim Report - AOB Notes and Action Items - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: Last call we were discussing preparation for Hyderabad. Two documents are pending for the meeting: Progress report and compilation of 2- and 3- letter codes reports. - Bart Boswinkel: staff sent an updated version last Friday and waited for feedback. None has been received. Bart updated bullets at the bottom of page 3 on inconsistencies in the framework and updated recommendations based on the discussions two weeks ago. Bart is unclear on bullet point number 4. It is Bart’s understanding that the existing reserved name restrictions operate as a general restriction, and not just for 3-letter codes on the ISO list. Do we want to introduce the issue of conflicts/overlap in different lists in this bullet or rephrase? - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: He believes is one issue where we may have we had different positions on our survey on 3-letter codes. - Bart Boswinkel: He found it odd the way it was framed in the current version of the report. - Annebeth Lange: This bullet refers to special 3-letter codes that were reserved for special reasons. - Bart Boswinkel: The alpha-three codes could be of interest to local communities Joke has noted an overlap with the existing reserved names list item .NIC. NIC is on the existing reserved names list (abbreviation for Network Information Center), but it also an assigned 3-letter code for Nicaragua. If the ISO list were liberalized, the reserved names list would still limit the use. - Annebeth Lange: .NIC is a special case, reserved not because it's a country code but because of its technical use. - Alexander Schubert: Does not see any conflict here in the rules. You cannot apply for this code (.NIC). It is not clear how this is a conflict. - Susan Payne: Agrees with Alexander. This is an example where there are some terms that have multiple meanings. This could be phrased differently to be more clear. There are existing reserve names restrictions that may include three-letter codes, but they are not all three-letter codes. This clarification may help. - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: Does not think we have an agreement if it should be reserved or not. [Action Item: Bart will update the bullet four to make it a bit clearer] - Bart Boswinkel: Moving to recommendations which are on page 5. Former recommendations 1 and 3 were supported unanimously on the last call. There was discussion on point 2 at the time regarding future work. Some members of the group felt that there are issues and topics that need to be addressed under 2 PDPs (GNSO and ccNSO) and ensure that there is no overlap. There was a reluctance among some ccTLD representatives to leave everything up to a GNSO PDP. Recommendation 2 was not adopted unanimously in the last meeting. Heather Forrest made the suggestion to separate out recommendations that were supported unanimously with those that were not. A second option is to try to combine the different perspectives into a single recommendation. - Recommendation 3 has been split into two alternatives for the path forward (now included at the end) - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: The GNSO Council is working towards answering the Board question about when and how new gTLDs can be delegated. There is a strong sense that the issue of geographic names is one of the issues that needs to be addressed before subsequent procedures move forward. Bullet #1 in this current draft provides a clear message, but it is less clear what #2 adds to this. - Bart Boswinkel: #1 and #2 are points #1 and #3 from the original version of the report that received support from the group in the previous call. - Alexander Schubert: The Subsequent Procedures PDP is waiting to see the output of this group. Soon they will see that there is no real input from this group. They will start their own work, factoring in the work that CWG has done. Right now we have the ownership of the issue, but not for much longer. - Annebeth Lange: We have found that it is difficult to find the harmonized framework we sought, and the perspectives are so different. If we continue our work in the CWG, we will continue to face this difficulty. - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: Just creating an exception for 2-letter and 3-letter codes is not a policy, it is temporarily setting them aside. As Annebeth said, the issue is much bigger than 2-letter and 3-letter codes. It's important to underline that the community has taken a much broader definition of geographic names. Our narrow group’s definition was limited to 2- and 3- letter codes and we realize now that the problem is much bigger. We must think about how we want to frame recommendations for the path forward. - Annebeth Lange: Nobody has the right to these names by law, but that does not mean that ICANN has to offer everything in its private contracts if using these names will have political or other implication. - Bart Boswinkel: Confirming with the group that the first recommendation is currently supported by the group [the group confirmed]. Recommendation 2 is also from the previous document. - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: #2 is not 100% clear or differentiated from #1 in the current document. - Alexander Schubert: Our scope and viewpoint is different from the people who are creating policy through the PDP. The perspective of the PDP group is much narrower. - Bart Boswinkel: The definitions in the Applicant Guidebook were not very clear. If the community is not careful, they will be treading on territory that is both within the remit of the ccNSO and the GNSO policy processes. - Alexander Schubert: Looking at real world outcomes, if we are not fast and come up with something concrete, they will create something on their own. If we want to impact the Applicant Guidebook for the next round, we have to produce something concrete this year. - Annebeth Lange: Is Alexander saying that those working with the subsequent round will respect the AGB on the ISO 3166 and keep it that way? My understanding has been that many wanted to change it, to remove the "protection" and open up everything - Susan Payne: Within the Subsequent Procedures PDP, the reserved names including geographical requirements are within scope. If there is advice from this working group, they will take it into consideration. If the CWG does not produce advice, they will take up the issue. The CWG still plans on producing a recommendation on 2-letter codes as addressed in the draft report. - Bart Boswinkel: Yes, geographic names are within the remit of the PDP. He is flagging the concern raised by others that geographic names are not just within the remit of the GNSO but also the ccNSO. - Susan Payne: The PDP currently chartered is open to all, all from this group can participate. Even if we don't produce recommendations, individuals from this group still have an opportunity to provide input. - Bart Boswinkel: Background on the progress report and recommendations – the goal was to express that based on discussions to date, knowing that other efforts exist as well, it's impossible to create a harmonized framework unless it's a collective effort, the only way to ensure that this is impactful is under a PDP. This is the focus of recommendation #1. - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: Agrees that recommendation #1 seems to stand. There appears to be less agreement or not a clear path on number 2 and 3. How can we wrap this up for the next meeting so we can focus on the other document? - Bart Boswinkel: Clarification -- first alternative for recommendation 3 begins "The CWG could not agree..." and second alternative begins "To ensure the conclusions..." [Action item: Bart will clarify text and recirculate so that it can be adopted.] - Bart Boswinkel: the purpose of the progress report is to give the community in Hyderabad an update on the direction of travel for this group. - Annebeth Lange: Even if we don't manage to come up with a framework for 3-letter codes we should flag that we came to a recommendation for 2-letter codes. From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Date: Monday 3 October 2016 at 18:25 To: "ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org" <ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for CWG-UCTN WG call Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as TLDs meeting held on Monday, 3 October 2016 at 12:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ctn-03oct16-en.mp3[audio.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> On page: [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#o[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…>ct[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_calendar…> Attendees: ccNSO: Annebeth Lange, .no Mirjana Tasic, .rs GNSO Carlos Raul Gutierrez, NPOC (co-Chair) Alexander Schubert, RySG Griffin Barnett, IPC Maxim Alzoba, NTAG (GNSO) Susan Payne (IPC) ALAC: Cheryl Langdon-Orr GAC: Mzia Gogilashvili Additional Members: Apologies: Jaap Akkerhuis ( ISO 3166 Expert) Jacqueline Morris Laura Watkins Joke Braecken (Staff) ICANN staff: Bart Boswinkel Steve Chan Emily Barabas Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ux2sAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie **************** Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 3 October 2016: Nathalie Peregrine: Dear all, welcome to the CWG on Country and Territory Names as TLDs meeting on the 3rd October 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 12:40) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nathalie Peregrine: Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/_A_4Aw ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 13:52) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Hello All ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 13:57) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- bart boswinkel: Hello all ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:01) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mirjana Tasic .rs: Hello all Nathalie Peregrine: Welcome everyone! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:05) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nathalie Peregrine: Mzia Gogilashvili has joined the call ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:06) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Raul Gutierrez: pretty small print Carlos Raul Gutierrez: can you zoon in? Carlos Raul Gutierrez: zoom in Carlos Raul Gutierrez: this is much better Carlos Raul Gutierrez: thanks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:10) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Raul Gutierrez: It is odd ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:13) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): .com ? Annebeth Lange: I agree with you here, Alexander. There are different reasons behind this reservation (for .nic). Steve Chan: The Reserved Names list is in section 2.2.1.2.1 of the Applicant Guidebook: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-… Carlos Raul Gutierrez: but 3 letter coes are allowed Carlos Raul Gutierrez: 3 letter words Annebeth Lange: Today 3-letter words are allowed, but not those on the ISO 3166-1 alpha 3. Annebeth Lange: If these are opened, .nic will still be reserverd, as I see it. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: thanks Annebeth: so it means the iso list is reserved Alexander Schubert: But we could recommend to ICANN to overthink whether ".nic" desprately HAS to be on the protected list. But that is not really our problem I think. Annebeth Lange: So far it has been reserved, Carlos, but what we are discussing is whether it should be opened in the next round Alexander Schubert: There is kind of an "overlap" - but no real "conflict" in my eyes. Annebeth Lange: Agree, Alexandaer. Alexander Schubert: :-) Carlos Raul Gutierrez: we should say that there is no agreement ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:18) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annebeth Lange: Could you scroll the document forward Annebeth Lange: OK Steve Chan: Rather than "conflict" or "overlap", it would seem like an exception because of the Reserved Names list. Annebeth Lange: Yes, Steve ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:26) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Raul Gutierrez: ok Carlos Raul Gutierrez: ok Carlos Raul Gutierrez: i see ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:36) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Raul Gutierrez: @Annebeth it was just to metion one of the positions on the floor Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Agree with Annebeth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:39) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): we need some kind of voting (not many people participate today) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): at least doodle poll or e-mail Carlos Raul Gutierrez: #2 in my view is not 100% clear or differentiated from #1 Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Maxim, this is only a progress report Carlos Raul Gutierrez: recommendations in my view would belong into the second paper Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): then it could be omited Carlos Raul Gutierrez: but we can change it Carlos Raul Gutierrez: I tend to support your postion Maxim on #2 Carlos Raul Gutierrez: either make it clearer (CWG vs. PDP) or out ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:44) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annebeth Lange: So Alexander, do you mean that those working with the subsequent round will respect the AGB on the ISO 3166 and keep it that way? My understanding has been that many wanted to change it, to remove the "protection" and open up everything ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:47) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annebeth Lange: I agree, Alexander, but the problem is that the views in this WG is widely apart, and I cannot see that we manage to deliver a "solution" that we agree on ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:48) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annebeth Lange: I agree with you, Susan, 2-letters are not the difficult ones Annebeth Lange: So at least we can give that advice to the PDP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:50) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annebeth Lange: Agree, Bart, therefore the alternative for recommendation 3 takes this into consideration ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:54) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): non objection whould one of the ways , after all we might write, that there was non-objection or something like ut Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 14:58) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Schubert: Do we expect to be mandated by gnSO and GAC to build another CWG? Or do we agree that if we do not come up with a solution the GNSO will take ownership of the task to develop a solution for Teritory names and ISO3166 Alpha 3 names in the next round? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10/03/2016 15:02) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mirjana Tasic .rs: I agree with Annebeth remark that our recommendation for two letter codes should be included in the progress report Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): 2100 Steve Chan: I do not see a conflict with the New gTLD group on the 17th. And this group is scheduled to meet at 2100 UTC. Steve Chan: The New gTLD PDP WG is scheduled for 0300 on the 17th of Oct Susan Payne: sounds good Mirjana Tasic .rs: Bye Alexander Schubert: bye everbody! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): bye all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): bye

1 0