Dear CWG colleagues, Please find my answers:
1. Check summary of responses document to check if responses are captured proporely?
All responses from RySG members were properly captured and sent to Lars on 14th Oct 2015.
2. Is the diversity of responses a concern for you (and why)?
The diversity of responses does not surprise me. It reflects wide range of views and I am not sure we might find better solution than suggesting WG-PDP prior to the next round of new gTLD.
3. Please provide a suggestion how to move forward, specifically in light of the diversity
I find the suggestion of Heather Forrest to be a good way forward in such circumstances ( on steps 1-2-3 , letter of 20th Jan 2016). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow) On Jan 12, 2016, at 12:17 , Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom