Please accept my apologies. I was sitting up waiting for the call and fell asleep at my desk. Jacqueline Morris On 30 Aug 2016 03:55, "Joke Braeken" <joke.braeken@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Please find the notes taken during the CWG-UCTN call on 29 august at 21 UTC below.
The most recent version of the strawman paper, as shown during the call, will be shared with the WG list shortly.
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
CWG – Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains
Monday 29 August 2016 at 21:00 UTC
*Agenda*
1. Welcome
2. Discussion strawman paper post-Helsinki
3. Next call
4. AOB
*Apologies*
Laura Watkins, Paul Szyndler, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Sanna Sahlman, Ron Sherwood
*Notes *
Chair: Heather Forrest.
Role call
First meeting since F2F in Helsinki. draft strawman paper was sent out. Comments by Heather Forrest, Annebeth Lange, Susan Payne.
This WG has 4 co-chairs, but unfortunately there is an overlap with another call, so only 2 co-chairs are present at the meeting today.
Helsinki: cross-community forum on topic of geographic names
Strawman paper was commented by the co-chairs and some participants
Any comments?
Susan Payne:
No substantive comments, but those included relate to the final part with the recommendations.
If this group decides it cannot develop a harmonized framework, in the recommendations we should include who should do it. Suggestion is to go to PDP on Subsequent Procedures
Heather:
we should clarify the rationale for the recommendations.
Concern about setting up as CCWG: CCWG has an uncertain form
but uncertain as to PDP
But not PDP body by itself
Annebeth:
Difficult to find to a way forward. Agree that output needs to included in PDP's
Most logical that it will be PDP
Be mindful that others may need to have a say on par
Agree on way forward that there is a result
Cheryl:
As particpant in Subsequent procedure. A specific need for balanced input
Not necessary bias to specific part or interests
Equal participation needs to be warranted.
Heather:
sensitive to concern about representation
Certain groups in the community might need to be able to participate for various reasons, for example competing efforts
However not a structural problem.
PDP charter
Flaws this group limited charter.
Because dealing with harmonised framework should be broader.
Annebeth:
Difficult for other stakeholders to participate in PDP by the GNSO. it feels like foreign territory. How can we work even better together?
Bart:
2 observations:
1. limited framework is first and foremost an issue for participants in this WG from the GNSO side. The ccNSO does not have issues with other geographic names. But to move this fwd, it needs the support of all groups. it is really a GNSO issue, not a ccNSO
2. staff support on PDP for selection of IDN ccTLDs. moving forward, there might be some overlap between the subsequent round, and the work of this WG. Overlap and definitions.
Heather:
Cheryl’s comment regarding motivation. PDP’s meet weekly. there is pressure to do things in a timely way. Monthly webinars for newcomers. How to participate in WGs, and in the work of the GNSO?
Annebeth:
webinars are useful. groups such as ccNSO and GAC are interested in a few of the total aspects that are of interest of the GNSO. too overwhelming to follow it all.
Heather:
Reference to our talk with Jeff Neumann in Helsinki. their charter covers the issues related to geographic names more broadly.
ability to deal with things in more substantive ways.
Work Stream 2 deals with this issue. We could go back to the leadership of the workstream and the PDP working group, whether it could be consolidated into a substream.
Cheryl Langdon Orr:
agrees this is a good idea. Definite and proactive approach, to look for opportunities to have specified outreach and engagement. We need to make sure we are as inclusive as possible.
Bart:
using the PDP on subsequent procedures does not resolve that in some areas (full names of countries), there will be an overlap with a policy remit of another SO ( the ccNSO in this case). if something comes out that affects the ccNSO policy, that needs to be avoided. That is why this CWG was created: trying to avoid overlap between policy remits. However, it seems that a harmonized framework is not possible. So this was raised as a future concern.
Heather:
in the AGB are other areas of overlap probably. engage the SO's involved.
*Next steps:*
strawman paper: progress report to be finalised and to be sent out to the community. WG members are invited to take time to raise comments, or questions Everything that may impact the draft, should be sent to the list, as comments inside the document itself, not included in the body of an email. Deadline: in 2 weeks.
Timeline: next F2F meeting in Hyderabad.
process: desire to have some conclusion on where we are with this before Hyderabad. 2 weeks on the list to review the comments, and to respond to questions. I n the next call we will discuss the next version of the draft. that should allow us to make it to the deadline.
Nigel Cassimire
agrees with the proposal. We should agree on a way forward.
perhaps include clearer articulations agreed upon
Strawman background, contextual information would be helpful and should be included: footnotes should not just include the URL, but be more detailed.
*Action Items*
1. Staff to 2 present 2 documents at the next meeting: substantive document + progress report post Helsinki.
2. WG members to comment on the strawman paper to date. Deadline: 12 September
Next call: TBD
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom