Dear CTN WG, Thanks Bart for this clear summary of the latest version of the Progress report and Interim paper. Regretfully, I will not be able to make it to this conference call since I´ll be participating in a panel discussion at exactly the same time. Please excuse my absence. At the same time, I would like to express my support for Recommendation 1, Recommendation 2 Alternative B, and Recommendation 3. Overall, I would like to point out, that if this Working Group was unable to come to a clear solution in more then 2.5 years of discussion, it is highly improbable that the community will ever come to a harmonized agreement. Best, Rosalía
On Oct 17, 2016, at 4:32 AM, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote:
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.
<ProgressReport_postHelsinki_v7 14 October.pdf><ProgressReport_postHelsinki_v7 14 October.docx><Draft Interim paper - CWG UCTN - 14 October 2016 .pdf><Draft Interim paper - CWG UCTN - 14 October 2016 .docx>_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>
