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@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