Dear all, Please make sure to review the documents and share any concerns, as per the Action Items below: 1. Check summary of responses document to check if responses are captured properly 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 Note, that only three responses have been submitted so far. Following a discussion among the co-Chairs we will postpone our next meeting to Monday 8 February 2016 21:00 UTC. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 12 January 2016 at 02:17 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Informal notes CTN call 11 January 2016 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 quo² 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