Notes: Call CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains, on Monday 23 May at 21 UTC.
Dear All, Please find below the notes taken during the meeting of the CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains, on Monday 23 May at 21 UTC. Agenda 1. Welcome 2. Preparation for community meetings in Helsinki 3. Any other business 4. Next meeting Notes and Action Items 1. Welcome Meeting chaired by Carlos. We are in the process of finishing the arrangements of the F2F in Helsinki. Today we are concentrating on those preparations. 2. Preparation for community meetings in Helsinki Bart prepared an overview/mindmap for the Wednesday afternoon session, taking place between 15:15 - 16:45 local time. Still pending: a potential meeting between the co-chairs of this WG and the GAC WG. Could be potentially on Tuesday, right after lunch. As for the Wednesday afternoon cross-community session, we will discuss today the following aspects: - GOAL of the session - potential TOPICS - FORMAT - ORGANISATION GOAL: Based on discussion in the last call and after consulting with the co-chairs, the goal is to present an overview of the geo name initiative in general. What is it trying to achieve for the broader community? Explore the feasibility of a harmonsied approach. What is such a harmonised approach, who are the interested parties, and why is it needed? Heather added that we indeed need to make a note of other potentially overlapping activities in the ICANN environment. Alexander S. invites for an RFP : what string do other applicants want to apply for in the next new gTLD round? In certain niches (e.g. community TLDs), the application rules resulted to be not feasible. Bart Boswinkel confirmed that the aim is to come up with a harmonised work. Carlos: one of the biggest challenges is to keep our discussion connected with other initiatives. Have discussions with other processes. PDP on subsequent rounds takess note of all the questions asked here. In the new gTLD round, there is the issue of competition: looking at successful and failed applications Limited work of this group: 2-char and 3-char. TOPICS: Should somehow come back in the format. provide a general lay of the land. What does it mean, to have a fragmented approach, or a harmonised approach? Include the concerns raised by SSAC. Geo vs country & territory names.Probably interesting for GAC, new gTLDS. ccTLDS who have deep concern on use of country and territory names. Core 3-char code differences. Timing: Heather: question regarding timing. Overlap with the GNSO RPM PDP WG. We might loose certain people towards the end of our session. ccNSO scheduled this on wednesday afternoon. Originally, there were 2 alternatives: Tuesday afternoon, or wednesday afternoon. ccNSO meets GAC on Tuesday from 15:15 until 16: 15 followed by session on SOP. Only available slot was Wednesday afternoon. Knowing there are parallel sessions, but from ccNSO perspective, this was the best alternative. Carlos: we welcome good conversation between both organisations, ccNSO and GNSO. 1,5h in this framework is much appreciated, even though there are conflicting sessions. BB: meeting is not limited to ccNSO and GNSO. Others are invited to attend. Clear intention to have a true cross-community session, including the SSAC topic. Marika: suggestion to having this session as a sub-topic on Tuesday afternoon. Jaap discussed the concern of the SSAC: Many people claim having a say in Top Level Domains. e.g. dot onion. TLD to be reserved, but not used for DNS protocol.ISO3166 list, IETF ... None of these groups are talking to each other. Each group develops its own policies, according to the caffetaria-model: you pick what you want. 3-letter codes and geographic names are unrelated. SSAC is trying to come up with a study: wo does what. ISO3166 does not even mention supernational areas such as (dot) amazon. Feasibility of a harmonsied approach in a broader context is being explored here. FORMAT practicalities. How do we bring the different topics forward and how to engage the audience? Those who are interested, but not experts, should be able to follow too. Suggestion to have Panel discussions, in speed panels. Discussions on 1 or 3 core issues, that need to be identified. Presenters to be identified, and moderator too. Suggested way forward: Brief discussion, and then engage community as much as possibly by asking specifiic questions, and then have the sense of the temperature in the room. Thus you can discuss different topics relatively quickly, and engage the community. Heather raised again the issue that you risk to miss certain GNSO people due to a conflicting session. BB: we need to get back to WG. if it is embedded in another session, the ccTLDS may not be interested. Moreover, you only have 10 minutes time if you embed it on Tuesday, instead of the 90 minutes time the ccNSO can offer. Final schedule arrangements are due to ICANN no later than Wednesday. ORGANISATION: The cross-community forum on Wednesday afternoon, under auspices of the ccNSO, is still open for discussion, due to schedule overlapping issues raised by the GNSO. Does the WG want to continue with this 90 min session on Wednesday afternoon under auspices of the ccNSO, or go instead for an embedded 10 min session on Tuesday? An answer to this question needs to be provided no later than Wednesday, when schedule arrangements are due to ICANN. Once this is clear: - People on call need to agree on the format, - the core topics need to be identified. - session chair, presenters, moderators, speed panelists need to be identified and contacted. 3. Any other business none 4. Next meeting 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
Hi, I missed the call due to the the INTA meeting. I'm not sure whether you were seeking input on the potential Wednesday afternoon slot for the community meeting versus taking a 10 minute slot on Tuesday. The Wednesday timing certainly is not ideal since it clashes with the open session on the RPMs (at least, based on the last version of the schedule I have seen) so some people will find this a conflict. Despite this though I would favour taking this opportunity on the Wednesday to try to surface issues and discuss harmonisation of activities on this subject. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy, Valideus Ltd susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> Sent from my iPad On 24 May 2016, at 03:40, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find below the notes taken during the meeting of the CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains, on Monday 23 May at 21 UTC. Agenda 1. Welcome 2. Preparation for community meetings in Helsinki 3. Any other business 4. Next meeting Notes and Action Items 1. Welcome Meeting chaired by Carlos. We are in the process of finishing the arrangements of the F2F in Helsinki. Today we are concentrating on those preparations. 2. Preparation for community meetings in Helsinki Bart prepared an overview/mindmap for the Wednesday afternoon session, taking place between 15:15 - 16:45 local time. Still pending: a potential meeting between the co-chairs of this WG and the GAC WG. Could be potentially on Tuesday, right after lunch. As for the Wednesday afternoon cross-community session, we will discuss today the following aspects: - GOAL of the session - potential TOPICS - FORMAT - ORGANISATION GOAL: Based on discussion in the last call and after consulting with the co-chairs, the goal is to present an overview of the geo name initiative in general. What is it trying to achieve for the broader community? Explore the feasibility of a harmonsied approach. What is such a harmonised approach, who are the interested parties, and why is it needed? Heather added that we indeed need to make a note of other potentially overlapping activities in the ICANN environment. Alexander S. invites for an RFP : what string do other applicants want to apply for in the next new gTLD round? In certain niches (e.g. community TLDs), the application rules resulted to be not feasible. Bart Boswinkel confirmed that the aim is to come up with a harmonised work. Carlos: one of the biggest challenges is to keep our discussion connected with other initiatives. Have discussions with other processes. PDP on subsequent rounds takess note of all the questions asked here. In the new gTLD round, there is the issue of competition: looking at successful and failed applications Limited work of this group: 2-char and 3-char. TOPICS: Should somehow come back in the format. provide a general lay of the land. What does it mean, to have a fragmented approach, or a harmonised approach? Include the concerns raised by SSAC. Geo vs country & territory names.Probably interesting for GAC, new gTLDS. ccTLDS who have deep concern on use of country and territory names. Core 3-char code differences. Timing: Heather: question regarding timing. Overlap with the GNSO RPM PDP WG. We might loose certain people towards the end of our session. ccNSO scheduled this on wednesday afternoon. Originally, there were 2 alternatives: Tuesday afternoon, or wednesday afternoon. ccNSO meets GAC on Tuesday from 15:15 until 16: 15 followed by session on SOP. Only available slot was Wednesday afternoon. Knowing there are parallel sessions, but from ccNSO perspective, this was the best alternative. Carlos: we welcome good conversation between both organisations, ccNSO and GNSO. 1,5h in this framework is much appreciated, even though there are conflicting sessions. BB: meeting is not limited to ccNSO and GNSO. Others are invited to attend. Clear intention to have a true cross-community session, including the SSAC topic. Marika: suggestion to having this session as a sub-topic on Tuesday afternoon. Jaap discussed the concern of the SSAC: Many people claim having a say in Top Level Domains. e.g. dot onion. TLD to be reserved, but not used for DNS protocol.ISO3166 list, IETF ... None of these groups are talking to each other. Each group develops its own policies, according to the caffetaria-model: you pick what you want. 3-letter codes and geographic names are unrelated. SSAC is trying to come up with a study: wo does what. ISO3166 does not even mention supernational areas such as (dot) amazon. Feasibility of a harmonsied approach in a broader context is being explored here. FORMAT practicalities. How do we bring the different topics forward and how to engage the audience? Those who are interested, but not experts, should be able to follow too. Suggestion to have Panel discussions, in speed panels. Discussions on 1 or 3 core issues, that need to be identified. Presenters to be identified, and moderator too. Suggested way forward: Brief discussion, and then engage community as much as possibly by asking specifiic questions, and then have the sense of the temperature in the room. Thus you can discuss different topics relatively quickly, and engage the community. Heather raised again the issue that you risk to miss certain GNSO people due to a conflicting session. BB: we need to get back to WG. if it is embedded in another session, the ccTLDS may not be interested. Moreover, you only have 10 minutes time if you embed it on Tuesday, instead of the 90 minutes time the ccNSO can offer. Final schedule arrangements are due to ICANN no later than Wednesday. ORGANISATION: The cross-community forum on Wednesday afternoon, under auspices of the ccNSO, is still open for discussion, due to schedule overlapping issues raised by the GNSO. Does the WG want to continue with this 90 min session on Wednesday afternoon under auspices of the ccNSO, or go instead for an embedded 10 min session on Tuesday? An answer to this question needs to be provided no later than Wednesday, when schedule arrangements are due to ICANN. Once this is clear: - People on call need to agree on the format, - the core topics need to be identified. - session chair, presenters, moderators, speed panelists need to be identified and contacted. 3. Any other business none 4. Next meeting 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 _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
participants (2)
-
Joke Braeken -
Susan Payne