Dear all, Please find below the notes taken during the session of the CWG-UCTN, on Monday 2 May at 20:00 UTC. ______________ CWG – Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains Monday 02 May 2016 at 20:00 UTC Agenda 1. Welcome 2. Acknowledgement of the comments received on the straw-woman paper to date – 3 character codes as TLDs 3. Suggested approach for ICANN56 in Helsinki 5. AOB Apologies: Maxim Alzoba, Susan Payne, Jaap Akkerhuis, Laura Hutchison Joining few minutes later: Paul Szyndler Notes & Action Items 1. Welcome Welcome by the chair, Heather Forrest. Housekeeping: wiki agenda page. 2. Acknowledgement of the comments received on the straw-woman paper to date – 3 character codes as TLDs Strawwoman paper proposal was drafted based on input received after a survey was circulated. Since the last meeting, comments received from Panagiotis Papaspiliopoulos and Colin O'Brien. The WG is grateful for the comments received, however very few comments were received, and with very different perspectives. This was anticipated. Discussion was started on the list by Alexander Schubert. The chair suggested we should use meeting B, the policy forum, to flash out the differences between the comments received to date, and fill the gaps. There is however still some uncertainty around the format of meeting B, across the different communities: * Approach Meeting B, GNSO (update by Heather) Largely schedule was designed around ongoing PDPs. 2 of those PDPs are dealing with the next round of new gTLD expansion. Only formal F2F meeting is the one with the GAC, primarily to discuss matters around the IANA transition. * Approach Meeting B, ccNSO (update by Annebeth Lange & Bart Boswinkel) Tech Day will take place as usual on Monday. There will be a ccNSO Members Meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday until the afternoon coffee break, followed by cross-community sessions as of 3 pm. Some of the suggested topics proposed for cross-community sessions are not directly relevant for ccTLDs. There will be some cross-community slots under the auspices of the ccNSO in the afternoon, which will be relevant to all communities. Normally the ccNSO Council meeting takes place on Wednesday, but this time it will be Thursday AM, before lunch. There will be plenty of opportunity for cross-community work. * Approach Meeting B, ALAC. (Update by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) The structure is fairly flexible. * Approach Meeting B, GAC (Update by Panagiotis Papaspiliopoulos) No information can be provided by Panagiotis at this point in time regarding the GAC approach to meeting B. However, he confirmed that the GAC-WG on geographic names is aware of the work done by CWG-UCTN. They have been briefed by Ornulf, Panagiotis and other GAC Members. Members of this GAC- group would like to have a cross-community discussion. The chair confirmed that the GNSO agenda does not foresee a slot for the CWG-UCTN as a cross-community topic. ccNSO as other sponsoring organisation on the other hand does. The CWG-UCTN could meet with the GAC on Monday morning. GAC-WG meetings are usually closed, but co-chairs attended in Marrakech. Highly encouraged to attend, if possible. 3. Suggested approach for ICANN56 in Helsinki Meeting B, the policy forum, is an opportunity for open discussion. Bart confirmed that on Tue & Wed the ccNSO Members Days will take place. However, there are open slots for cross-community discussions, organised by the ccNSO, on Tue, Wed and Thu, from 3 to 6 pm. The topics that will be discussed in those afternoon slots, depend on the cross-community slots discussed in parallel in the main room. Cross-community slots organised by the ccNSO could include a session for CWG-UCTN, under the umbrella of the ccNSO. The idea is to get the community more involved into the work of the CWG-UCTN. What is the sense from the floor, on this suggestion? Support from Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Annebeth welcomes the idea as well. Paul Szyndler added that we need to listen as well, not just discuss ourselves. There are various initiatives around geo names in the community at the moment. It is important to understand where there is mutual understanding, where there is overlap. Concerns: * Concern shared by Heather: there is a multiplicity of efforts in the space of geographic names. Moreover, there was an early and confused dialogue with the GAC-WG as to what their scope is, which is geographic and cultural names, other than country and territory names. There is a grey line between what the CWG-UCTN deals with. Concern that divergent solutions will be suggested. * Concern by Annebeth: GAC needs to be involved into the discussion at this very stage. To avoid delays in PDP. * Cheryl Langdon-Orr: avoiding litigation is a must. * Carlos: Danger that we miss the train. one of the other groups might go in another direction. Sanna Sahlman supports the idea of a cross-community session under the auspices of the ccNSO as well. No expressions of discomfort from the other WG members with this idea. Who do we want to invite? * ICANN Board (at least 1 member) * ICANN Legal * Leadership of subsequent procedures PDP (policy that lead to AGB), since the work of the CWG-UCTN will feed into the subsequent PDP work. Invitations should be sent out sooner rather than later. Format: ALAC organised a few years ago an interactive cross-community session on fast track for IDNs. This was moderated by Patrick S. at the time, but there are other good moderators available. At the time, the temperature of the room was measured with coloured cards, which allows people who do not want to come up to the mike to voice their opinion. Heather added that it would be better if the co-chairs do not moderate this session. If we organise a roundtable, and people are not able to attend, we need to have a back-up plan. (E.g. representative for each community, with particular expertise) An open floor format would be less dependent on particular people. But: a bigger format might result in less involvement. Bart added that the ccNSO always uses the temperature cards on Wednesday afternoons during panel discussions. Structured as follows: an introduction to the topic, followed by a short roundtable. Setting the scope and the scene, is then done by people you invite. Mini-panels: 2 or 3 people discussing a topic. Then over to next mini-panel. Each mini-panel talks for about 10 minutes. Questions you need to answer in order to be able to come up with a good format: What is the objective of the meeting itself? What would you like to share? Based on that you can start inviting people. The room, if we stay in the ccNSO room, will have set-up limitations. About 120 people can be seated. Typically there is a bigger table in the front, and the audience sits at tables, placed in rows. Action items: 1. Staff (Lars, Bart, Joke) will prepare a way forward in terms of the format, to be presented to the co-chairs. Strong format with interaction thus guaranteed. 2. Heather repeated the question whether there are any suggestions as to who we like to invite. So far, we came up with: ICANN Board (at least 1 member), ICANN Legal, the leadership of subsequent procedures PDP. The WG members were invited to send further suggestions to the WG mailing list, before the end of this week. 5. AOB Next meeting in 2 weeks time. Thank you! ______________ 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