The next meeting of the CWG on country and territory names as TLDs is scheduled on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 12:00 UTC.
05:00 PDT, 08:00 EDT, 13:00 London, 14:00 CEST, 20:00 Beijing, 23:00 Sydney
for other places see: http://tinyurl.com/zmjqerd
Agenda:
- Welcome and Roll Call
- Reading of progress report ( latest version included) o reserved names and 3 –letter codes o Recommendations
- Call for feed-back Interim Report
- AOB
- Next meeting: 17 October ( Time to be determined)
Attendance: Carlos Raul Guttierez, Maxim Alzoba, Cheryl Langdon Orr, Annebeth Lange, Susan Payne, Alexander Schubert, Mirjana Tasic, Griffin Barnett, Mzia Gogilashvili
Apologies: Heather Forrest, Jaap Akkerhuis, Laura Watkins, Joke Braeken(staff)
Staff: Bart Boswinkel, Steve Chan, Emily Barabas, Nathalie Peregrine
Notes and Action Items
Notes and Action Items
- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: Last call we were discussing preparation for Hyderabad. Two documents are pending for the meeting: Progress report and compilation of 2- and 3- letter codes reports.
- Bart Boswinkel: staff sent an updated version last Friday and waited for feedback. None has been received. Bart updated bullets at the bottom of page 3 on inconsistencies in the framework and updated recommendations based on the discussions two weeks ago. Bart is unclear on bullet point number 4. It is Bart’s understanding that the existing reserved name restrictions operate as a general restriction, and not just for 3-letter codes on the ISO list. Do we want to introduce the issue of conflicts/overlap in different lists in this bullet or rephrase?
- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: He believes is one issue where we may have we had different positions on our survey on 3-letter codes.
- Bart Boswinkel: He found it odd the way it was framed in the current version of the report.
- Annebeth Lange: This bullet refers to special 3-letter codes that were reserved for special reasons.
- Bart Boswinkel: The alpha-three codes could be of interest to local communities Joke has noted an overlap with the existing reserved names list item .NIC. NIC is on the existing reserved names list (abbreviation for Network Information Center), but it also an assigned 3-letter code for Nicaragua. If the ISO list were liberalized, the reserved names list would still limit the use.
- Annebeth Lange: .NIC is a special case, reserved not because it's a country code but because of its technical use.
- Alexander Schubert: Does not see any conflict here in the rules. You cannot apply for this code (.NIC). It is not clear how this is a conflict.
- Susan Payne: Agrees with Alexander. This is an example where there are some terms that have multiple meanings. This could be phrased differently to be more clear. There are existing reserve names restrictions that may include three-letter codes, but they are not all three-letter codes. This clarification may help.
- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: Does not think we have an agreement if it should be reserved or not.
[Action Item: Bart will update the bullet four to make it a bit clearer]
- Bart Boswinkel: Moving to recommendations which are on page 5. Former recommendations 1 and 3 were supported unanimously on the last call. There was discussion on point 2 at the time regarding future work. Some members of the group felt that there are issues and topics that need to be addressed under 2 PDPs (GNSO and ccNSO) and ensure that there is no overlap. There was a reluctance among some ccTLD representatives to leave everything up to a GNSO PDP. Recommendation 2 was not adopted unanimously in the last meeting. Heather Forrest made the suggestion to separate out recommendations that were supported unanimously with those that were not. A second option is to try to combine the different perspectives into a single recommendation.
- Recommendation 3 has been split into two alternatives for the path forward (now included at the end)
- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: The GNSO Council is working towards answering the Board question about when and how new gTLDs can be delegated. There is a strong sense that the issue of geographic names is one of the issues that needs to be addressed before subsequent procedures move forward. Bullet #1 in this current draft provides a clear message, but it is less clear what #2 adds to this.
- Bart Boswinkel: #1 and #2 are points #1 and #3 from the original version of the report that received support from the group in the previous call.
- Alexander Schubert: The Subsequent Procedures PDP is waiting to see the output of this group. Soon they will see that there is no real input from this group. They will start their own work, factoring in the work that CWG has done. Right now we have the ownership of the issue, but not for much longer.
- Annebeth Lange: We have found that it is difficult to find the harmonized framework we sought, and the perspectives are so different. If we continue our work in the CWG, we will continue to face this difficulty.
- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: Just creating an exception for 2-letter and 3-letter codes is not a policy, it is temporarily setting them aside. As Annebeth said, the issue is much bigger than 2-letter and 3-letter codes. It's important to underline that the community has taken a much broader definition of geographic names. Our narrow group’s definition was limited to 2- and 3- letter codes and we realize now that the problem is much bigger. We must think about how we want to frame recommendations for the path forward.
- Annebeth Lange: Nobody has the right to these names by law, but that does not mean that ICANN has to offer everything in its private contracts if using these names will have political or other implication.
- Bart Boswinkel: Confirming with the group that the first recommendation is currently supported by the group [the group confirmed]. Recommendation 2 is also from the previous document.
- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: #2 is not 100% clear or differentiated from #1 in the current document.
- Alexander Schubert: Our scope and viewpoint is different from the people who are creating policy through the PDP. The perspective of the PDP group is much narrower.
- Bart Boswinkel: The definitions in the Applicant Guidebook were not very clear. If the community is not careful, they will be treading on territory that is both within the remit of the ccNSO and the GNSO policy processes.
- Alexander Schubert: Looking at real world outcomes, if we are not fast and come up with something concrete, they will create something on their own. If we want to impact the Applicant Guidebook for the next round, we have to produce something concrete this year.
- Annebeth Lange: Is Alexander saying that those working with the subsequent round will respect the AGB on the ISO 3166 and keep it that way? My understanding has been that many wanted to change it, to remove the "protection" and open up everything
- Susan Payne: Within the Subsequent Procedures PDP, the reserved names including geographical requirements are within scope. If there is advice from this working group, they will take it into consideration. If the CWG does not produce advice, they will take up the issue. The CWG still plans on producing a recommendation on 2-letter codes as addressed in the draft report.
- Bart Boswinkel: Yes, geographic names are within the remit of the PDP. He is flagging the concern raised by others that geographic names are not just within the remit of the GNSO but also the ccNSO.
- Susan Payne: The PDP currently chartered is open to all, all from this group can participate. Even if we don't produce recommendations, individuals from this group still have an opportunity to provide input.
- Bart Boswinkel: Background on the progress report and recommendations – the goal was to express that based on discussions to date, knowing that other efforts exist as well, it's impossible to create a harmonized framework unless it's a collective effort, the only way to ensure that this is impactful is under a PDP. This is the focus of recommendation #1.
- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez: Agrees that recommendation #1 seems to stand. There appears to be less agreement or not a clear path on number 2 and 3. How can we wrap this up for the next meeting so we can focus on the other document?
- Bart Boswinkel: Clarification -- first alternative for recommendation 3 begins "The CWG could not agree..." and second alternative begins "To ensure the conclusions..."
[Action item: Bart will clarify text and recirculate so that it can be adopted.]
- Bart Boswinkel: the purpose of the progress report is to give the community in Hyderabad an update on the direction of travel for this group.
- Annebeth Lange: Even if we don't manage to come up with a framework for 3-letter codes we should flag that we came to a recommendation for 2-letter codes.
