New gTLD working group
Monday 17 September 2012 at 1300 UTC
Summary Minutes and Action Items
MINUTES
AD gave a review of the Agenda.
Staff gave the roll call.
DAT provided an ANgRG status update - Discussed comments by IT for Change and their concerns allowing any type of generic names goes against the public interest. The RG will make their decision re the comment tomorrow. DAT also set out the RG timeline for their activities.
Update on gTLD Roll Out Issues -
- TMCH - AD gave the update re Hong's initial draft statement. There is ICANN's request for comments on TMCH. In looking at the draft statement, I recommend that people read it. The draft statement has a normal heading, it discusses the cost model, The prices they have given is approx $10k. This is a required activity. There is a heading that says one size does fit all. I think it should have been "does NOT fit all". Then there are points on what to do about this. At our meeting in Toronto, we decide whether this is ready to go. There hasn't been many comments since it was posted. The next time it is discussed, if there are no more comments, we should discuss sending it to the ALAC.
- Private Generic Names - We heard about the IT for Change contribution.I will probably link their letter to this heading. We are still in early days on this issue.
- URS - Does the group want to take the statement forward to the ALAC? Does it need further work? I think we are close to making a decision either before Toronto or at Toronto. Do we add another two sentences or not?
AD asked whether there were any additions to the list.
DAT: Just to clarify - will these roll out issues (esp.issue of private, generic TLDs) be discussed at the Toronto meeting? Would one hour be enough for all of these topics?
Comment from Rudi: Avri asked Rudi to put his comment regarding the cost being passed onto the user into the comment area.
Avri:
The Charter has been augmented
Looking for the development economies applications, there is an argument that says that there is a start, some disagree. The real analysis is that if we feel that there ought to be more applicants form developing economies, The analysis will show a variety of reasons, such as market, or lack of information.
We have some tasks: such as collect the reasons, and why, the next step is a form of information gathering. A survey, maybe interviewing, we need more information because we do not have solid information to back up our arguments.
So to understand why what happened happened. and then do we want to make recommendations for remediation? For example, giving priority ?
I will be looking for people who may be willing to do the work.
Please think about how we should run this.
One of the questions I got was: Why do you need a year?
I will start another table before the meeting in Toronto, with the reasons I have mentioned so far, so we can collect initial thoughs as starting point for any analysis we do.
We have one hour in Toronto, we have the basic agenda and what we are putting on it is an overview.
Heidi:She will confirm shortly if he can attend the meeting.
The meeting will be divided into 3 sections (20 min each).
if we want to be more organized about it, we can ask for more time, and people can sit around.
Dev suggested that due to the large amount of topics we may need to request some room. Anotther hour informal group is needed.
Heidi: Gisella will send a doodle out for the informal meeting.
AI: AD to build a wiki list for brainstorms on the reasons why developing country applications were as they were.
