-
Calendar
More
-
ICANN Meeting Agendas
More
-
ICANN Meeting Minutes
More
- Welcome
- WG/WT5 members’ Statements of Interest (SOI)
- Presentation of different scope options for the ToR
- Comments from participants about scope
- Presentation of the Risk Based approach
- Comments from participants about the Risk Based approach
- Next steps
- AOB
1. Welcome
2. SOIs
-- none
3. Presentation of different scope options for the ToR
-- Reading slides. Red bracketed text represents possible options for text, for which the co-leads are specifically seeking feedback.
4. Comments from participants about scope
-- For slide 3, suggestion to replace "cognizance" with perhaps "consideration"
-- Slide 3: Farzaneh Badii: jurisdiction of SOs and ACs? First time I hear such a thing. you probably just mean mandate ?
-- Cross community session in Joburg discussed classification of geographic names as gTLDs versus ccTLDs. WT5
will not consider this question.
-- Nick Wenban Smith, Nominet UK, ccNSO & RySG: It seems sensible to me to start with the current rules for names
of a geographic nature as currently set out in the AGB plus the mountains/ rivers etc questions which have arisen subsequently
-- jaap akkerhuis: Let's insert a footnote to the CCWG reort as well.
-- Slide 1, what does "approval" and related footnote refer to? This seems to be a substantial change from the 2012 round.
ACTION ITEM: Get clarification around footnote from proposer of text.
-- @Liz, request to explain why she believes the scope is overly broad. Liz Williams: What I am aiming for is to make
sure that we don't run into the exact same problems we've had in the past...not just in the 2012 round but also the 2004
and 2000 round of expanding the domain name space. Whatever we do has to make reference to clear lists (ISO3166)
or clear protocols (UNESCO World Heritage Sites) or clear policy (RFC1591). We
cannot be making sweeping limitations on the new potential for the next round without thinking about the negative
effects on potential applicants. We want simplicity, ease, clarity and fairness.
-- In 2012 round, if meeting criteria, awarded TLD (in absence of objections, contention). Adding an approval
step element is a substantial change and could require discussion as a full WG.
-- Some support for regional approval
-- Scope for ToR is not about solutions, more about what will be discussed by WT5. Is the scope broad
enough to allow for adequate discussion? Approval is in brackets - seems to assume an outcome and
may be redundant to consent or non-objection.
-- Further discussions is needed for the scope of the ToR
Heather Forrest: Picking up on comments here on the Terms of Reference, it seems to me that the
most productive approach would be to say simply that geographic names are in scope, and make defining geo
names one of our substantive objectives (rather than attempt to do so
in the Terms of Reference) - I'm speaking from experience in the CWG Use of Country and Territory Names, where
defining geo names took us some months
5. Presentation of the Risk Based approach
-- Reading slides
-- Slide 2 - attempts to remove "gut sense" and substitute with more guided decision-making. Living document that c
an be adjusted as discussions progress.
-- Identify Risks: What are we trying to prevent and/or Who are trying to protect
-- Impact: Whay are we trying to prevent the risk
-- Likelihood: Based on what evidence?
-- Mitigation: How can we effecrively manage this risk?
-- Slide 3: Why risk-based? Other approaches have no worked. Plugs well into policy (What and why) and implementation (how).
-- Slide 4: How do we apply risk-based for WT5? 1) Identify risks 2) Assess risks (impact/severity, likelihood,
what is acceptable,unacceptable)
3) Address the risks 4)
Monitor effectiveness / continual improvement
-- Slide 5: Feed into a Risk Register, which helps support objective analysis
-- Slide 6: Addressing the risks through controls, which might take place under different phases
(e.g., pre-application, application, post-delegation). May make sense to go in reverse order in building controls.
-- Nov-Jan could be spent on identifying risks and utilizing reviews.
-- Consider how different aspects of geographics names should be prioritized for review
-- Through March, develop controls to identified risks
-- Slide 7:
6. Comments from participants about the Risk Based approach
-- Some concerns about the risk-based approach.
-- Helps in understanding why decisions are ultimately reached. If there are objections to this approach, what are alternatives?
-- Ching Chiao: I am not quiet sure about the "likelihood" part ... and how this can be measured quantitatively.
-- On a frequent basis or once every 100 years?
-- Alexander Schubert: Jeff: In 2012 we denied countries to apply for their country based gTLDs (e.g. .spain or .turkey) on the
sole basis of "RISK management" - never anybody considered the POSITIVE impact of such applications.
If potential positive impacts outweighs potential "risks" then we have to look "beyond" just managing risks......
7. Next steps
-- Next calls are 6 and 20 December.
ACTION ITEM: circulate Terms of Reference on list. Comments will be due by 20 December.
-- Discuss ToR again on 6 December meeting, though additional comments may be forthcoming.
8. AOB
-- Mentor/Buddy program: 11 volunteers. Next step is to see what members might want to work with
a buddy. Next steps will be circulated to list.
For complete record of output, including attendance, chat transcript and mp3 recording, see WT5 Wiki meeting page.
| Title |
|---|
|
Type:
Recording
|
