<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Title content=""><meta name=Keywords content=""><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Dear Sub Team Members,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 11 July. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording</i>. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings">https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Please note that for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below and the PDFs of the sections from the Google Document are attached. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Actions/Discussion Notes:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>See: <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw/edit#gid=1442059046">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw/edit#gid=1442059046</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>a. Application Guide Book (see attached PDF)<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Question 1.10.1 -- Do you think it makes sense to partition the AGB into different audience-driven sections or by type of application?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Feedback to CC2 (NOTE: The notes below may paraphrase the comments. See the attached PDFs for the detailed comments.] <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Comment from NCSG in general that having an effort directed to developing countries and translations could help.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Both suggestions make perfect sense.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- INTA: partitioning could aid in making material accessible, but caution that different types of SGBs could lead to inconsistencies; supportive of partitioning into different audience-driven sections.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- GAC: suggests that there be a critical assessment of whether the AGB should be used as a central document in future, or whether simpler and clearer information can be provided.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Nominet: No -- partitioning would increase the risk of confusion and creates uncertainty.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- BC: Supports partitioning.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Jim Prendergast: Seems like an implementation issue, not policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- BRG: Support partitioning -- 1) write a new AGB to remove duplication and create a step-by-step guide; 2) improve customization of documentation; 3) define acronyms on first you and provide glossary; 4) partition section to specific type of applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- John Poole: AGB needs to be rewritten.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Afilias: AGB must be a single, consistent set of procedures and rules applied uniformly across all applications...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- RySG: Single AGB but should make specific note when variation exists among application types -- if no variation is noted, then all applications must follow the same process or standards in that section.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- ALAC: Not need to fragment the AGB as it may create confusion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Suggestion: Agree to an extent with comments on having the AGB focus on just how to do an application, which could be a separate module; need to have the other context, such as contention objection process. Think there is not a huge amount wrong with the current AGB, but pull out into a concise module how to complete and submit an application. Also, have an index on how to look up topics, such as geo names.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: I think a searchable Guidebook on the ICANN Website makes sense<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jim Prendergast: further to my answer - I dont understand how the organization and presentation of the AGB is a policy issue for this group to deliberate or decide.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: The BRG comments make a lot of sense<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: @Jim - We understand your comment, but it is a question we have in the charter<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jim Prendergast: ok<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: so, do you agree with any of the comments or the positions taken<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jim Prendergast: I need to review them more thoroughly<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: The Afilias position is worth noting, but could that be solved by having the single document be the "authoritative source" and the other simplifying docs contain the appropriate disclaimers<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: We can create the "Filling gTLD applications for Dummies" (assuming we can get the trademark rights for that :)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: +1 on a good table of contents and an index<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: And rather than PDFs, it should be searchable text<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jim Prendergast: I like the searchable component and keep in mind that it needs to multilingual as well<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Ashley Roberts: Agree with it being searchable<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>b. Clarity of Application Process<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Question 1.3.1: How should changes to the AGB and/or the new gTLD Program be handled in subsequent application windows?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Feedback to CC2 (NOTE: The notes below may paraphrase the comments. See the attached PDFs for the detailed comments.] <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- INTA: urges that improvements to the AGB be mae to ensure that "all applicants for a new gTLD registry...be evaluated against transparent and predictable concideration, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation of the process"... AGB is the proper vehicle for implementation of the GNSO New gTLD policy recommendations; and the AGB must be clear and unambiguous, not subject to change at community whim.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- GAC: Supports any reasonable measures that streamline application procedures...[See details in the attached PDF]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Nominet: Confirms that the 'moving of goal posts' during the application period was unhelpful; hope that the AGB and all associated processes and policieis are firmed up well ahead of the application period opening...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- BC: Next round we should expect the AGB to be finalized before the application period opens.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Jim Prendergast: If changes are made after applications are submitted there needs to be some sort of mechanism that allows impacted applicants the chance to either receive a full refund or be tracked into parallel process that deals with their issues directly without impacting the rest of the program; also issues with .mail, .corp. and .home were not addressed prior to the opening of the application window caused many issues...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- BRG: [See lengthy comment in attached PDF]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- John Poole: Ideally no more application windows since the last was such a disaster; if there is another 'window' the AGB should be 'trashed' -- ICANN needs to start over and do it right this time.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Afilias: Imperative that ICANN finalize the AGB prior to starting this Program -- to ensure fairness and predictability.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- RySG: Where process and procedural changes are further required after the new AGB or its replacement is published, those changes should be clearly document in a medium that is easily accessed by all applicants, and ICANN should make every effort to communicate these changes directly to applicants...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- ALAC: See response to 1.1.1 -- such operational issues are of little concern to the general public.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Valideus: The need for major changes to the AGB/application processes once a given application window has opened should be minimized or ideally eradicated, since it causes severe disruption to business planning and budgeting...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- RySG: Letter received outside of CC2 on Application Change Request Process -- A formalized procedure for making changes to a new gTLD application, based on what worked during the 2012 Round, should be developed and made widely available to applicants prior to future application procedures. On the Registry Agreement: a final or near-final version of the baseline Registry Agreement should be published and made available to new gTLD applicants in advance of any future application procedures.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- GAC comment intersects with WT3 work. Brings up the issue of GAC advice. We are talking here about changes to the AGB itself and do not see necessarily the need for as much flexibility as the GAC comment is implying. Dealing with GAC advice is for discussions in WT3.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Why the name collisions issue wasn't address depends on which side of the fence you fall on; but we do need a predictable process for how to deal with problems that come up after the application window has opened.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Goal is that the AGB needs to be finalized, full stop.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- John Poole's comment: The comment that the AGB should be scrapped and start over again -- sounds like adding another two years to the process. Not sure we'll do it better next time by doing it different.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Agree -- no reason to trash the whole thing, but listening to the bulk of the comments there are editorial and organizational challenges to make the information we do have more useable and audience specific. A more surgical approach makes sense. Maybe get professional help.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Process question: How do we envision coming to any policy recommendation? At what stage would we start to make preliminary recomendations? Answer: Good question. This is our second reading of a lot of these issues. We will incorporate comments into the second reading and to see what the common thread is. Take the strong trends and put them into policy recommendations. Get a strawperson recommendation from the leadership team.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kurt Pritz: Wasn't it INTA that led the charge in changing the Guidebook after the application window was opened?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kurt Pritz: So it is good that they are against change now<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: I think you are confusing INTA with the National Advertising Assication<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: (Or whatever they were called)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kurt Pritz: I think it was all IP<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Greg Shatan: Association of National Advertisers<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jim Prendergast: "another bit at the apple"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Greg Shatan: Not an IP organization, Kurt.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Ashley Roberts: I agree with the INTA comment. It seems to me fairly uncontroversial that we should have predictability with regard to the AGB, prior to the next application round commencing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: I think the points raised by the GAC needs discussion<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: BUt that is also a topic in WT 3<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Steve Chan: It seems that there might be a fair amount of overlap between this question and the overarching issues on predictability/community engagement. If that's the case, we should take care to avoid duplicative or conflicting outcomes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kurt Pritz: I think all of these issues were addresssed in the original Guidebook. The Guidebook was changed<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Phil Buckingham: Agreed Jim . Finalised full stop.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: Totally agree on the refund issue<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Steve Chan: @Jeff, I'll plug the work of the drafting team on predictability/community engagement again, in this case. I believe the goal is to establish a framework for addressing changes that might be needed in a predictable way.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kurt Pritz: Looking at the last line of the last RySG comment - it is almost word-for-word the same as the existing policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jim Prendergast: agree with the agreement(s) being finalized ahead of time as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Phil Buckingham: Comments noted for WT2 re the RA . Good suggestion to make the RA available beforehand . <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>