<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:"Times New Roman",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:"Times New Roman",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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle30
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle31
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle32
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle33
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle34
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle35
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle36
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle37
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle38
{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;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Dear Sub Team Members,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 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 chat room or the recording.</i> See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings">https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings</a>. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Please also see the attached documents and the excerpts from the chat room below.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Julie</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span><o:p></o:p></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;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 July</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Top-Level Reserved Names: <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHao6Hf1s8eVeeh5-2DN0_edit-23gid-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMtBAreuvhWpN-6thmEVClNG91GucgpyZqWrLtf5-pQ&s=lIcv5DaNLirY3fA1hh7UF9mf9h_DijMWdSJwz0xGBHY&e=">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHao6Hf1s8eVeeh5-N0/edit#gid=0[docs.google.com]</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Second-Level Reserved Names: <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1WgsYlUpKI-5FQGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8GCamL3NQ_edit-23gid-3D2486987&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMtBAreuvhWpN-6thmEVClNG91GucgpyZqWrLtf5-pQ&s=l6y7KK4AOxj0K_R0j80Pejo238LBqudxUz3bvRTJ5X4&e=">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8GCamL3NQ/edit#gid=2486987[docs.google.com]</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>1. CC2 Comments: Registry Agreements:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>2.1.1 on single vs multiple registry agreements<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- To collect ourselves I want to engage to see if everyone thinks we are on the same page. This is where I think we are at -- what I felt was the majority opinion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Summary:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- Support for a model similar to what is currently in place: a single registry agreement with exemptions that allow for TLDs with different operational models.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- Also support for different registry agreements for different TLD categories, centered around a common, core base set of contractual requirements.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- The majority of responses has shown support for a single registry agreement that allows for different operational models.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- What this doesn't say that there should be no presumption that the open registry model should be the default model. that people don't have to explain why they don't want to be in the base agreement. It should accommodate other business models. 1) There should be no presumption is everyone is an open model; 2) ICANN staff and Board should be open to listening about other models and incorporating other specifications.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- I wonder if we can delve into the above statement. The concern is that if we have thousands of applications how ICANN would enter into negotiations with every registry and not singling out any registry for different treatment. There could be business models that truly are unique that should be differentiated. If we are going to have flexibility we need to build in some guidelines.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- How will ICANN do it I guess $185,000 for the fee should allow ICANN to engage in good faith negotiations. I don't think it is disparate treatment to allow different models.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- We all understand that it is very difficult to give specific treatment because of the Bylaws, but there must be some way for ICANN to be flexible for different types of business models. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- I think we should have some option in the application process for the models that we know about that we create specific provisions for the spplicant should pick which model applies. We should brainstorm what type of business models that we can foresee. [Action to Jeff Neuman and Paul McGrady]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- Whenever we create some loophole or extra provisions people who would like to circumvent the protections for registrants they will us it. To do things that you can't do with an open TLD. Such as leasing domain names.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- The current models that we are exploring -- such as Brand TLD or closed TLD -- there are specific provisions that you can't do that. We are having them follow the same protections as for registries. This is something that exists today. We are exploring different avenues for other models as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Jeff Neuman: Rather than use the word "exemptions" I would say "flexibility"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Jeff Neuman: Paul - Any examples of TLDs with different business models today that should have a different agreement<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander Schubert: So applicants can apply for eageneric term base gTLD, then keep it "closed" and (instead of allow registrations to happen) "lease" domains - without providing ANY protections to the "leasee"? Cause that what will happen.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander Schubert: .... a generic term based ....<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Jeff Neuman: @Paul - You make an assumption that the fees will be that high....decision has not been made yet.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Paul McGrady: Will still need an "other" option to open, closed, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Paul McGrady: @Jeff - I'm making the high fees assumption because I've seen ICANN's financial statements... They need the $.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Jeff Neuman: @Paul - lol<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Paul McGrady: But there can be many more models out there. Prior to the FIrst Round opening, I could have NEVER anticiapted the .sucks business model, but yet, here it is.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander Schubert: .book owned by Amazon and then SLDs "leased" to authors would mean the "users" of the domains are completely unprotected!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Susan Payne: Alexander I don't think it's reasonable to raise hypotheticals using real examples of registry operators without making that absolutely clear. People may believe you are referring to an actual intended business model <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>2. CC2 Comments: Reserved Names:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>The full list of CC2 comments on reserved names can be found here: <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tXnl3qV0rc/edit#gid=1800862598">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tXnl3qV0rc/edit#gid=1800862598</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>2.2.1 -- Do you believe any changes are needed to the String Requirements at the top level as defined in section 2.2.1.3.2 of the AGB?<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- Suggested changes to String Requirements: Valideus, INTO, RySG, NORID, BRG and Jannik Skou<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- No changes are needed: Jannik Skou, Nominet, Afilias, and ALAC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- The GAC pointed to comments it made regarding CC2 section 3.4 on String Similarity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- 1 and 2 characters were not allowed in ASCII and 1-character IDNs were not allowed. Respect the finding of the ccNSO CCWG on the use of country and territory names (UCTN) on 2-character strings.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- Not suggesting that we would overturn the CCWG determination, but that was about 2 letters, not about letter and number. Could have a recommendation guidance on letter + number combination.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- We are trying to be uniform in terms of 2 characters; we have consistent rules of no 2-letter-letter combinations because those are reserved for country codes. There is nothing technical that would stop a number-letter/letter-number combination, but there might be an issue with a number-number combination.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- In 2009 they said 2-characters were not allowed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- Discussion on whether we should add any of the newer names, previously.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- Most comments didn't get into every category we had. We could put that in a similar type of matrix.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Question: Comment from NORID -- protection for CENTR, just the same as GNSO, ccNSO. What do people think about that comment. Should we start protecting APNIC, LACNIC, etc.? Protecting regional names. <o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Responses:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- We should not be protecting them, but nothing to keep them from applying and then reserving them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- I don't see carving these out for them but also why we reserve the ones that we do. We need to distinguish why a few names are worthy of this kind of protection and others aren't. There is a balance that we have to find there.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-- IETF has given a technical reason for why they are reserved. At one point ICANN did entertain the notion for dropping the ICANN names from the list. Unless we know of a technical reason I agree that we shouldn't keep them reserved.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Jeff Neuman: Correct, we can decide from a policy perspective to allow a two character letter/number or number/letter combination<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Jeff Neuman: two numbers may be an issue technically as confusing with an ip address<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander Schubert: I think ALL two letter combinations should be protected - the Internet user gets otherwise consfused why some two letter combinations are cc and some gTLD! "aa" for example can never be assigned to a nation - should still be protected!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Jeff Neuman: @Phil - There are certain compromises that need to be made<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Jeff Neuman: HP can still get HPE<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Jeff Neuman: which is how they refer to themselves<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and what if the ISO list does allocate Hp?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Jeff Neuman: I strongly believe we should honor the one recommendation from the CCWG-UCTN<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander Schubert: I think the ccNSO will try to kill us all if a start grabbing the two letter namespace.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agreed Jeff<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Susan Payne: quite Alexander!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yep indeed <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander Schubert: Volkswagen!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander Schubert: vw<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): for the record My personal opinion is almost the opposite Phil, letters and numbers combination 2 characters excepted of course as Jeff is articulating now<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Michael Flemming: My personal opinion: Alcoholics Anonymous, American Airlines = AA<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Jeff Neuman: Other than the ones reserved by the IETF of course<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Paul McGrady: Was there a basis for reseving the others originally? Can we find it in the history? If not, no need to keep reserving them. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Paul McGrady: @ Jeff RE: IETF, sounds good so long as there is a rationale. Would love to know if the "ICANN names" have any basis. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree with the IETF list as they've got rationale to do so<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>