<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" 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:mv="http://macVmlSchemaUri" 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;
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-compose;
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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1516797743;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2061615870 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027"/>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/>
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Dear Work Track members,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording.</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Please see the attached slides and excerpts from the chat room below.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>--------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 01 February 2017</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1. SOI Updates: None.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2. Closed Generics<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Slide 3: Closed Generics -- Recap<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Discussed what a Closed Generic is and currently defined in the RAA.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Why we are talking about this.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Exceptions to Closed Generic Rule (Spec 13, strict criteria for registering a domain in an open TLD).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Analyzed pros and cons.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Slide 4 -- Closed Generics -- Recap, continued<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Addressed key aspects that contribute to possible paths forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Found it difficult to address potential harms or merits without documented evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Found that if a Closed Generic could be considered in the public interest then it may be beneficial to allow for this to occur.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Discussed the possiblity of allowing for a Closed Generic if we could allow for objections to an application or if we could keep the applicant in check.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Slide 5: Closed Generics -- Path Forward -- Possible paths forward at this point. The extremes and in betweens.<o:p></o:p></span></p><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Bring policy up to date with the existing Registry Agreement that Closed Generics should not be allowed.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Allow Closed Generics but require that applicants clearly demonstrate the Closed Generic serving a public interest in the application. This would require the applicant to reveal details about the goals of the registry. Establish an objections process for Closed Generics that is modelled on community objections.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Allow Closed Generics but require the applicant to commit to a code of conduct. This would not require the applicant to reveal details about the goals of the registry but commit to annual self-audits that fall in line with the code of conduct in regards to Closed Generics. Establish an objections process for Closed Generics that is modelled on community objections.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Allow Closed Generics with no regulation but establish an objections process for Closed Generics that is modelled on community objections.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- If there is more than one applicant proposing a closed generic in the public interest then ICANN would have to determine who is the better applicant (proposal #2).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Suggestion to combine #2 and #3.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Taken competition off the table -- figured that ICANN doesn't want to decide what is competition, meaning we have not come to agreement on the harms or the merits. If we could find a way for a Closed Generic in the public interest then we could find a way to allow it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Distinguish between classes of cases. A non-community TLD can have registration eligibility restrictions. .BANK as an example -- not a closed generic in the sense that names are available to third parties, but there are stringent eligibility criteria.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Restricted TLDs are not closed; a closed TLD is utilized only by the operator and its affiliates. Need to stick to our category and avoid scope creep/leap. Discuss really closed generics as our only remit. Try to settle in between #2 and #3.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- #2 -- require an applicant to reveal details about the goals of the registry. How can we phrase this to satisfied the need to offer details in the application so a third party can judge whether they need to file an objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Question 18: Mission and purpose of the TDL -- could that be used for the details?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- There are passionate arguments on multiple sides of this issue and we have no consensus on a common path forward: We should put out possible options on which we would like comments from the community. Show how we have considered all the options. Goal for the initial report is to show that we have thought about all of the models without expressing a view so the public can provide feedback or new models/combinations. Make sure we cover all of the scenarios.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Suggestion for #3 -- create 3a and 3b: would require the applicant to reveal details about the goals of the registry. Notice of intent and #2 and #3. A no-objection. Some kind of clear and substantive form -- missing a suggestion of the proof of notice to the community of competitors. Not ICANN's job. The registry is in the best position to provide the notice to their competitors. To #2 and #3 - clear disclosure of intent and proof of notification to competitors around the world to allow them to raise their concerns. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Julie: I object to that proposed change.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Question 18 did an adequate job. Object to a particular category of applicant having to give notice. Concerns about how to implement it and expectations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Might be more productive to set out all the options separately, but ask in the Public Comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Another option is the PICDRP. If we have the objection we will have a dispute resolution procedure.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Alan Greenberg: Does 2 imply a panel to judge whether the proposal is indeed in the PI?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>christine farley: Have you considered an additional option that combines the requirements of #2 & #3?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Jim Prendergast: not a comment speciifc to the possible paths forward but a larger one. My sense is if the broader community knew that this WT was charged with responding to to the NGPC on closed generics (among the many other topics we are working on as part of the PDP), we'd have a lot more participation. A lot more<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Jim Prendergast: Do we have any indication that the GAC objection to closed Generics has changed or softened?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Michael Flemming: I do not believe we do<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Michael Flemming: Greg, I believe it wasn't .redcross but a different term. I can't recall at the current time what Jeff's example was.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Greg Shatan: Restricted registries are not closed registries. End of discussion?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Steve Chan: For reference, here is the Beijing communique: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>christine farley: Seems like there might be another option in Kathy's last comments. That is, allow closed generics only where the "generic" term does not describe applicant's goods or services. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Steve Chan: In short, the GAC Communique states: "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Greg Shatan: Christine, I think at that point it is not a “generic” at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Greg Shatan: Also, I believe that would not fall into the current definition of a “closed generic.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I think we're skipping the threshold question: Does anyone on the call believe that Q18 was insufficient and, if so, why and how should it be changed?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Michael Flemming: Thats a good question Kristina<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kathy Kleiman: +1 Christine - which seems to build on Greg's .BEAUTY example. How can they show it is not going to be a Closed Garden? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Michael Flemming: It is, but can be considered in line with this.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Alexander: It seems to me that, if the opposition to closed generics is on competition grounds, then it seems likely that the potential objectors would be competitors. I must be misunderstanding your question.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Jim Prendergast: on Q18 - (and20) I do think the arbitrary character limits placed upon those responses may have hurt applicants ability to fully describe their intentions/applications but no to the substance of the question<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Jeff Neuman: All we are trying to do now is list the potential options and put those out for public comment. Talking about the merits of these possible paths is fine, but lets make sure all of the options are listed to go out for comment<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>christine farley: Greg, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the definition of a closed generic is that the term is a generic term and the registry is closed. Your point goes to what is a generic term. Is it generic in a lay sense, i.e., a dictionary term, or is it generic under trademark law, i.e. is it a term that functionally describes the applicant's business. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Steve Chan: To Jeff's point, it might be useful to see if the number of options can be reduced?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Julie: I object to that proposed change.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Julie Hedlund: @Kristina: Captured, thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Alexander Schubert: Instead of a formal "objection" we should rather have a public comment period!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Julie Hedlund: Also, noted as a suggestion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): So, if the applicant isn't in the industry, it doesn't have any competitors, right?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kathy Kleiman: Great, tx Jeff.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kathy Kleiman: Can you give an example, Kristina?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I don't have one. The discussion has been focused on the applicant's competitors in the industry. it logically follows that if the applicant isn't currently a participant in whatever the industry is, it can't have any competitors.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kathy Kleiman: To #2 and #3 - clear disclosure of intent and proof of notification to competitors around the world to alow them to raise their concerns.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>