<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 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:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
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.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear Work Track members,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">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></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">The slides, recording, and chat transcript for this meeting
<span class="apple-converted-space">will be available at <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/DwWfB">
https://community.icann.org/x/DwWfB</a>.</span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">Kind regards,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">Emily</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><a name="_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Action Items:</span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Action Item 1<span style="color:black">: Cancel </span>WT3 meeting tentatively scheduled for
<span style="color:black">6 March 2018</span>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Notes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">1. Welcome & Introductions</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">2. SOI Updates</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- no updates</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">3. Plenary Update</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">The last plenary call took place
<span style="color:black">at </span>3<span style="color:black">:00 UTC today. The topic was Types of TLDs. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">4. String Similarity and String Confusion</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- Slide 4 - review of recommendation 2 and points of general agreement</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">From the slide:
<span style="color:black">Going forward allowing plurals and singulars in the same language to move forward is not desirable; Terms need to be intended as plurals and singulars. Thus the TLDs .new and .news would not be considered a plural or singular of the same string; Elimination of the SWORD Algorithm. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt: </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Gg Levine (NABP): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Agree strongly with plurals/sigular issue.</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Support the points of general agreement</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Support the points of general agreement as well.</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">happy for points of General Agreement to be agreed to. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- Slide 5 - Review of proposal for string confusion objection</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt: </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">The only thing missing is standing. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Comment: w<span style="color:black">e need to provide for an exception for a prior agreement between the parties. We don't want to put people in the position where they have to decide between filing an objection against one applicant and violating a prior agreement with another applicant in the same contention set. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Question:
<span style="color:black">This potentially implicates the Independent Objector. There shouldn't be anything in private applicants' agreements that would prevent the IO from taking action, correct?</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt:</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Trang Nguyen: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Regarding the string similarity review, ICANN org will provide input on the points of general agreement during the initial report public comment process. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">2012 AGB had no standing for IO to file SCOs. I would like that standing to be added. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">IO doesn't have standing for SCO. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">(If IO still exists, of course)</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Kristina - Current registries, current applicants and IO would have standing. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">So, to be clear, we're talking about automatic consolidation, right?</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">WT leadership c<span style="color:black">onfirmed that we are talking about automatic consolidation.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- What would the group like to see in terms of standing on this objection?</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt: </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Standing needs to be defined. I have a suggestion, others might prefer different standings, but we need to pick one. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Option 1: 2012 AGB (Registries and Applicants)</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Option 2: Registries + Applicants + Independent Objector</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Option 3: Anyone</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">My vote: option 2, to add IO. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">If we're going to relax standing (which would be IO and anyone), we need to require an early dismissal mechanism so applicants don't have to spend $ defending ridiculous objections.</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">I see advantage in an early dismissal process regardless,Nye's @Kristina </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Rubens' earlier point is important - can we be reminded what we agreed w/r/t IO? (No point in saying we're giving him standing for SCO if we're eliminating it)</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Option 2 looks fine. Agree there needs to be IO reform - and more than one IO so conflicts of interest can be avoided. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- One perspective - the IO should have standing on the string confusion objection. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- Slide 6 - Outstanding questions from previous discussions: Is consolidation of objections inherently unfair in anyway? How to proceed if the objector is an existing TLD operator? Are special considerations/guidelines needed? </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- Question - why was th</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">is<span style="color:black"> question raised </span>on slide 6 -
<span style="color:black">"how to proceed if the objector is an existing TLD operator?"</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- The issue of verified TLDs in a highly regulated sector has come up in previous conversations. If there is an application for a </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">string
that is<span style="color:black"> </span>a <span style="color:black">synonym/exact translation</span> of a highly regulated string<span style="color:black"> in the same sector </span>and
<span style="color:black">that </span>new string <span style="color:black">is not regulated, one perspective is that there could be a public safety issue. In this view, if the additional string is allowed, it should have the same restrictions.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt: </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Steve Chan: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">For the last point about appeals on the previous page, is that specific in any way to the string confusion objections? Or is that the appeal mechanism that has been discussed for all objections grounds and evaluation elements?</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">I don't see any difference for the 2nd bullet from 2012; if existing TLD, application fails. Like .COM and .ECOM. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Restricting in the same sector would be anti-competitive. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Anything in that sector should only have to carry similar PICs. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">important point Jamie the for raising that</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">might be hard to mandate though </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Agree with GG re regulated strings and eligibility</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">SCOs in 2012 were actually not expensive. So as long as ICANN keeps it in that range, people will likely won't get "denial of money" attacks. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">avri doria: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Rubens, not all applicants are quite as well set for money.</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Avri, I was in the receiving end of one such SCO... and except for the ones in Applicant Support level, I assure you it wouldn't be a problem. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">There's another reason to avoid automatic consolidation - one of the applicants may have trademark rights in the mark that the string matches - required consolidation would likely weaken that applicant's ability to prevail in an SCO</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">But that could be particular to that dispute resolution provider... if it was carried by ICC, then it could be a million instead of 5 thousand. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Is ICC the provider for string confusion panels?</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Consolidate by default, allow for exception to be request by applicant, perhaps ? </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Jamie Baxter | dotgay: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">The problem with letting the provider make a final decision on consolidation is that the loss of income for them will always be an influencer</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Anne, not in 2012. For SubPro, who knows ? </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- In response the the first question, </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">one perspective is that
<span style="color:black">consolidation should happen when possible and should be encouraged. In the view of one WT member, there should be additional guidance about where and how to consolidate, so that costs for applicants are not unnecessarily high.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- Concern </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">raised
<span style="color:black">about consolidation of objections - failure of weakness of one applicant's response will have an impact on the other applicants in the contention set.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black"> - One perspective - the consolidation should be more focused on the financial aspect than it is on only giving one answer. In some cases in the 2012 round, the same answer was given on multiple objections but they were all paid for independently. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- Comment: the objectors should be able to provide a rationale for why the objections should be consolidated. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- Comment: Unless we hear how existing TLD operators should be treated differently, there is no merit in keeping that question for further consideration. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt: </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Steve Chan: </span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">W</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">ould the opposite make sense perhaps? Where an objector can specifically request that their objection not be consolidated?</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @</span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Steve .. i believe the objector should have the option to make a case for consolidation. the final say on consolidation however cannot be left exclusively in the hands of the provider because money has proven to be a nasty inflencer</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Steve Chan: @</span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Jamie, I was thinking perhaps in addition to your point? Essentially, the objector would have some say whether or not consolidation for their objection takes place.</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @</span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Steve .. i see that as being fair as well. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b><span style="color:black">Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @</span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">Steve .. what cannot happen however is that the provider declines consolidation because of a single concern from an applicant that financial info may be shared with other applicants in the consolidation when financials had nothing to do with the objection. for the provider to decline consolidation and then assign the same panelist to all cases is a slap in the face and a clear attempt to bill for as much money as possible.</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">5. Upcoming Meetings</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- Upcoming call tentatively scheduled for 6 March at 15:00 UTC. The WT would go over material for the Initial Report and prepare for the face-to-face session at ICANN61. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- WT members expressed that they may not be able to attend this meeting prior to travel for ICANN61. This meeting will be cancelled. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- WG face-to-face session - 10 March 12:00 local time - this session will include material for Work Track 3. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- Question - how will the face-to-face meeting be organized? Will this be a good setting to discuss the draft document?</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- Suggestion - circulate the draft document as early as possible prior to ICANN61. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- The leadership team is working on developing draft content and this document will be shared as soon as possible. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- For the session in ICANN61 - each Work Track will have a segment of time to cover WT topics. This may be a good opportunity to review draft recommendations and outstanding questions at a high level. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">6. AOB</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="color:black">- None. </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>