<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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-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:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Dear Work Track 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 notes from the meeting today. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript.</i> See the chat transcript and recording at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB">https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB</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'>Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span></b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kind regards,<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'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<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'>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017<o:p></o:p></span></b></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'>1. Name Collisions:<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'>Source data from GDD Technical Services, that acts as the basis for the information being presented by Rubens, is available on the Name Collisions Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Yz2AAw<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'>Slide 5: What's in today's agenda and what's still ahead:<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'>-- Results from GDD inquiry on reported collisions<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Whether 2012-round gTLD should keep readiness after 2 years of delegation<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Whether SubPro gTLDs should have readiness or not, and length of such readiness.<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'>Slide 6: Report collisions from 2012-round:<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'>-- No life-threatening collisions;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- 18 unique TLDs represented in 34 occurences<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Median of 3 occurences per TLD<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Median of 22 days between delegation and report<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- 23 cases reported as service disruption, etc.<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'>Slide 7: Reported collisions from 2012-round (cont.):<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'>-- In 24 cases the registry was not contacted -- determined by ICANN Org that it was not necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- In 5 the registry was put in contact with the reporter, in 1 registry stopped controlled interruption, in 1 no action.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Few data on outcomes -- all 5 known outcomes the network was updated.<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'>Slide 8: Two-year readiness for current new gTLDs:<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'>All 2012-round gTLDs were required to pass a controlled interruption period and be able to respond within two hours for life-threatening reports for first 2 years of delegation.<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'>Options:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> a) 2012-gTLDs should extend readiness beyond the 2-year period<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>b) 2012-gTLDs should only have such readiness in those 2 years as currently foreseen in the framework<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>b) 1 year<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'>Poll:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Option a: No one.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Option b: 6 in favor<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Option c: 1 in favor<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'>Sarah L Verisign: Rubens can we get back to you on this later this week rather than saying now?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): Sarah this is a temp taking not deffinative pol<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jon Nevett: we should do a cost differential before voting<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sarah L Verisign: I understand but I need to discuss this with other folks before making even a temp position<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jon Nevett: what is the cost of the readiness -- if not a lot, not big deal<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jon Nevett: if it is a lot, then it gets passed on<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alan Greenberg: Cost is lower for orgs that have multiple TLDs, since cost of readiness for 10 is no larger than 1 and TLDs come on line at different times.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Alan that every new gTLD is different. Initial evaluations on name collision risk could make a big difference here.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): thus my 'personal' comfort with the status quo on this at 2y<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alan Greenberg: My intervention was really in relation to THIS question, not just the 2012 gTLDs.<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'>Slide 9: Framework -- Two-year readiness for SubPro gTLDs:<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: Should gTLDs in subsequent procedures be subject for such 2-year readiness for life-threatening collisions?<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'>Options:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>a) Same 2-hour for life-threatening collisions readiness for first -- years. (Assume keeping 2 years.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>b) No need for readiness.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>c) SubPro gTLDs should have readiness covering more conditions with -- hours/days SLA<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'>Poll:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Option a: 4 in favor<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Option b: 1 in favor; 3 against<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Option c: None<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Should there be different responses for different types of TLDs?<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'>Dietmar Lenden - Valideus: 2 years would appear fair for all applicants past and present<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'>2. Registry Services:<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'>ACTION: Send slides 12-16 to the list and ask the list to consider and discuss on the list the three straw-persons, contrasts, and slide 16. Take up this conversation at this point in the agenda next week.<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'>Slide 12: Straw-person #1<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Slide 13: Straw-person #2<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Slide 14: Straw-person #3<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 on Straw-person #1:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Change in SP#1: When registry services are proposed that is when the community has the opportunity to comment and provide input. You don't know the impact that the services may have. Don't want to discourge proposals for new services.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- On the registry services policy -- they don't have to get input from the community except when ICANN makes a finding that a concern has to be evaluated. Then the community comments on that concern via the report of the RSEP panel. We can go beyond that for new gTLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- With respect to input on new gTLD applications, the community doesn't have a formal process but many of us review the applications. There are informal methods and if there is an irregularity there are ways in ICANN to raise an issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- If an applicant knows that if an applicant specifies a registry service and that it will go through more evaluation, that is a disincentive to provide that registry service early on. Then after signing the contract they will file an RSEP.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>