<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{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-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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: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 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/uYJEB">https://community.icann.org/x/uYJEB</a>.<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'>Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included.<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><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 4 - 12 October 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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>NOTES/ACTION ITEMS:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1. None<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2. Registry Services<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Slide 5<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Recollection of past discussions. E.g., means of collecting info to build Exhibit A, may have less value if done in bulk/incorported into RSP Program. Undergoing discussions might streamline registry service adoption. Possible source of innovation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Trang Nguyen: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>One additional note is that if a RSP program will exist in subsequent rounds, new registry services would have to be applied for by the RSP.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Q: Why? Registry services can be unique to a TLD/RO. Seems like it would be submitted by the RO. Jeff not certain that it's correct statement.<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'>- A: <b>Trang Nguyen: </b>The RSP would be the one delivering the registry service. So if an applicant's business model necessitates a registry service that a RSP is not already approved for, the RSP would apply for the registry service.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>QUESTION: just to clarify, Jeff, are you saying Registry operator can offer a new service and it would not be the backend provider of registry services who applies?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>A: <b>Jeff Neuman: </b>yes. Not all Registry Services must be provided by the RSP<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Slide 6 - SP#1<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Reading slide<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Slide 7 - SP#2<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Reading slide<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Believes bottom paragraph is already contained in Q23. Would not need to provide details for pre-approved services.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Last paragraph only reviews non-pre-approved services, so this is a change.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>P.S. it is BTAPPA, not BTPPA :)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Slide 8 - SP#3<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Reading slide<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Should remove contract negotiation process element in last sentence. Or change it to say that it may extend contract negotation (since RSEP possibly envisioned during contracting)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- RSEP envisioned at contracting time, which would likely extend timeline.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Does this structure discourage disclosure of registry services at application time? If no new services proposed, does this speed up application processing? Anne in favor of disclosure at submission time. Some say having to disclose at submission time discourages innovation though.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>--Many will say that RSEP is much more painful than during application evaluation. For RSEP, if there is a security and stability issue, does go through public comment. Also possible if there is a contractual ammendment. Many do not want to disclose as it may impact first mover advantage with innovative service.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Slide 9 - SP#4 (current implementation)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Reading slide (Note - Registry services were reviewed in context of technical and financial questions)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Should Q23 be viewed here as well for full context?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Reading Q23...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- The following questions ask in detail (e.g., Q24, 25, etc.). Q23 is the big picture and not scored. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Is the suggestion to remove Q23? Maybe not needed if there is only pre-approved services. How implemented, following questions, would still be needed. If you have the how, maybe you don't need the list.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Maybe a separate conversation neeeded to see where duplicative questions could be be removed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Wasn't aware that Q23 removal would be in response to having a list of pre-approved services.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne, it's not that... what's in SP4 is a direct quote of AGB.. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Thank you Jeff. I think this is a good question as it stands. But it's possible we should have pre-approved services - they would have to be desribed in detail as a "safe harbor".<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>IF there are new services, then yes we would need something that asks what those new services are and how they would implement it<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>SP4 doesn't have pre-approved services... even though 2012 AGB listed customary services, it gave no pre-approval status to them. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>@Rubens - I think we are talking about developing pre-approved services.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne, we are. SP1, 2 and 3 all suggest pre-approved services. And that's a change from current implementation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Jeff, I believe the decision matrix will make it easier to pick individual decisions instead of an specific SP. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Slide 10/11<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Reading slide<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- #1 and #3 only requires applicant to inform about registry services that are not in the pre-approved list while #2 requires all services to be informed, although #2 only requires naming pre-approved services and to describe only additional services in detail.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- #1 incorporates a list of pre-approved services by reference, although mentioning some, while #2 and #3 explicitly names a list<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Is this a distinction without a difference? How different is by reference versus explicit list?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Whether or not an explicit list is needed would need to be taken to the list. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- What does a list of pre-approved services mean? The how would still need to be provided and evaluated?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>QUESTION: Would there be a pre-approved manner of delivering DNSSEC as a "safe harbor" and only describe if you are doing it differently or uniquely<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- There are certain protocol needs to implement DNSSEC, but the specifics of how are widely varying.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>In DNSSSEC: NSECxNSEC3, use or not use an HSM, supported algorithms etc. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Re last point on slide 11 - "last bullet point" - change "additional" to "new" in describing requirement to describe "new services"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne, since it's only a comparison instead of specific language I believe we just need to agree on the understanding, which is indeed "new" like you mentioned.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Slide 12<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Pre-approved services<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 2+ track<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Timing<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Slide 13 (with pre-approved services<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Pre-approved services<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 2+ track<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Timing<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Slide 14 (if there are pre-approved services)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Base Exhibit A services<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- IDN services following ICANN IDN guidelines<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Non-mandatory block-type RPMs<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- BTAPPA ("Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Quoc Pham: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>a little off trace, I would like to just to make a statement that regardless of the straw-person that we put forward, applications should not be prioritised based on their listed registry services <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>@Quoc - very relevant and not at all off track<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Quoc, that's what question 3. Timing is all about. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>So, @Anne I am not sure there is a way to streamline all aspects of evaluating how one operationalizes those services that may have common protocols<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Pre-approved services by reference<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 6 yes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Take questions to list, especially since next call is cancelled.<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><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'><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'>Steven Chan</span></b><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"MS Mincho",serif'>
</span></b><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Policy Director, GNSO Support<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"MS Mincho",serif'>
</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org"><span style='color:#0563C1'>steve.chan@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>mobile: +1.310.339.4410<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>office tel: +1.310.301.5800<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>office fax: +1.310.823.8649<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'>Find out more about the GNSO by taking our i<a href="applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso"><span style='color:#0563C1'>nteractive courses</span></a> and visiting the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers"><span style='color:#0563C1'>GNSO Newcomer pages</span></a>.<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'>Follow @GNSO on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Follow the GNSO on Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>http://gnso.icann.org/en/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>