[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes & Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 September 2019

Julie Hedlund julie.hedlund at icann.org
Wed Sep 11 16:53:17 UTC 2019


Dear Work Track 5 members,

Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting on 11 September 2019.  These high-level notes are designed to help WT5 members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-09-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5.

Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Notes and Action Items:

Actions:

ACTION ITEM 1:  Look to see whether there is already a template for a “letter of non-objection”.  See: The template is on page 93 in the 2012 AGB - https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb.   Consider whether this needs to be an implementation suggestion: "letter of non-objection" draft tailormade for cities.
ACTION ITEM 2: Question: per slide 17, leadership is drafting the output for WT5 members to look at and comment?  Leadership to draft language providing context for the recommendations/output.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. Closure of discussion on Additional Categories of Terms Not Included in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook:

a. Review results of the poll

-- WG includes many people of different language issues, background, and ways of communicating.  Straw poll is a way to be inclusive and transparent.
Purpose of the straw poll:
-- Gauge whether there was interest amongst the whole WT5 to pursue this any further.
-- Allow those that had not been able to join last week's meeting and other recent calls to have a say.
-- Allow those who may not feel comfortable speaking directly on the calls to provide their perspective.
-- The straw poll is an additional data point and is not intended to give any definitive answer on this issue.

Poll Results: 30 responses to the poll were received. 22 responses indicated acceptance of the proposal on adjectival forms. 8 responses indicated that the respondents could not accept the recommendation.
-- From Paul McGrady: Note: as one of the authors of the Proposal, I want it on the record that the proposal was never meant to be voted on in a straw poll in a vacuum, but was meant as a means to try to find consensus on something we could all get behind not as a means to establish a new baseline for others to tack things onto later.  So, the proposal in the straw poll should be considered one put forward by the 3 co-chairs and not one put forward by Susan as refined by me.  It isn't the same thing at all.

-- If the Work Track is able to come to an agreement to put forward this recommendation, this is the only recommendation Work Track 5 will make on the topic of Additional Categories of Terms Not Included in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook.

b. Decide whether to close the discussion

-- Need to decide if there is any way this can be maneuvered to some kind of recommendation, or if it can be dropped.
-- Poll gave us a reflection that there was some positive acceptance on a compromise basis, and some disagreement.
-- Is that sufficient indication together with all other conversations to make a recommendation?
-- Everyone has had a chance to follow on email exchanges and the recordings/transcripts are on the wiki for reference.  No need to create a long report.
-- For those who supported the compromise, is that sufficient?  Will there be no add ons?
-- How to interpret the results of the poll particularly where a SG/C may have an official position but a representative of that group is voting differently because the official position isn’t finalized.
-- On the question of “add ons” if this is closing the door that would be good to know, but this could be a first step.
-- Official Consensus will be measured at the Full Working Group stage.  This was a straw poll on whether to move the proposal to the full group.

-- We can make it clear in the deliberations what the concerns were.  View the proposal in the context of the program, not based on what someone might ask for in the future.
-- People have been asking for additional protections on the call.
-- This is true of all policy development and compromise.  No one would ever agree to never argue for anything more or less.  Just document the context in which this was agreed.
-- Concern about why we would agree on something at the WT level when it can be expanded by the full WG.

3. Closure of discussion on Non-Capital City Names

-- No further discussion.  Close this discussion with no recommendations concerning the proposals.

4. Final review of public comments - Proposals on Change to Scope of Protections/Restrictions (time permitting)

-- No further discussion.  Close this discussion with no recommendations concerning the proposals.

5. How to present WT5 recommendations to the full WG

-- Work Track 5 is concluding deliberations.
-- Once the Work Track has finalized its recommendations, these will be sent to the full -- Working Group for consideration and consensus call.
-- The leadership team is developing a draft document containing Work Track 5’s outputs.
-- The focus of the document will be on the recommendations, the rationale for the recommendations, and any issues that the Work Track would like the full Working Group consider further. It will be more concise than the Initial Report.
-- Drafts will be shared with the Work Track for input.

-- ACTION:  Look to see whether there is already a template for a “letter of non-objection”.  See: The template is on page 93 in the 2012 AGB - https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb.   Consider whether this needs to be an implementation suggestion: "letter of non-objection" draft tailormade for cities.
-- ACTION: Question: per slide 17, leadership is drafting the output for WT5 members to look at and comment?  Leadership to draft language providing context for the recommendations/output.

6. AOB: None.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190911/74276634/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list