<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: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.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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: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: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 find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 06 December. <b><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 chat transcript or the recording.</i><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><br>Some excerpts from the chat room also are included below.<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'>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><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 5 Sub Team Meeting 06 December 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><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1. SOI Updates: None.<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'>2. Terms of Reference Review:<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'>Actions:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1) Problem Statement -- Proposal to change "Consolidate work" to "streamline and consolidate the efforts of previous work."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>2) Goals and Objectives<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Proposal to change heading to "Context and Objectives".<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Proposal to delete the first sentence and also the text "As with the other Work Tracks..." in the last sentence and leave it as "WT5 leadership is coordinated by the PDP WG Co-Chairs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>3) Scope<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Paragraphs 1 and 2 -- some support for Alternative 1, which would preclude inclusion of paragraph 2.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Paragraph 3 -- New wording in the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kavouss Arasteh: “The Work Track could also will take cognizance, if appropriate, of previous work in ICANN regarding geographic terms including those that have taken place previously in the GNSO, the CCWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names, and the previous processes and procedures contained within the final Applicant Guidebook for the 2012 round of New gTLDs. 1 Which may concern the ownership, business model and jurisdiction of the proposed Registry. “<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): In Para 3, can we replace "take cognizance of" with "acknowledge" or "take into account" to simplify the language? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>c) Paragraph 4: Suggesting rewording and if included consider whether to say it is out of scope at this stage.<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'>Notes:<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'>Google Doc Link: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zLvMb_HrGrEUZYqqeaHTS3x-exIlc_dmo-3ZC9HuJag/edit">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zLvMb_HrGrEUZYqqeaHTS3x-exIlc_dmo-3ZC9HuJag/edit</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Since the last call there has been a lot of discussion on the list. Some has been on the TOR and scope, and some are other comments. What is not discussed here will be addressed later.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- NOTE: This will be the first reading of the TOR. There will be another reading.<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'>Problem Statement:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Comment on why the word "consolidate" was included: Reason why the word "consolidate" was included was to indicate that there was work going on in different fora and that one of the goals was to bring all of that work into one area (although not stopping other work).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- The key is "consolidate the work" is tactically correct but if you read it casually it sounds like it is consolidating the answers. Could say, "streamline and consolidate the efforts of previous work."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): <COMMENT> I support @Alan's clarification regarding wording. The text should expressly say "consolidate the efforts" instead of just "consolidate"<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'>Goals and Objectives:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Objection to references in paragraph 1 to other Work Tracks. Could delete the first sentence and also the text "As with the other Work Tracks..." in the last setence and leave it as "WT5 leadership is coordinated by the PDP WG Co-Chairs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Description of what we are doing and that all are giving their input into the plenary group.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Change header to "Context and Objectives".<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'>Scope:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Paragraphs 1 and 2:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- New Alternative (from the chat):<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kavouss Arasteh: “Work Track 5 will focus on developing recommendations to be proposed to chartering organizations ( ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO) regarding the treatment of geographic names at the top level, including both in ASCII and IDN form, evaluation criteria, potential grounds for objection (through specific approach ) as well as addressing whether such names require consent or non-objection from applicable governmental authorities.” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- If a lighter version alternative is selected we wouldn't need paragraph 2.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Proposal to delete the reference to Chartering Organizations in alternate 2.1.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Proposal to retain both alternatives.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- If we go for a lighter version of paragraph 1, there is no mention of specific categories of geonames. Should avoid excluding any category.<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'>Paragraph 3:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- New wording from the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kavouss Arasteh: “The Work Track could also will take cognizance, if appropriate, of previous work in ICANN regarding geographic terms including those that have taken place previously in the GNSO, the CCWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names, and the previous processes and procedures contained within the final Applicant Guidebook for the 2012 round of New gTLDs. 1 Which may concern the ownership, business model and jurisdiction of the proposed Registry.” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): In Para 3, can we replace "take cognizance of" with "acknowledge" or "take into account" to simplify the language? <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'>Comments from the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): <Comment>: I think that if there will be a specific reference regarding "consent or non objection from applicable governmental authorities" that would open the door to "consent or non-objection" from "linguistic communities, indigenous peoples, distinct ethnic minorities, etc). which I think are relevant here, but to move forward and be inclusive we should be less prescriptive and keep a more general language, to avoid fragmentation and balkanization. General language is better.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): <Comment> The best way to avoid exclusion is to remain general.<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'>Paragraph 4 <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Proposal to delete. Suggest it is better to be silent.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This was supposed to say that we are going to focus on the substantive issues of what is a geographic name -- noting areas that are out of scope.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Whether something is a ccTLD or gTLD is out of scope -- but if that is the case, when do we discuss it? We should base our discussions on settled matters. Stating what is out of scope is important.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Could we consider this out of the scope at this stage, but not close the door totally -- may come back if required?<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'>Comments from the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Ashley Heineman (US): Jeff - your verbal explanation of 4. is much more clear than what is written. Perhaps a rewrite and then we consider again later?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: @Ashley - We will take that back and attempt to make more clear<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'>Decision making (captured for future discussion):<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Some issues that this is a GNSO process, but there are four chartering organizations, so can we address decision-making from different perspectives.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Letter from the Co-Chairs has been sent to the ALAC, ccNSO, and GAC on decision-making; it discusses how consensus is measured and documented. If the GAC is working on a response to the letter, we should take those comments in context of the letter.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- There is a gap between the way the GAC works and the GNSO. We are talking about that in the GAC. We will talk about this in the TOR section.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Fear that some of what has been said is based on assumptions about the GNSO process that aren't accurate.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Concerns expressed that there should be equal footing for all of the chartering organizations on how you come to the decision making. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>