<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="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<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: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:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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 5 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 notes from the meeting today. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help WT 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/Dw9yB">https://community.icann.org/x/Dw9yB</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">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Emily<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"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Notes/Action Items:<o:p></o:p></span></b></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">1. Welcome; Updates on Statement of Interests (SOI) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- No SOI updates<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">2. Agenda review and length of calls<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- No proposed updates to the agenda<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- This call is scheduled for 90 minutes<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- No objections raised to making future calls 90 minutes in length<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">3. 2nd reading of the draft Terms of Reference<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- One perspective –IDN’s are mentioned briefly in the TOR document, but we need to be aware of the fact that IDNs will be used more broadly in the future, and that they are an important part of the discussion regarding geographic names<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Clarifying question - sentence 1 in the Scope, regarding “Grounds for Objection” - there is no section in the Applicant Guidebook that specifically speaks to grounds for objection with respect to geographic names. To what does this text refer?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Additional input - We need to focus first on the affirmative: what is a geo name, how are geo names reviewed, etc and then go into potential grounds for objection<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- In cleaning up the draft Terms of Reference, we should make clear in that sentence that there is no section in the 2012 AGB "Potential Grounds for Objections."<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">From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Kristina...you are absolutely right. We must not start with objections. We must start with positives and a very open funnel and work downwards to dealing with objections which may be a very very long way in the future.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">What Kristina recommends makes sense. Better to start with defining geonames and then drilling down into the objection process for them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sara Bockey: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Agree with Robin and Kristina<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">wafa Dahmani (AtLarge-ccNSO): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 kristina<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">- Note on the Terms of Reference Google Doc: the beginning of the document includes a framework for handling suggestions, including those that were included and not included in the current draft. This text
will be omitted in the final text of the Terms of Reference. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- The co-leads reviewed all comments and tried to work them in where possible, but if the comments were beyond that which is possible in the current context of a PDP WG frame, they were not incorporated into the current draft.<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">From the chat: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Martin...what I was saying was that we should be focusing on broader elements in this context as we know full well that Terms of Reference limitations we see issues raised time and time again outside of the PDP if people perceive their points are not heard.<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">-Question - in Problem Statement paragraph 1, what do the " . . . " mean in the quoted text? Answer - this is a long quote that was cut down.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Comment regarding the introductory language about changes that may need to be made to 2007 policy. If there is not consensus recommendation, are we putting in the Terms of Reference that we are using the 2007 policy as the point of reference or as the AGB was implemented in 2012?<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">From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Paul McGrady: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The GNSO Council Policy stands until it is replaced with new Policy. Intervening implementation that ignores Policy doesn't make the Policy go away.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Completely agree, Paul.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Katrin Ohlmer: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I thought the basis, unless we explicitly change or revert to the original policy, is the Applicant Guidebook <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">That is my understanding @Alan Yes<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">- We have policy in place that was approved in 2007. The AGB included some changes that did not go through a policy process. If the AGB elements are elements that the WT supports, this would need to be added to the
policy for subsequent procedures. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Some WT members suggested adjusting the text quoted from the Subsequent Procedures WG Charter. One member suggested that "overriding expisting policy principles" should not be included. The Co-leaders clarified
that the language quoted from the Charter in the Problem Statement are taken verbatim from the Charter, therefore it is not possible to adjust this text. However, some of the quoted text can be trimmed out if it is not relevant.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Input from a WT member -- the GNSO policy remains GNSO policy unless it is replaced with new GNSO policy, regardless of intervening implementation. <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">From the chat: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Paul & Robyn yes I agree however, we know that implementation substantially changed the way policy was actually used in the process. That is what we need to clean up; make more objective; ensure that all applicants know what they are doing; all evaluators are clear; ensure, particularly, when and how the Board and GAC get involved in any application evaluation. It is a grave error to repeat the confusion where the board becomes the evaluation panel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">It is double trouble that the GAC, in the context of the discussion here, becomes a quasi evaluation panel, even though we all know governments may have legitimate public policy interests<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Here's a proposed revision of Para. 1 (Scope) that addresses my concern. Explanatory note will follow: Work Track 5 will focus on developing proposed recommendations regarding geographic names at the top level, including both ASCII and IDN form. WT5 will (i) consider what constitutes a geographic name in the specific context of the New gTLD Program; (ii) analyze relevant rules contained in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended Evaluation, and Objection Procedures; and (iii) take into account previous work related to geographic names that the community may have completed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Can we have a ruling from the PDP Co-Chairs, we have to irreconcilable positions being proposed here as to what the default it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Explanatory note: : I intentionally used Geographic Names Review because it is the umbrella section within the AGB (2.2.1.4) within which a number of more specific sections – such as Geographic Names Requiring Government Support (2.2.1.4.2) and the Review Procedure for Geographic Names (2.2.1.4.4.). To address my concern about the previous “Potential Grounds for Objection,” I intentionally used Objection Procedures, which is the title of the AGB module that covers objections.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Kristina...nice work. Tight language and allows for inevitable broader discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Liz: Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks Kristina that helps us capture your point and post a possible solution <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Avri was pretty clear in Abu Dhabi at our WT5 kick-off meeting that existing gtld policy stands unless and until this WT comes to consensus to change it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1Alan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Steve Chan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Hadia, as noted by Greg, the language in quotes is direct text from the overall PDP WG's charter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Once again, this is the Charter you are objecting to.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Paul McGrady: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 Kristina. I like the proposed language.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Kristina, good writing. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I think Kristina's language proposal is a good way forward also.<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">- One WT members suggested that if the implementation from the last round incorrectly implemented the policy, this is different from a case where we might want to make adjustments going forward in terms of policy or implementation. Do we want to spend additional time focusing on policy that did not end up being implemented?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- In our deliberations, we could have a matrix with the 2007 policy, the implementation, the reason policy and implementation are different (to the extent they are different), and the recommendation going forward from the WG, which could be in line with the earlier policy, the implementation, or something different from either of these. Regardless of what the group recommends, the recommendation going forward needs to be clear.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- One member suggested that for any issue, if we don't make an explicit decision to change anything, the AGB stands. It is much more detailed than the original policy.<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">From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Peter Van Roste - CENTR: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 @Nick's comment. How have the other WTs defined their scope?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Can we ask the question, through the chair, if we can proceed with Kristina's language? Constant revisiting of the preparatory work is not getting us to where we need to be.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">We have to abide by the Charter whether or not it’s quoted in this document.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Greg...good point but the charter is also like a map that we keep at our left hand whilst we make progress...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kristina’s language needs to be amended to include reference to the 2007 Policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Marita Moll: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">That (such a matrix) sure would help those of us who have not seen the various versions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Greg: I didn't intentionally exclude the charter language. I was working from the current scope para 1.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">(to Alan)<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">Liz, the charter is not supposed to be a map. That will be the work plan The charter is the umbrella under which a work plan will be created to act as that map<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+ 1 Alan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Yrjö Länsipuro: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 to Alan<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">Lets please try to make some progress on the language itself as opposed to trying to introduce a new philosophy about charters. Thanks :)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Disagree with Alan.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Agree with our Charter, which should be dispositive.<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">-Review of Kristina's proposed text -- any feedback on this proposed text?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Nick Wenban-Smith (Nominet, RySG): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">happy with that scope wording which Martin just read out<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thnank you Kristina - very helpful<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat comments re @Kristina's draft text were by my reading all supportive<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">- One member stated that the 2007 policy should be included in the scope statement to put the problem statement and scope section in harmony.<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">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@ Nick W-S...agree with you which means we have some helpful scope and Kristina's language<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Paul McGrady: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Disagree with Alan as well. While we should evaluate the Applicant Guidebook, it needs to be evaluated against the standing GNSO Policy and in light of the geo names issues that arose in Round 1. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Katrin Ohlmer: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">good point Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Chris...we know full well that the AGB procedures were not right, at the time and in hindsight. We only have to look at the length of time it has taken for the resolution of some applications to know that is the case. We must aim to do better in any subsequent rounds...for the sake of applicants, their supporters and ICANN as an organisation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">We can include reference to the 2007 GNSO Policy recommendations in scope para 1 by changing my original (ii) to: (ii) analyze (a) 2007 GNSO Policy Recommendations on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains; and (b) relevant rules contained in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended Evaluation, and Objection Procedures;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Greg - we can look at referencing the policy principles for 2007 in Kristina's proposed text<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Chris...we know full well that the AGB procedures were not right, at the time and in hindsight. We only have to look at the length of time it has taken for the resolution of some applications to know that is the case. We must aim to do better in any subsequent rounds...for the sake of applicants, their supporters and ICANN as an organisation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">We can include reference to the 2007 GNSO Policy recommendations in scope para 1 by changing my original (ii) to: (ii) analyze (a) 2007 GNSO Policy Recommendations on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains; and (b) relevant rules contained in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended Evaluation, and Objection Procedures;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Greg - we can look at referencing the policy principles for 2007 in Kristina's proposed text<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Kristina....and there we have it :-)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 Kristina<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Katrin Ohlmer: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 Kristina<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Paul McGrady: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 Kristina<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I didn't say we should not re-evaluate. I said if we do not make any change, the new "applicant guidebook" we keep the language of the old one.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">showing what is *out* of "scope" for our work<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Noted @Peter , but do we need to explain more clearly in the text then or not?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alfredo Calderon: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Susan, I agree with 'remit' to replace jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">okayyyy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Must be that nasty American language.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Susan "remit" could well work<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">- Suggestion to change "leads" to "leaders" as the term for those in leadership positions for Work Track 5.<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">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I think that we can safely change LEADS to LEADERS without major debate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The Work Track Co-Leaders -- what was agreed to in structuring this WT5? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I ask because even in the Agenda pod the term "Co-Leads" is used.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> I object! I like “leads”!!! :)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Steve Chan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Justine, we have consistently used the term co-leads for the other four work tracks. I think using co-leads for WT5 was just considered a natural extension of that practice.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Steve, thanks for reply on precedent.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Janvier NGNOULAYE: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">But the WT5 can give its content to the word "co-lead" based on the scope we want to cover<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">- Question - why is the text about jurisdiction of SO/ACs included in this document under Scope?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- In previous discussions, there were issues raised around the distinction between a gTLD and a ccTLD and the remit of the GNSO and ccNSO. This text was included to make clear that these are not issues for this WG to address. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Feedback - in one perspective, the decision-making methodology is too closely tied to the GNSO PDP methodology and not influenced enough by the CCWG decision making methodology. <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">From the chat: <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">[This is Christopher's PERSONAL opinion]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Paul McGrady: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">My only comment is that this is, in fact, a PDP. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I'm a bit confused. This was billed as a second reading. What happens to the comments that were added to the GoogleDoc in the last day or two?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Darcy Southwell: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">This WT is part of a PDP. I don't understand Christopher's comments on that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Indeed that is *my* understanding @Darcy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">We are required to follow the GNSO PDP process, or ICANN is in violation of it's bylaws, so while we can be sympathetic to desire to change the process, it isn't a practical reality that we can do. We have to follow the process laid out in GNSO PDP process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Darcy Southwell: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 Robin Gross<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Griffin Barnett: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Susan Payne -GNSO: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">All PDPs are open to all participants. This one is different only insofar as significant extra effort was made to encourage wider participation. It's a PDP and has to follow the PDP process as set down <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 RobinGross<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sara Bockey: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Agree, this is a GNSO PDP and we will be following that process<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Paul McGrady: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 Robin. +1 Susan. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I understood that Christopher commented that there are some members who asked about the decision-making process of this WT5., not that he questioned it himself.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">As I recall from the development of the GNSO policy in 2007, GAC was heavily involved in the GNSO PDP process at the time. It is the reason why the Rec on "morality and public order" was created in GNSO process: because GAC wanted it and created it via the GNSO process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Karen Day: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 Greg, Susan, Sara, & Robin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Referring to rules of engagement...I would like us to focus on "speaking in a personal capacity"...we mustn't fall into the trap of "believing" that when someone says something that is the position of the group they would normally participate in. We need to focus on getting the best advice and input from participants. When the chance comes for public comments and other "consensus" voting, that is when we should be hearing submissions from named groups...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Correct @Martin we have made additional and proactive efforts for this topic, reflecting its importance to so many<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">- Another perspective - the decision-making methodology reflects the reality that this a Work Track within a GNSO PDP, so the language is appropriate. The idea that this is a Cross-Community Working Group is a non-starter. This process can be run by anyone and is open to all, but must follow the rules for how gTLD policy is set. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- This is intended to be an inclusive process and we have a substantial number of people coming into this process to participate.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Regarding rules of engagement - this is a GNSO PDP and needs to follow GNSO PDP rules. The GAC had requested that is be run under CCWG rules with balanced representation from different SO/ACs. This is not possible, but if the PDP recommendations
are in conflict with GAC Advice, the Board will likely not accept the recommendations. We should work to build consensus across different parts of the community as we would in a CCWG so that we do not come up with conflicting outcomes. <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">From the chat: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan, every PDP faces the same issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The strength of the process is extreemly important on this topic yes @Alan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alexander Schubert backup: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">GAC has to be consulted and OK with our results....<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Robin...actually that wasn't quite what happened in 2007. We struggled consistently with getting early and cohesive inputs from the GAC which is why we ended up with the "morality and public order" language to try to capture public policy concerns. We didn't do as well as we perhaps could have...but we did the best we could at the time. Fortunately in this case, all ACs and SOs are involved from the beginning.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Let's summarise where we are with the ToR<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Greg, yes, every pdp faces this, but we are entering this with a very well know point of contention. ANd i for one would like to think that we may come out of it in a better place. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Liz and @Alan to that end then the strength, inclusiveness and trasparency of the WT5 processes is extreemly important <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Yes Martin. How will the proposed new edits to the googledocs be managed? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I **strongly** suggest a specific date for all final imput into the ToR's for a very soon date<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alfredo Calderon: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">For the third draft reading I suggest a closing date, so we may discuss a document we have all read.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Exactly @ Alfredo<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">- For the Terms of Reference, a lot of comments were submitted. Some alternative language was proposed under the Scope which has received quite a lot of comments previously. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Proposal is to circulate revised text for a final review as soon as possible. <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">From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Only my concern with comments made on wiki<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Jeff, thank you, so long as there is adequate explanation on how they have been considered and dealt with so we don't have further questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alfredo Calderon: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 @Jeff recommendation to have a final draft.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 Jeff<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ok, I hadn't actually read te comments on GoogleDoc<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">- There are some new comments on the latest version of the Terms of Reference, but most seem duplicative of comments that were incorporated or that were not incorporated because they are not compatible with a GNSO PDP. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- One perspective -- change "minority view" to "dissenting view" in the decision-making methodology section.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From the chat: <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">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">We must not have minority views now...that is for the end of the process not the beginning.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Go back to the PDP Regs — we have to live by that regarding non-consensus views.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">if the WT changes the term, the PDP itself will not as we follow the GNSO PDP Guidelines <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Minority View is the defined tewrm in the PDP WG Guidelines. We cannot change it<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Yup @Alan indeed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Aren’t co-leads supposed to operate neutrally?<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">- Regarding approval of the TOR-The Chairs have responded to the GAC, ccNSO, ALAC about their request to formally approve the Terms of Reference. Official sign-off is not within the process that will be followed, but WT members are encouraged to share the draft TOR with the SO/ACs to gather comments and feedback for improving the text. Members should act as liaisons to their SO/ACs to
gather concerns and share them with the WT as soon as possible.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Clarification - the ALAC did not request to formally approve the Terms of Reference. The ALAC only discussed approval of the outcomes. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- New gTLD policy is within the remit of the GNSO. This group exists to do this work so it is not possible to soften this remit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- One Work Track member provided a reminder regarding Working Group Guidelines, including provisions regarding neutrality of the chairs/leaders.<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">From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">we have discussed this at lengh in the Leadership Team clls<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Yes @Greg I am sure they all do their best to do so<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I'm not sure it is appropriate for one group to be told to back down by the neutral co-chair<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><Comment> can Alan’s statement that beyond The undisputed fact that we must follow GNSO PPD Rules here, we must also all bind ourselves to “endeavor to also work as if we were a CCWG” in order to justly gauge views at all ACs & SOs so as to avoid future friction?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">view of all (typo)<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">The GAC did<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">GAC onl I believe<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The GAC set a lot of requirements that are not being met. We will hopefully survive that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Completely agree with Greg. GTLD policy is the GNSO's raison d'etre.<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">All - Lets stick to the Terms of Reference please<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sara Bockey: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Again, agree with Greg.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Good progress on the ToR though *Thank You All* for that effort<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Liz Williams: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Rules and Risks can be put together as a document for disucssion. @Martin...happy to help with that if you would like.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Terri Agnew: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The next meeting for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level will take place on Wednesday, 17 January 2018 at 05:00 UTC for 90 minutes.<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">AOB<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Discussion about TOR will continue over email. "Homework" will be circulated over the mailing list to gather input regarding risks associated with geographic names<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" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Emily Barabas
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">| Senior Policy Specialist<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ICANN</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>