<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" 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:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;}
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;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Working Group Members,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 28 November. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute
for the recording and transcript. See the recording and transcript at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/EJPDAw">
https://community.icann.org/x/EJPDAw</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Emily</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Agenda: </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. <b>Welcome/Review Agenda</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. SOIs</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. ICANN57 – Summary of outcomes and next steps</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">4. Work Track updates</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">5. CC1 Review, cont. (please see attached as XLS and PDF; iterative versions always captured here - <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw">https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw</a>). Note, we will start discussion at 3.b.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">6. AOB</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Notes and Action Items:<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. SOIs: no updates.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. ICANN57 – Summary of outcomes and next steps</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- WG meeting took place on day 1</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- leadership from each WT presented questions for public input
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- staff circulated notes from the meeting, and a transcript is also available (transcript: <a href="http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/fa/Transcript%20New%20gTLD%20Sub%20Pro%20Hyderabad%2003%20Nov%202016.pdf">http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/fa/Transcript%20New%20gTLD%20Sub%20Pro%20Hyderabad%2003%20Nov%202016.pdf</a>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- WT leads took notes on public input, which will feed into sub team discussions during upcoming calls</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">4. Work Track Updates</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">WT1</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Good conversation in Hyderabad on the accreditation program</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- There was also good conversation APAC regarding the applicant support program.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Avri and Jeff updated the GAC on progress made in this PDP -- encouraged more GAC members to get involved. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Alice Munyua from the GAC provided input on the issue of applicant support and has joined the Working Group. She will hopefully provide additional input for Sub Team 1.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Question: how many GAC members are in these WG meetings?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Staff response: As of 22 November, there were 4 self-identified GAC members who are Members of this WG, not including the GAC Secretariat or individuals who are GAC members/representatives but did not put down a GAC affiliation. There are also several GAC members who signed up as Observers to this WG.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- It may be useful to have moderated sessions between this working group and the GAC on specific topics, for example on the topics of geographic names and applicant support. Absent good representation from the GAC, how can we ensure that we have enough GAC engagement that we don't end up with recommendations that are inconsistent with GAC advice.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- The PDP and GAC could have an intersessional meeting in 2017 to accomplish this (not necessarily in-person).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Suggestion: engage with Alice Munyua and Olga Cavalli from the GAC who are active on issues related to this WG, as well as other topic leads.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>[Action Item: Identify topic leads in the GAC who are interested in PDP issues.]<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- GSNO liaison to the GAC (Carlos) can be helpful with coordinating</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Discussion with co-chairs and GAC in Hyderabad was useful. It would be helpful to include all working group members and all GAC members in an open discussion and have topic leads on hand to provide input. It is useful to go back to the transcripts from Hyderabad
to see who the topic leads and what issues are important to them.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">WT2</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names had a session at ICANN57. One item they discussed is whether to finish their Interim Report and then refer the issues to the PDP WG.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- If this issue is referred to the PDP WG, the WG could set up a separate WT and have rapporteurs from the GSNO, ccNSO, and GAC to make sure that everyone feels represented and comfortable participating.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- It is important to have input from ALAC, GAC, and ccNSO to make sure that all perspectives are taken into account</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Suggestion: send communication to Thomas Schneider and ask for point of contact for each issue that might be of interest to the GAC (geo names, applicant support, etc) to make sure that they are able to provide input</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- It may be useful to go back and look at the perspective of the ccNSO and the GAC regarding geographic names from the last round</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- GAC is developing a draft proposal for Copenhagen regarding geographic names that are not provided protection in the Applicant Guidebook.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Three questions asked in Hyderabad with respect to WT2: </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">single base registry agreement - most are in favor of constructing something that would allow for various categories, but but additional feedback is required on whether there should be a single base registry agreement with different specifications
or if there should be multiple registry agreements.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Continuing operations instrument - The EBERO is still viewed as necessary, but the COI model is causing a lot of pain, so we need to seek alternatives</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Reserved names list - we need to go back, organize ourselves, and look at the policy itself. Discussion will continue</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">WT4</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Focusing currently on the review and the timeline, as well as low hanging fruit such as work on Universal Acceptance. - Co-chairs will be looking at discussions from Hyderabad of the steering group on universal acceptance.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">5. CC1 Review, cont.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Process is taking a long time. We hoped to get through the review by the end of the year. Leadership discussed meeting every week instead of every other week to get through review of CC1. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- The next full group meeting is scheduled for Monday, 5 Dec at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes to focus on CC1 only. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Some of the sub groups need these issues to be closer to resolution in order to address topics in their own tracks.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3b. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- when I hear arguments like this saying that one form of releasing gTLDs might be advantageous to certain types of gTLDs, I’m prompted to say, we don't necessarily have to have a one size fits all. That if indeed the rolling rounds would
be particularly applicable to brands, but not necessarily to others for a number of reasons, then that’s something we can end up recommending. the rules don't need to be consistent across all categories. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3c. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Clarification on the IPC comments: the term open filing means that the application should be public record when filed, visible from day 1.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- It seems that people really don't see a large difference between equal treatment as long as we can achieve that consistent performance of the evaluators over time, which may in itself be a challenge.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3d. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- continuous process doesn't have to be a first come, first serve process. There could be an application window, followed by a pause, before the process proceeds.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Objections and comments should also be possible in principle.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Advantages and disadvantages of first come first serve should be further fleshed out before we come to a conclusion.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Council of Europe report advocates for applications in staggered batches, expression of interest period. And then there would be some period of time where others could object or also submit applications for those names and then it goes
through a process of how to decide between if there’s contention. This paper was informally submitted to us, so we need to discuss it as part of this topic.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- The objections could come prior to the application or after the application. There are different mitigation strategies.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Question: is this still an open issue?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Yes, the issue of rounds is still under discussion. Nothing has been decided at this point.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- One issue with first-come first serve: rules are needed for managing warehousing and those who submit frequent multiple applications.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- From the chat: </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Vanda: </b>based on our survey in this region, where majority would like to apply, a constant open opportunity to apply makes more sens for this region </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Alexander Schubert: </b>Can't be 100% FCFS - that would result in "gTLD-snapping" (as in domain catching in the 2nd round).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): </b>as these are scarce ressources and each string is unique, comments, objections and concurrent applications should be made possible</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3e. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From the chat:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Martin Sutton: </b>What rationale was used for the 2012 round? Was a continuous process considered? If so, is there any historic 'pros & cons' we can review?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Kurt Pritz: </b>@ Martin: Rationale for rounds: allow those not inside the ICANN circle a chance to catch up with those that are in the inner circle and could file the application on day 1; provide a tool for contention resolution; encourage applicants to carefully complete the application and not rush it out; to limit the number of applications in some way; the policy was to have a subsequent round in a year so as not to disadvantage those who did not make the first round</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Martin Sutton: </b>@Kurt: thanks. So based on your first point re 'inner circle' it could be argued that there is still insufficient awareness of new gTLDs and the FCFS approach would disadvantage outsiders. The 2012 round certainly limited the proceesing and was not rushed :-). I'll ignore the last point....</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3f. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- no additional comments</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3g. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- There seems to be no disagreement in comments. There seems to be agreement that rounds lead to pent up demand. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From the chat:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): </b>if rounds were continuous and in predictable timeframes the potential problem would be mitigated</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Harold Arcos: </b>"if rounds were continuous and in predictable timeframes,,,,," +1</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3h.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-common theme: rounds might or do increase pent up demand.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3i. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- How does this commitment work? How is it ensured that the commitment is met, and if it is not met, what happens?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- A clear commitment was seen by many in the AGB regarding timing of subsequent procedures, but there was also a commitment that the process would be reviewed before subsequent procedures move forward. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Nobody imagined that 4+ years after the opening of the last round that there would still be unresolved issues and applications still in process. Are we going to fix things perfectly or will there still be outstanding issues after the next window/round? What can we realistically do to make sure we are not in trouble next time?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- It is important that commitments are implementable, including a commitment on the period.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From the chat: </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Phil Buckingham: </b> + 1 Alan - this wlll never be perfect - however we long we take. There are many parts that are good / reusable. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Alan Greenberg: </b>@Phil, yes, but if we have such a large number of issues in the future, we will have to rethink again.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Greg Shatan: </b>Instead of "rounds", with space in between, we could have a new round open up when the previous one closed. Perhaps that's what meant by "continuous rounds." </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <b>kavouss arasteh: </b>between roundsGrec, we need some interval </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3j.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- This comment from the IPC comes back to the question of what is implementable in terms of predictability</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">AOB</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Next week's meeting will be focused on CC1 only</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>