<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:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
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: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="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">Dear Working Group Members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 06 March 2017. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the
call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript.</i> Please also see the recording and transcript on the meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/9JLRAw.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri">Emily<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Notes/Action Items: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ACTION ITEM: Consider having tech support on calls to monitor for problems.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">1. SOIs -- No updates</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2. Work Track Updates</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Work Track 1 </span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Christa Taylor: No update. If everyone could review the updates in the questions - that would be great.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Work Track 2 </span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Michael Flemming</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- No update per se. Continuing meeting per the schedule. Recently started on the closed generics. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Work Track 3 </span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Karen Day</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Meets tomorrow at 1500 UTC. Robin Gross will lead the meeting. Continuing work on string related issues: objections, similarity, community-based objections.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Work Track 4 </span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Met today. Topic was name collisions. Managed to resolve one or two questions and tabled another two. Will continue that work.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">3. Community Comment 2 (CC2) First reading continued. (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit?usp=sharing). </span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ACTION ITEM: check the numbering and correct, as needed.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: throughout the CC2 document, ask for an explanation regardless of whether the response is "yes" or "no"</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Trying to make sure that the questions are clear and for others to answer.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Section 2.1 Base Registry Agreement:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.1.1 -- any clarifications (note that numbering needs to be checked)</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.1.3 -- Restrictions relating to sunrise periods. No questions or clarifications</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.1.4 -- One of the issues was that this needs to have examples. Do we need examples? Fine with the answer at this point. Not very clear as drafted. Long sentences that are difficult to properly understand. Re: "Should the application form state" not clear what part of the application.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Maybe the word "state" is not the most common meaning. Perhaps editing that sentence "should the application form explain..." </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- What do we mean by "balance be struck between allowing the [repeat "the] the community"?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- That is ideomatic speech. Could be "balance be found". </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: clarify text in 2.1.4; replace the word “state” with “explain”; change “balance be struck” to balance be “found”<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">From the chat:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Paul McGrady: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Can we draw a distinction between an evolution of a business plan and a change in the nature of the registry itself?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.3 Reserved Names (renumber):</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.3.1 re: string requirements and 2.3.2 re: list of Reserved Names: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ACTION ITEM: check the references against the Applicant Guidebook and add URLs.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.3.3 -- Special Use Domain Names -- Is Raymond Zylstra's edit more clear? The question is saying that there is a 6761 procedure in the IETF and they will reserve the name when appropriate according to their procedure ("is appropriate" is correct). the last clause might be dangling. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ACTION: Edit for 2.3.3 for clarity.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- The question about whether the Special Use Domain Names -- change it "Do you think that" instead of "Should..."</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.3.5 -- Re: reserved names</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Change to "right to reserve domain name[s]" Comments are answers rather than changes to the question.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- What is the basis to have these names reserved [audio dropped out]..why was the unlimited number of reserved names and where does 100 names come from?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">- The right came from the registry agreement. It was something that got negotiated in and then was put into the Applicant Guidebook. Specification 5 has the language on 100 names and no limit for reserving any other names subject to releasing them to an ICANN accredited registrar.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Is this not warehousing TLDs? Perhaps the question is "Do you believe that the 100 and unlimited number should be reviewed?"</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- The above comment seems to be an answer to the question, or a response.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">From the chat:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Alexander Schubert: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">(It is my understanding they escaped the TMCH ... correct me if wrong)</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Michael Flemming: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">I think the question is correct as it is now.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Alexander Schubert: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">In regard to "reserved TLD names": Work Track 2 also covers section 2.2.1.4.1 = Treatment of Country or Territory Names on Top-Level. Do we cover that later?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.3.6 -- Question doesn't seem to be clear.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Needs to be rewritten for clarity.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Cross reference to the amendment.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Before our PDP ends changes to the Registry Agreement will include these new reserved names.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ACTION ITEM: clarify and reword.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">From the chat:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">As the name suggests, icann-sla-monitoring was suggested by ICANN, although accepted by registries. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Paul McGrady: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">We use "propose"-formative words 3 times in a short space. Can we mess with it to make the question more clear?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Kavouss Arasteh: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Pls just insert the reference to that amendment </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">The amendment in question is this one: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:blue"><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_global-2Damendment-2Dbase-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dregistry-2Dagreement-2D2017-2D01-2D23-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JrglEjS5ajQIMG1kYGqRGUcgvktnkpAnx2hpZQLXABQ&s=MQxIHJOhIbaj0WQK4F4a1GWbWQIwu5ULzhHvu632ERQ&e=" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/global-amendment-base-new-gtld-registry-agreement-2017-01-23-en. [icann.org]</a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Note that is not yet approved. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.4 Registrant Protections</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.4.1 re: EBERO, COI, Data Escrow and Registry Performance etc. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.4.3 re: EBERO funding model</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.4.4 re: Background screening</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Opens up a can of worms. Would have to get into signicant definitions as to what constitutes a breach. Concerned about how it is worded.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- The 4th line -- what do we mean by "information that is not readily available in some jurisdictions".</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Alluding to the fact that it was no always possible to do background screening if the entity was in a country that didn't allow that kind of background to be provided.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ACTION ITEM: change "some jurisdictions" to "some countries".</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">From the chat:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Michael Flemming: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">I think the word breach allows for the individual answering the question to interpret a level of discretion for that at this point. It is rather difficult for us to define it at this point, but with a more formal consultation with ICANN, after we issue the question, I think we will be able to have a better outlook for what would constitute that certain type of breach.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Steve Chan: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">@Jeff, that's right.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">M</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ichael Flemming: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">not all countries are formally recognized?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">In some countries, different states have different rules... so jurisdiction looks better to me. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Michael Flemming: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">that is why jurisdictions is used, it is much more flexible.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Like California and New York. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Michael Flemming: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">we could do something like countries/jurisdictions.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.6 Closed Generics</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.6.1: no questions</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.6.2: ACTION ITEM: insert the provision from the Registry Agreement, Specification 11, clarify wording of the question.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Is the question whether to revise the definition? Not clear or seems repetitive.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.7.1: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-- Comment: the question is loaded. Can we make it more neutral? This was never meant to be a blank check for ICANN to violate policy, the text should not imply that this is the case. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">--ACTION ITEM: change "if yes, please explain" to "please explain," reword to make more neutral.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.7.2 - Comment: request for clarification on the word "submitted" and clarification on additional mechanisms mentioned beyond accountability mechanisms.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">- Answer: the accountability mechanisms do not go to the substance of the issue. The question is asking about this.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ACTION ITEM: clarify text in 2.7.2.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">From the chat:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Alexander Schubert: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">It seems there were problems with the CPE's. So GAC several times called for an appeals mechanism to investigate potential inconsistencies .....</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.7.3 - suggestion: add "consistent with the bylaws" </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ACTION ITEM: insert "consistent with the bylaws" in the text of this question. Check for overlap between 2.7.3 and 1.3.1</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">From the chat:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">General question: Wouldn't we generally be interested in teh respondee's explanation of their answer - regardless of whether they answer "yes" or "no" and regardless of what the question is? If not, it would be helpul to understand why not. Thanks.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Christa Taylor: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Sorry Jeff, a bit delayed. There is a bit of an overlap with 2.7.3 and 1.3.1</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.7.4 - Comment: probably a good idea to remove the word "significant."</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ACTION ITEM: remove the word "significant" from this question.</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.8.1 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">From the chat:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Phil Buckingham: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Avri - back tracking thinking about 2.8.1 - wording is not correct IMO </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.8.2 - Comment: clarify that there are other exceptions</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ACTION ITEM: include the other exceptions to the Registry Code of Conduct</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.8.3 - Question: In the second to last sentence, what do the words "these" "issues" and "address" mean?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">- Response: leadership team can attempt to clarify text in this question.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">From the chat:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">General question: Wouldn't we generally be interested in teh respondee's explanation of their answer - regardless of whether they answer "yes" or "no" a</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">replace "issues" with "claimed inefficiencies"</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Susan Payne: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">I think on 2.8.3 we should also ask "what safeguards are required"</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ACTION: clarify text of 2.8.3 to be more precise about the issues referenced. For example, replace "issues" with "claimed inefficiencies." Add question: "what safeguards are required"?</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.8.4 - no comments</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.10 - no comments</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.11.1 - no comments</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.12.1 - Comment inserted in the text - "I feel these questions should look for factual inputs. . ."</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">- Response: the request for supporting documentation attempts to get at this. Comment regarding CCT-RT refers to the entire PDP. Will revisit in the second reading.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">From the chat: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Can we ask ICANN for facts, namely, the outcome of any PICDRP proceedings?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Rubens Kuhl: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">And it's hard to gather facts to measure deterrence. Do people acted good because they are good or because there could be consequences ? </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Ken Stubbs - Afilias: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">@kristina shouldn't this be public info. why shoul;d it not be disclosed</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">2.12.2 - suggestion: following the term public interest, add "as referred to in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws" </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">- response: with the new reference in the articles of incorporation, we may need remove this question</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">ACTION ITEM: consider if 2.12.1 should be deleted given the new articles of incorporation.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">3.1.1 - no comments</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">3.1.2 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Paul McGrady: For 3.1.2, if "no" can we also seek examples?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: If response is "no," also ask for examples.</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.1.3 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.1.4<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- comment: decisions made by whom?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- response: decisions made by objection dispute panels...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- ACTION: clarify that this question refers to decisions made by objection dispute panels. Encourage explanation of response whether it is “yes” or “no.”</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.1.6 – comment: change "rounds" to "application windows"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: change "rounds" to "application windows"<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.1.7 - split into two questions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.1.8 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.2.1 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.3.1 - <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Comment: clarify the text "true to the policy" in the second to last sentence.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: adjust text to clarify the meaning of "true to the policy" in the second to last sentence.</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">From the chat: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alexander Schubert: Like stated before: It seems there were problems with the CPE's. So GAC several times called for an appeals mechanism to investigate potential inconsistencies .....<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- response: this seems to speak to a possible response and not the formulation of the question.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.3.2 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.3.3 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.3.4 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.3.5 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">From the chat: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Heather Forrest: 3.3.5 - should we ask for specific examples?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: ask for specific examples in 3.3.5</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.3.6 - suggestion: include as a sub-question, if we have a proposal on the table, perhaps we can put that out for comment?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: consider including the proposal for comment.
<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.4.1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.4.2 - Kristina Rosette: question needs to be clear that they should be handled the same, may need to explain the process that ccTLD use. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Susan Payne: can we give a link to something which explains how they are handled in ccTLDs? to ensure everyone is aware<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alexander Schubert: The ccTLDs are determined by ISO!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alexander Schubert: So it wouldn't be ICANN but ISO who does that......<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Heather Forrest: Note for the notes - the point on 3.4.2 was raised by Kristina Rosette, not Susan Payne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Rubens Kuhl: IDN ccTLD has such a process, detailed at <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_fast-2Dtrack-2D2012-2D02-2D25-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=i09BEEvfPipICu6_hnaf3PKfBS2yfu9vSvouYX3OnGA&s=o0jBWqWTkFS3tkfVXxob_jBOQ8gsBaQG-UFKSmIuX2U&e=" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en[icann.org]</a> . <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alexander Schubert: Then let's say it in 3.4.2.: "IDN-ccTLDs"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alexander Schubert: Also we might ask: Should private auctions be prohibited (or: did they created harm - speculation - etc)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: clarify the question and link to ccTLD process:
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_fast-2Dtrack-2D2012-2D02-2D25-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=i09BEEvfPipICu6_hnaf3PKfBS2yfu9vSvouYX3OnGA&s=o0jBWqWTkFS3tkfVXxob_jBOQ8gsBaQG-UFKSmIuX2U&e=" target="_blank">
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en[icann.org]</a> . <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.4.3 - <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Comment: replace "noted issues" with "raised concerns"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: replace "noted issues" with "raised concerns" in 3.4.3.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.4.4 - no comments <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: add “please explain” to 3.4.4.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.4.5<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alexander Schubert: Also we might ask: Should private auctions be prohibited (or: did they created harm - speculation - etc)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alexander Schubert: I guess in th next rond we will have people applying with nothing other in mind than to "cash in" in private auctions.....<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alexander Schubert:<b> </b>rond = round<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: add this question about the use of auctions to 3.4.5, phrase the question in a neutral manner. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.5<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.5.1 & 3.5.2 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: check for overlap with questions in WT2.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3.5.2<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Comment: is this question necessary?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- We can be more clear about whether there should be new accountability mechanisms and whether these mechanisms are good. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: clarify the text in question 3.5.2.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alexander Schubert: 3.5.1 is valid as ICANN always said: "Sorry there is no appeals mechanism - and please do not abuse our other accountability mechanisms"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.1.1 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.1.2 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.1.3 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.1.4 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.2.1 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.1.1 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.1.2 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.1.2.1 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.2 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.2.1 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.2.2 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.2.3 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.2.4 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.2.5 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">From the chat: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Christa Taylor:<b> </b>Minor formatting - line break on 4.3.2.5/.6<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: add line break on 4.3.2.5/.6.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.2.6 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.2.7 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.2.8 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.3.1.1 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.4.1 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.4.2 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.4.3 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.4.4 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.5.1 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4.5.2 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Misc. questions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">1. no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">From the chat: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Kavouss Arasteh: Consensus by Exhaustion<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Phil Buckingham: additional Q suggestion : Should applicants use an ICANN financial templated model or should they be allowed to provide their own financials model (s)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">2. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">ACTION ITEM: Change the word "contract" so it is not confused with a legal contract.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3. no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">4. no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>