<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Title content=""><meta name=Keywords content=""><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle28
{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:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Dear WG Members,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting 07 March. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording</i>. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings"><span style='color:#0B4CB4'>https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 07 March</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1. SOIs - No changes<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><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2. CC2 - Second Reading: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qutP4I6fpyTtH4uSgLqsSFDn7082Guexr7gU8YD78Zg/edit#<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>General Comments:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Will not start the comment period until after ICANN58 is over.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Should the discussions next week present us any substantive changes recommend a third reading of at least those substantive.<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'>First paragraph: Need to insert the date.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1. Background paragraphs -- no comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2. Community Comment Request -- no comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Last paragraph -- no comments.<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'>Annex A -- Work Track Subjects -- no comments<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'>1.1 (Registry Service Provider) Accreditation Programs<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.1.1 - Changed to "Benefits [and] risks..." Rewrite and deletions -- no comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.1.2 - Addition of requirements -- no comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.1.3 - One word change -- no comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.1.4 - Clause at the end added "Please explain." - no comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.1.5 - no changes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.1.6 - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.1.7 - no comments -- change to "periodic", change to a RSP<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.1.8 - no comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.1.9 - New sentence and deletion<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.1.10 and 1.1.11 - no comments.<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'>1.2 Applicant Support -- no comments.<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'>1.3 Clarity of Application Process<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.3.1 - rewrite - no comments<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'>1.4 Application Fees - no comments<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'>1.5 Variable Fees<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.5.3 - This is the suggested language: "Should the application fee be variable based on the volume of applications received from a single applicant" If so, how should the fee be adjusted and what are the potential impacts from doing so?<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'>1.6 Application Submission Period -- no comments<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'>1.7 Application Queuing <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1.7.2 - Don't know what it means "IDNs or some other group of applications"? Example: brands.<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'>ACTION ITEM: Change "group of applications" to "categories". Also, add for example.<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'>1.8 Systems, 1.9 Communications, and 1.10 Applicant Guidebook - no comments<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'>2.1 Base Registry Agreements<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2.1.3 - Understand what is meant by "explicitly identified"? Some sections of the application would be explicitly identified as such.<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'>2.2 Reserved Names - <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Still waiting on output from the CCWG-UCTN so we thought it might be premature at this stage since they are doing work on this. The interim report has been published for comment.: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-uctn-interim-paper-2017-02-24-en.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- We most likely won't get any input from CCWG-UCTN.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Don't need to add a question at this point.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Will be taking the CCWG-UCTN final report into consideration.<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><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Alexander Schubert: In WT2 I still miss any question about 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names .....<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Heather Forrest: To put a finer point on Alexander's comment, the group as a whole has not agreed because the scope of the group's work was very narrow. Certainly the participants have views that need to be discussed here in the PDP.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>jeff neuman: But we will address that issue when the CWG is done.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: should there be a note mentioning that country and territory names have been left out of this exercise for x reason.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Alexander Schubert: Footnote that we deal with it later!<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'>ACTION ITEM: Add a general note in the preamble that some of the work is dependent on other outcomes.<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'>2.3 Registrant Projections - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2.4 Closed Generics - no comments<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2.5 Applicant Terms and Conditions <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2.5.1 Two Options -- why do we need two options? The options are for us to pick on, not to keep both in the document. Option 1 is from Paul McGrady. [Reading the text.] Option 2 is more brief. [Reading the text.]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Paul McGrady: Option 2 seems to presuppose the answer. Don't think it reflects reality.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Do options relate to 2.5.1 or 2.5.2? Relates only to 2.5.1.<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'>ACTION ITEM: Go with option 1.<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'>2.5.2-2.5.4 - No comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 - no comments.<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'>3.1, 3.2, 3.3 - no comments<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'>ACTION ITEM: Renumber 3.3.5 to 3.3.4 and 3.3.6 to 3.3.5<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'>3.3.6 -- "Should the claim to support a community affect other parts of the application process." Don't understand. Read this as saying if it isn't community application should there be a different form of application. But, it also should a community application go through CPE anyway? Meant to say "Should a claim to support a community affect other parts of the evaluation process?"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- "Should" causes difficulty. Maybe "Does" or "Do"?<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'>ACTION ITEM: Change to "Do you think a community application should be structured or evaluated differently than other applications?"<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'>3.4 String Similarity<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>3.4.6 is new.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Draw attention to the CWG on Auctions. Trying to do some definitions. Do we need to reference that 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'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>jeff neuman: the CCWG on Auction Proceeds is not discussing how auctions work or why they exist. It is only talking about the use of funds.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Greg Shatan: Actually, they're talking about the mechanisms for deciding how to spend the money. Others will then decide how to spend the money using those mechanisms.<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'>3.5 Accountability Mechanisms - no comments<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'>4.1, 4.2, 4.3.1 - no comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>4.3.2 Financial Evaluation<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Trang Nguyen: 4.3.2.3 The AGB criteria did not include evaluation of an applicant’s business model. Meaning, Q18 was not evaluated. And the projections in Q46 was not evaluated against the proposed business model in Q18.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>ACTION: Change to "In the prior round, detailed business plans were provided, but not evaluated."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>4.3.2.5 -- Comment: Not sure we want to ask this questions because it seems loaded. Should we drop it? No objections to dropping.<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'>ACTION ITEM: Drop 4.3.2.5 and renumber.<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'>4.3.2.6 - at application time, at contract signing time, or at both times?<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'>ACTION ITEM: Add "or at both times" Also, change on 4.3.1.1 and on the background screening question (anywhere this construction appears in the questions).<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'>4.3.3 - Why is there a general question? It was a general question relating to that category.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>4.4 Name Collisions - no comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>4.5 Security and Stability - no comments.<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'>Miscellaneous Questions -- why call them that? Can we call them something else? Could call them "General Questions". These were not specifically part of any of the work tracks. Suggestion is "Additional Questions"?<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'>ACTION ITEM: Change to "Additional Questions".<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'>-- Question 4: What is "data points"? What do we mean? <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><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): data points refers to any discreet unit of information, usually in an analytical context. It is an Observation <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON: "data points" is quite common as a stan ding expression, I believe.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): can be single or multiple measures <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Alexander Schubert: Noun 1. data point - an item of factual information derived from measurement or research<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rudy Mendoza: agreed<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON: yes, please keep it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): can also be seen as a term in multifactorial statistical analysis.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>4. Any Other Business <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'>-- WG Chairs trying to create an over the Internet intersessional between ICANN58 and ICANN59 to discuss.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>