<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Title content=""><meta name=Keywords content=""><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle30
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle31
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle32
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle33
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle34
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle35
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Dear WG Members,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 24 July. <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 will be provided separately.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>The referenced documents are also attached and excerpts from the chat room are included for ease of reference.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Actions/Discussion Notes</span></b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1. Work Track Updates:</span></i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Work Track 1 -- Sara Bockey</span></u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> -- Call 25 July at 20:00 UTC. Continuing discussion on CC2 responses -- applications submission period and queuing and the registry letter.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Work Track 2 -- Michael Flemming<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This week summarizing what we discussed at the last meeting -- CC2 responses. Try to collect ideas to move forward and jump to CC2 comments on reserved names. Did cover names in the top level and got feedback relating to geographic names, but this input will be deferred to Work Track 5 once that gets kicked off.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- At ICANN59 there were a lot of comments on geographic names on pros and cons. Are these comments taken into account -- particularly a country asking for a geographic name to be protected? Response: Work Track 2 is dealing with all reserved names except for geographic names at the top level.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Work Track 3 -- Karen Day<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- We had last call on 18 July and started CC2 review on objections. Next call is 01 August at 15:00 UTC. and will be continuing review of CC2 input on objections. Made some good progress on legal rights objections and confusing similarity objections.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- A problem that we have encountered in community objections and political motivations (not related to GNSO and GAC). How can we avoid that? Response: We will note the question. Look at examples from the past round to understand what could occur. Discuss at next Work Track 3 meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Work Track 4 -- Ruben Kuhl</span></u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> – During the last meeting we had some review of the CC2 comments related to IDNs. We are progressing on language or principle discussions, but some progress is contingent on receiving information from ICANN. Next meeting is 03 August. Will discuss language and refinement, or principles. Some outreach re: name collisions and root zone scaling.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>2. Recap on ICANN59 (WG Face-to-Face and Geographic Names at the Top-Level) and Next Steps and Update on CWG UCTN<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>PDP WG Face-to-Face Meeting</span></u></i><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- PDP WG Face-to-face meeting: There was some good discussion on the notion of what if we get more than expected volumes of top-level domain applications. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- In 2012 conservatively ICANN thought it would get no more than 500 applications and that triggered a root zone study and SAC046 that said there should be a limit of no more than 1000 TLDs delegated in one year. That worked well in the last round. We had 1900 applications for 1390 strings between all of the contention sets and objections it took longer than a year to process those application. However, now we are hearing that there could be thousands of applications. We do need to plan if that is true. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- The leadership team is going to draft a letter to the SSAC, RSSAC, and Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). There was a CDAR Study saying there was not issue with the 1000/year, but question was not posed concerning more than 1000/year and would that change the SSAC's SAC046 report. Issue is being discussed in Work Track 4.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Good discussion on how applications should be assessed -- rounds, first come first served, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kavouss Arasteh: Jeff, pls clarify that 1000 per year issue as I am not sure well explained whether that 1000 appliation is stems from one or how many sources/applicants and where that number comes from?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Kavouss, that number was made up by ICANN Org during an IETF meeting as unimaginably large number. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Since then, that number has been used as a parameter. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kavouss Arasteh: 1000?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>VANDA SCARTEZINI: i remember 1000/year will be safe<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON: Fact is, we do not have any reliable source about potential demand.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Geographic Names F2F Community-Wide Sessions<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Link to the full group face-to-face, which includes the transcript: <a href="http://sched.co/B49Q">http://sched.co/B49Q</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cross community geographic names sesssions, session 1: <a href="http://sched.co/B3pX">http://sched.co/B3pX</a> and session 2: <a href="http://sched.co/B3pD">http://sched.co/B3pD</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- The first session was to solicit feedback on a straw person document to stimulate discussion. That straw person has no status and will not be the basis for future discussion. It was just to get everyone talking.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- One point that was brought up in the first session was that some people didn't think there was an issue and that the AGB provided the best solution so we shouldn't change anything.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Second session: Re: the notion of keeping the status quo the general consensus seemed to be that there were still issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Part one of session 2: information obtained through face-to-face meetings.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Part two of session 2: Proposal of Work Track 5 inviting one person from each AC and SO to serve as a co-leader of that work track to promote inclusiveness to structure very much like a CCWG but within the GNSO policy development process. Proposal said that the co-leaders could decide how to conduct the proceedings of that work track. The GNSO PDP has very flexible provisions whereby there are a lot of different ways that Working Groups and Sub Groups can do their work.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This week the PDP WG Co-Leaders are drafting an invitation letters to the GNSO, GAC, ALAC, and ccNSO Chairs to help us for the appointments of co-leaders of that Work Track. Then we will do a call for volunteers and hopefully get it started by the first week of September.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Proposal has met with positive reception, but there were some GAC members in the second face-to-face meeting that expressed some concerns about doing this work in the GNSO. Jorge Cancio was of the view that this was more appropriately done within a CCWG and was more of an issue with ccTLDs. Discussion on what is a ccTLD versus a gTLD. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This PDP WG is proceeding with the discussion of geographic names because it is in our charter.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Question: What is Work Track 5? Response: The GNSO that chartered this PDP WG included in the charter geographic names at the top level. We initiate had grouped that issue in Work Track 2, but after listening to the community and input from ccNSO and ccTLDs and the GAC we agree that one group is the best place to resolve these issues. Therefore the leadership of this PDP WG (Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman), and Work Track leaders decided that we would create a new Work Track 5 that would deal only with geographic names at the top level, but there also are other types of geographic names. Unlike the other work tracks we are opening up Work Track 5 to see if there are additional volunteers that want to participate and don't have to participate in the others, and to get co-leaders from GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, and GNSO. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Question: Do we have one person from each group? There should be wider participation. The CCWG structure has worked very well and it has no limit to participation. Response: Participation in the Work Track is unlimited. The leadership team would include one person from each of the SOs and ACs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Re: Protected names -- why do we have to give justification? This strawperson condition. Response: The strawperson was only drafted by Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria, but that is no longer being considered. It was only a tool to stimulate discussion. Work Track 5 will not be looking at the strawperson specifically. The point about the countries and their views on geographic names will be important.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Update on the CCWG Use of Country and Territory Names Final Report<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- At its meeting on 20 July the ccNSO discussed recommendations from the Final Report and passed two resolutions to adopt them. We know that the CCWG couldn't recommend very much. There was no conclusion. However the format to conclude the work is under community discussion. With the adoption of the recommendations the ccNSO has closed the CCWG. The first resolution was to continue work but the form would await the outcome of the community discussion. Supported the recommendations 1, 2, and 4 in the Final Report. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- The next resolution was about a letter as a recommendation of the Study Group to continue discussion in the subsequent round. Minimum to include coordination with ccNSO members and leadership.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Re: Coordination, the plan is to invite the ccNSO to participate and ask that the ccNSO to serve as one of the co-leaders of this Work Track.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Question: Who adopted the resolution? Response: The resolutions were adopted by the ccNSO Council. The CCWG UCTN was under the regime of the ccNSO. that is why when there was no conclusion of the work we had to try to top somewhere. What we decided was that we couldn't go further in the CCWG was had to adopte the final report. There are different views as to whether there would be a Work Track 5 or a new CCWG, but have been working in a CCWG for several years and haven't found a result.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Question: Where was the resolution passed? Is there a link? Response: That was passed in the Council of the ccNSO on 20 July. It would be on the ccNSO website. It will appear here, but it looks like it has not yet been posted: https://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions-resolutions/2017<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Annebeth Lange: Dear all,As you will recall the final paper was subbmitted to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils for deliberation and decision-making prior to ICANN 59. At its meeting on 20 July, last Thursday, the ccNSO Council discussed the recommendations in the final paper and adopted the resolutions (included below).The resolutions will become effective 7 days after publication on the ccNSO website,Kind regards,Bart <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Do we know how WS5 is going to interact with ccNSO? (on matters of GEO names on top level)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Robin Gross: Will the WT5 be limited to only "geographic" words or will other types of words like cultural, religious, and sensitive words try to fall under the "geographic" concept in WT5?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kavouss Arasteh: Robin, Geographic " word should be limited to "Geographic"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Annebeth Lange: Kavouss, I think the plan is to have a co-chair from AC/SOs - and as many participants as possible to share their competence<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Greg Shatan: The "one from each" applies only to leadership of WT5, not to participation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>VANDA SCARTEZINI: @ Annebeth yes, there is no limit to participation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): could we say - that co-chair seats are reserved for the representatives of the SO/AC?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>3. Drafting Team Discussion – Applications Submission Periods <o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>See: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7dKOw/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7dKOw/edit?usp=sharing</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- How do we assess application in subsequent rounds (or other mechanism)?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Although there are some differing opinions as to what we should do as a steady state -- first come, first served, or rounds, most of the feedback we have gotten is that it is fairly well agreed that it would be a round. We would collect applications, have procedure to deal with string contention, and similar evaluations as in 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Perhaps we should look at what are the problems. Address the difficulties and issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Question: Where we are on the decision tree - re: proceeding with a round -- that does not get to the level of whether there will be priority rounds? Response: This is just to put a stake in the ground to see how we would start the next introduction of new gLTDs. It doesn't get into priorities or other issues -- those are being discussed in the Work Tracks. However, there didn't seem to be a lot of support for different categories having different rounds. We are only talking about the overall structure. Re: community priorities within a round that would be Work Track 3 and overlap with overarching questions. A round only for a particular group would be an overarching issue for the full PDP WG to consider (the plenary).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Not sure it is efficient to go through the pros and cons -- these are subjective.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Requirements Considered</span></u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> -- whatever solution we come up with we should test against these. [Reading from the document.]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- We don't know how many applications will come and whether they will conflict or there are too many to address? So we don't know when the next round will start. Question: Should we put some conditions on when the second round would start? Is it possible to define a parameter that we could put into the next AGB -- start the next window 6 months after we close (for example)?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Question: Does there still need to be additional reviews done between each of the rounds and will that add a layer of complexity to have a specific definition or timeline to the rounds? Response: Comments in CC1 was that it was not desirable to have reviews between rounds that would stall the next round.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- We could fix a period but we should also put in a provision that at some point in time we need to review the situation to make methods to improve. It may be that the period may not work.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- The question depends also on the ability to process applications. At ICANN59 there was the questions of how many applications could be accepted (1000 or something else) and then how many qualified people are there to process applications. Is there any way to predict those numbers? Should be a 5-year plan.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- It seems that we have a chicken/egg problem. Seems like there should be plan to scale up although there will still be a maximum (like a registry). Need to solve for one of the factors in the equation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This is one of the first questions in the critical path to get things running. Also to enable ICANN re: resources. Do we have a sense of what are the real critical decisions that we should be looking at that create a sequence to put these on the right path? This was one of the fundamental issues that ICANN staff identified as on the critical path (that is, application submission periods) -- it will determine what their plan looks like. We need to decide from a policy matter how we want to do it. If it isn't feasible ICANN staff will come back to us. So, if, for example, that if we said we would do it in rounds for 3 months, then evaluation, then start the next round on the calendar year. This will slow down consideration of all the other questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This has a knock-on effect for all the other issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Would be good to know what workload we have been able to handle.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: The application volume topic has a broad impact, certainly on ICANN org, but also on the community. For example, the GAC Early Warning process, the application comment period (which allows the broad community to review applications and provide comments), the objection process.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>