<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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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: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">Dear WG Members, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please see below notes and action items from the meeting today, 9 October 2017.
<i>These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording.
</i>Recordings, call transcripts, chat transcripts, and other documents are available at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/AIJEB">https://community.icann.org/x/AIJEB</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Emily<o:p></o:p></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 class="MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Leadership will send follow-up email to Tom Dale to see if the GAC can provide a co-leader on a provisional basis prior to ICANN60. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Leadership will send name of recommended candidate to the WG mailing list. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Notes: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">1. Welcome/SOIs </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- No SOI updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">2. Work Track Updates – WT1-4</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- WT1 (Christa Taylor) - upcoming discussion topic - costing and clarity of application process - review of CC2 Comments</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- WT2 (Michael Flemming) - recent discussions have focused on Closed Generics, the WT has been looking at objections and language included in decisions. Upcoming meeting is on Thursday and will continue to focus on Closed Generics.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- WT3 (Karen Day) - Upcoming meeting is tomorrow at 20:00, will focus on CC2 review - String Similarity and Freedom of Expression. There is a call tentatively scheduled for 24 Oct, the group will discuss whether to move or cancel
the meeting.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- WT4 - the upcoming call will take place WT4 call: Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Call two weeks ago canceled due to conflict with WS2 schedule; call last week covered name collisions, with good progress, and registry services,
where there is still more to discuss. Call this week will focus exclusively on registry services (questions asked in the application on registry services). </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">3. Work Track 5 Update</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- ALAC has selected Christopher Wilkinson to serve as WT5 leader.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- ccNSO has selected Annebeth Lange.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- No name has been provided by the GAC yet, although the GAC has said that a person has been selected and the name will be shared soon.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- GAC may consider detaching the identification of co-leader and the discussion of conditions related to participation. Even if the person is provisional, it would be good to include that person in discussions with the other co-leaders prior to Abu Dhabi</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">ACTION ITEM: Send follow-up email to Tom Dale to see if the GAC can provide a co-leader on a provisional basis prior to ICANN60. </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="color:black">W/r/t GAC co-leader, it "may" be the case that their interested person is also running for GAC Chair and I suspect it would be difficult for that person to do both. Perhaps sugget that they can identify an alternate as a way to break the logjam?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Four people have expressed interest in serving as the GNSO co-leader. All provided permission to share their expression of interest last week. There was a discussion period on the mailing list.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Leadership team feels that any one of the candidates could be a great co-leader, but will recommend one person. The leadership team hopes that the Working Group agrees with this recommendation. The leadership team recommends Martin Sutton. He has served in a number of leadership positions at ICANN and currently serves as Executive Director of BRG. He comes highly recommended. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- The WG will also ask the GNSO Council to affirm the candidate.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- No objections raised to this recommendation.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">ACTION ITEM: Send name of recommended candidate to the WG mailing list. </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- If any objections are raised on the WG mailing list from GNSO members, the Council can take these objections into account.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Call for volunteers will go out at the end of the week. All are welcome and encouraged to participate in WT5. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Last week the WG provisionally selected CLO for WG co-chair. This was submitted to GNSO Council, and will be on the consent agenda for the meeting this week. Cheryl will take over as a third co-chair effective immediately. After Abu Dhabi, she will continue to serve as co-chair after Avri leaves. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">4. Drafting Team Discussion continued – Predictability Framework </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- We are getting close to a point where we can come to closure on these documents and reach first reading. Perhaps we can get to a first reading on this document after today's call. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- (Reading through edits in the working document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81tfQ/edit#heading=h.8pcr95hvmmz)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">From the chat: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="color:black">Is the use of passive voice intentional? If not, should we be identifying the actor to avoid future uncertainty?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="color:black">That's a general comment (passive voice).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style="color:black">I have put Kristina's suggestted text in the Google doc</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- No objections raised to edits in Problem Statement and Anticipated Outcome.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Community Engagement section: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="color:black">By "can be implemented", do we mean "Implementable"? If so, should we say that (eg. "clear, implementable . . . )?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- The Predictability Framework section:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- No objections raised to text in phase 1, 2</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- Suggestions to phase 3 text made inline in working document. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- "By way of example, the need for new contractual requirements is vastly different than ICANN meeting staffing needs by hiring a contractor." Additional wording needed following this sentence to explain the difference. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Categories/Types of Changes:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- No objections raised to examples added under Minor Process Updates.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- Revised Processes/Procedures: no objections raised to suggested deletions. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">From the chat: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style="color:black">Instead of "effect", can we use "adverse impact"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">(In reference to sentence "Definition: A change to ICANN’s internal processes that have an effect on applicants or other community members.") </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Does someone need to determine an adverse impact up front?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Any change could in theory have an effect, so the term may be too broad.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Consider using the term "material effect" which is used earlier in the document. This will be added.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Jim Prendergast: </span></b><span style="color:black">how is material determined?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="color:black">If we're going to use "material effect," we should use ICANN's written definition of it, which would be helpul to have.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): </span></b><span style="color:black">to example of Minor process update ... lately ICANN updated so called GDD portal with the new Click through agreement (which reregistries , and later potentially applicants have to agree to), and cash things cause delays (unknown tetxt needs to pass through legal, and if the change is significant (as it was last time, the issue potentially is not minor anymore)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-<b> </b>Add footnotes throughout text with ICANN's definition of "material effect." </span><b><o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- New Processes/Procedures</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- An example was added - no objections raised. This example may need to be adjusted based on recommendations of the WG.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- Consider adding "material effect" in this text as well. This may need some addtional thinking before an edit is made. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="color:black">@Jeff: having the definition of material effect that ICANN uses will be helpful to your issue, too, I think.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Fundamental, Possibly Policy-Level Changes</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- We may also need a definition of “significant” if we keep this word in the text.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- We may need to provide criteria for impact -- for “material,” the criteria will be those defined by ICANN org. As discussed previously, those will be added in a footnote to the document.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="color:black"><QUESTION)>What happens when ICANN does not agree with the category (ICANN see something as minor internal and community see the same as major material)? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="color:black">Iagree with you NOT to add significantly</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Regarding Maxim's comment in the chat -- this issue is discussed at the top of page 4 in the document. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- why do we use materially and significantly? Maybe we should remove significantly and leave materially. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Consider adding a statement that the change will not be implemented until the entire process has been completed. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">From the chat: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="color:black">The same happens few days ago with GDD portal and new click through agreement (so my question was based on it) </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="color:black">Given the speed</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="color:black">of the development of new processes </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="color:black">I think such process needs to be design in advance, and not just when needed</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style="color:black">@Maxim - Good point....change in portals did result in new click-through agreement which is fundamentally different than the older one and could result in new terms superceding those in the Registry agreement</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="color:black">It was about the venue to resolve disagreements </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- In the expected mitigation strategy for internal changes within ICANN org -- the text states that communication with the community would happen before the solution is deployed. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Discussion of Maxim’s comment in the chat -- ICANN is moving to a new portal called the Naming Services Portal -- the changes are technically minor, but there is a new legal document that users are concerned about. There is a disagreement about whether the change is major or minor. How do we determine whether the change is major or minor?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Suggestion: perhaps if any stakeholder thinks the change is major it should be considered major. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- This question should be considered further. We need to further define criteria to determine if a change is major. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- New Policy --</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- This section answers a lot of the determinative questions raised in response to earlier sections of the document. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- Is this SIRT good as a basis for addressing the questions on the table?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="color:black">Have the structure of that SIRT is already determined</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="color:black">Does that SIRT representing the community?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style="color:black">Not yet</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style="color:black">I like the standing IRT idea. Need to check all the language again between now and next meeting.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="color:black">pls specifically mention that, if possible</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">5. ICANN60 Planning</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Final schedule is posted: <b> </b></span><span style="color:blue"><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=o_ExCHqJbY2HVRAZuSWikuwE7YIgqnOIFrijWeCeYAE&s=j2j3k5LFIWrzjhEhCbbsjALc-AlyLWUuJMTL7Mp8kh4&e=" target="_blank">https://schedule.icann.org[schedule.icann.org]</a></span><span style="color:black">/</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- SubPro meetings are Saturday 28 October (Day 1) from 12:15-15:00 and Wednesday 1 November (Day 5) from 8:30-12:00</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- The first session will be devoted to WT 1-4.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- The second session will focus of WT5 Terms of Reference and brainstorming on issues for the WT.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- In another session, WT leads will update the GAC on Applicant Support and Communities.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- The draft TOR will be posted as soon as possible for discussion</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">6. AOB</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Brands and Domains conference was Held last Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday in the Hague</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- There was a panel in which Jeff and Akram participated, Jeff contributed in personal capacity.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- Akram did not want to move forward with New gTLD Program until the community provides permission to do so.</span><br>
<span style="color:black"><br>
- Jeff said the GNSO already has a policy, does not need permission to proceed with subsequent procedures. <br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">From the chat: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">avri doria: </span></b><span style="color:black">unless this group were to decide to change the policy about new gTLDs in the future.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="color:black">I thought it is already the policy that ICANN was to move forward with a next round/application window as soon as possible after the conclusion of the 2012 round. No further approval from the community is required.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">avri doria: </span></b><span style="color:black">which we have tentively decided not to do<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="color:black"> Prudence and pacient i are of essence<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="color:black">That is absolutely right<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="color:black"> Green light is in our hand<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>