<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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle36
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle37
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle38
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle39
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle40
{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 13 November. <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'>For reference the document under discussion is at: Applications Assessed in Rounds (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw and Working Document: <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'>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><div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'><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></div><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'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1. SOIs:<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'>-- Heather Forrest: Updated SOI to reflect taking up the position of GNSO Council Chair.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Phil Corwin: Became an employee of Verisign. Stepped down from the GNSO Council. Will update SOI.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Phil Marano: Has an updated SOI, which may have got lost in the ICANN 60 mix. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Phillip+Vincent+Marano+SOI<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Christopher Wilkinson: No longer have a relationship with EURID. Have updated the SOI.<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'>2. Update from ICANN60:<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'>Work Tracks 1-4:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- There were a number of sessions where the topic of subsequent procedures and additional rounds came up.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Two sessions on Subpro: 1) issues from Work Track 1-4; open items such as applicant support programs, outreach, notion of communities, need for financial evaluations/business model evaluations, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Work Tracks will take up issues raised at ICANN60 in upcoming meetings.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Work Tracks 1 and 3: Topics covered in the GAC, including applicant support programs and outreach, importance of communities/dividing up communities.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Meeting with ALAC to talk about applicant support and role of communities. See the recording of this session: http://sched.co/CbIx.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Continue to liaise with the other organizations and advisory committees for upcoming meetings.<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'>3. Update on Work Track 5:<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'>-- Met at ICANN60; talked about how WGs operate, scope, and terms of reference.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Not an official work track meeting. Call for Volunteers is still open until 20 November. Over 100 participants signed up, and 50 or so as observers. Work Track 5 Members list is here: https://community.icann.org/x/UplEB<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Meeting on 15 November at 2000 UTC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Working on a draft response back to the ccNSO, ALAC, and GAC on their conditions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Annabeth Lange sent an email urging people to attend the Communications Tools Classroom session tomorrow at 21:00 UTC on 14 November. A second webinar on tools has just been scheduled for Tuesday 21 November at 10:00 UTC.<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'>4. Discussion on Working Group Timeline for Work Track 1-4:<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'>-- March 2018: Work Tracks complete preliminary recommendations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- April 2018: Complete and publish Initial Report for public comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- June 2018: Public comment closes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- July 2018: Complete report of public comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- November 2018: Final Report considered by full WG for consensus call.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- December 2018: Deliver final Report to GNSO Council.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Any recommendations coming out of the WG need to be assessed on the level of consensus in the Final Report. For the Preliminary Report we will discuss if there are preferred options and request input on them in the Public Comment forum.<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'>5. Timeline for Work Track 5:<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'>-- No official meeting yet.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Work Track leaders did discuss a goal timeline.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Goal to get a Preliminary Report out in June 2018 and to aim for a Final Report either in conjunction with the report on Work Track 1-4 recommendations, or shortly thereafter.<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'>6. Drafting Team Discussion continued – Applications Assessed in Rounds (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw and Working Document: <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'>-- Agree on predictability; no undefined gaps, choice of application must address potential impact; should not negatively impact stablity/quality, or operational effectiveness/feasibility.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Need to consider: method or data to help estimate demand; scaling to accommodate application volume; discussions about CDAR report impact; process if applications exceed threshold in a given period of time.<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'>Questions/Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Problem statement does not express the problem. More reference to evaluation of the last round.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Essential that the next opening to gTLDs should be restricted to those who were underrepresented in the first round.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Work Track 1 is looking at applicant support and outreach. Will come back to the issue of whether there should be prioritization.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Problem statement seems one sided. Does not acknowledge concerns that could come from a continuous flow type of model or how the periods are beneficial.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Things like community prioritization don't work unless you have rounds. On "prioritization" difference if used with community applications as opposed to having rounds for particular categories.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Have been opportunties to raise the issue of different groups or types having a distinct round, but we are lacking a specific demand and won't see that until a window opens up.<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'>Rounds versus First Come, First Served (see Pros and Cons on page 4):<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'>-- Coupled with the issue of pricing. If costs are too low then first come, first served would be more problematic since it would encourage speculation -- would have it in rounds or first come, first served. Alternatively, if the cost was high enough that you don't see the speculation issue then could go to a first come, first served, approach.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Need to look at whether FCFS would lead to speculation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Wondering whether even if it is FCFS or rounds the underserved regions from the last round will want to be address in future processes, such as ability to reserve or place a hold.<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'>Heather Forrest: Re 'rounds', do we have more current info on delegation rate than https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-gtlds-06oct10-en.pdf?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Paul McGrady: @Jeff, also need to discuss if we will have reviews between rounds or if the reviews will be while rounds are ongoing - noting the delta between 2012 and 2017 & counting<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Paul McGrady: It would also encourage squatting. A brand owner launching a new brand would have to file their gTLD application on the same day that they file their first trademark application- spending the money on a new gTLD when they aren't even sure that the relevant PTO will grant them the trademark.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alexander Schubert: Competition! Competition drives innovation - FCFS eliminates competition. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kurt Pritz: While I think that all of the concerns regarding FCFS raised by Jeff and others can be addressed, I think data from the most recent round is required to resolve them. Now that the last round is several years in the review mirror, the data we have is stale - i.e., the market has evolved considerably and in ways unknown to us. We have to have a couple rounds in close succession to develop the information needed to launch a FCFS operation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alan Greenberg: @Jeff, my line dropped, but my answer is that it might depend on whether the list of applied for names, and by whom is released.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: Thanks Kurt. We have to design certain models to see whether the concerns can be addressed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Aslam G Mohamed: Whatever the model it should prevent squatting and support the brand owner getting the relevant gTLD.<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>