<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:"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:"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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
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-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Working Group members,<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">Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat
transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB">https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB</a>.
<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">Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat 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">Slides are attached for reference.
<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">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Emily<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;padding:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<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: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call.</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><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. SOI Updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- no updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">2. Work Track Updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I do not agree with your conclusions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">There seems to be that our concerns are not heard<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I am speaking from my own side here<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">WHAT Rules Dear Mdam<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">MADAM'<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">or letter of non objection from the same governmental body<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Steve Chan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=" target="_blank">https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Martin Sutton: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">3. Overarching Issue: Application Types<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kurt Pritz: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Steve Chan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Heather Forrest: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">There is no clear description on community<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">If there is what is that?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kurt Pritz: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jim Prendergast: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">AGB might change as result f some PDP work<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Marc Palau: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">What about family names? that's not an strict community<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Marc Palau: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">like .kim<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Steve Chan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">it might depend on wealth of the family <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists....<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">avri doria: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Review of attributes for current application types.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kurt Pritz: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kurt Pritz: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kurt Pritz: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kurt Pritz: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Martin Sutton: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Christopher Wilkinson: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach?<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Steve Chan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kurt Pritz: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kavouss Arasteh: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Annebeth Lange,WT5: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Annebeth Lange,WT5: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">*Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">. AOB<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- none<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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Emily Barabas
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">| Senior Policy Specialist<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ICANN</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>