<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=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;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle41
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle42
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle43
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle44
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle45
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
.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 lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><a name="_MailOriginalBody"><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Dear WG Members,</span></a></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 06 February 2018. <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.</span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>For reference see the following link to the Predictability Framework document and excerpts from the chat below: </span></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black;background:white'> </span></span></span><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BN5aJEJ-j57k0zcw0z2b4Smqaf6rRt6ahcidxqaubfQ/edit#gid=1539509842"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BN5aJEJ-j57k0zcw0z2b4Smqaf6rRt6ahcidxqaubfQ/edit#gid=1539509842</span></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>.</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black;background:white'> </span></span></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Best regards,</span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie</span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span></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='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Actions/Discussion Notes</span></b></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1. SOI Updates: No updates.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2. Work Track Updates:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Work Track 4:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Discussing Financial Evaluations -- will continue on the next call.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Today did Technical Evaluation and Operational Evaluation.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Responses back from RSSAC, SSAC, and ICANN Org -- be more concerned with the rate of change; RSSAC no more than 5% per month growth.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Asking for a clarfication from the RSSAC.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Additional questions about new TLDs from cognificant science and library science.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Work Track 3:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 30 January meeting: limited public interest objection and community objection.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Independent objector.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Next meeting applicant freedom of expression, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Work Track 1: 16 January last meeting; next call 06 February -- Applicant Support.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Work Track 2: <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Next WT2 call is February 8 at 21:00 UTC <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Topic scheduled: Vertical Integration.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Work Track 5:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 07 February at 14:00 UTC.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 8 February 2018 - 19:00 UTC New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team –Work Track 5 – Webinar on the History of Geographic Names at the Top Level at ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>3. Overarching Issue: Predictability Framework (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81tfQ/edit)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>ICANN Org changing form custom application interface to Salesforce.com<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- I depends on the scope and magnitude of the change.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Need stability. Need to analyze the scope of change and solution. Depends on the type of change.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Determine if an issue arises what is the process to resolve that issue.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- If it merely involves an organizational change to ICANN and had no impact on operational parties -- any issues? What do we mean by operational changes? A description of what we mean by operational changes.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Change in Delegation Testing<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Change in registry agreement to measure support.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Some scenarios could give rise to using the procedures (see the chat below).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Change from Digital Archery to Priority Draw:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Who are the impacted parties? Those that actually applied to the string -- when ICANN switched from digital archery to a priority draw, there was no change in processing in the real world.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Changes to ICANN organizational internal operations.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Standing IRT: Support for the motion:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>--- Perception of a conflict; Issue of what constitutes a conflict is different.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Difficult to say which contracted parties don't have a conflict.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Conflict is something more than a stakeholder. Could have a Statement of Interest, but not a conflict of interest. Make interest more transparent.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Look for the conflicts we want to avoid with this panel of IRT.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- A model that has been used is to establish a standing committee. There is one on the budget process in the GNSO Council, but supplemented by people with subject matter expertise. A model that could be used. Doesn't require another structure. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Disagreement on this model.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Okay Jeff - so we are saying one through 3 do not fit there?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: The change from digital archery to priority draw changed the balance among ICANN regions, so it's something that definitely should have gone to a community consultation. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): To say more - offshore applicants were added to EU region<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): even islands from ocean, which was far from Europe , and it changed balance for EU applicants<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT - which of your "use cases" already fall within the description of issues in relation to "GNSO Guidance", "GNSO Input", Expedited PDP, or PDP. The question that has to be asked is which of your use cases ALREADY fit within that Policy and Implementation framework already established.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): I have an example<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: In this use case, provided the Terms and Conditions are kept the same as before<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: I am going to have to express reservations on this Predictiability Framework since this entire question and various use cases were addressed by the Policy and Implementation Working Group. I know that Jeff feels there are changes that can be made by staff that are not covered by the work product of the Policy & Implementation Working Group. Since the recommendations of that group were adopted by the GNSO and then also by the Board, I think that we should only be focusing on "internal operations change" that does not (theoretically) fall within any of the cases specified by the GNSO and the ICANN Board to come under "GNSO INput" or "Expedited PDP" or "PDP" In other words, those procedures already apply and we are duplicating. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): @Jeff: please add this use case: Need to transfer contacts from Applicant to Registry in ICANN systems (or replacement with the Registry contacts) when RA executed (or right before the moment).in our case The RA was executed and ICANN was still trying to obtain approvals (such as passwords change, in situation where ICANN staff changed it "for our security") from the Applicant contact (consultant company) after RA execution.This created a deadlock (Applicant contact has no formal contract with the new Registry, and ICANN staff explicitly requests approvals from them, and not from RA , whith whom ICANN has an agreement.Given that the passwords were changed without confirmation from Applicant or Registry )which we had to resolve by mentioning that ICANN effectively sabotages execution of our RA.it looks to be Revised Pocess<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Would the proposed revised NSP ToU fall in this category?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): @Michelle , please read my example, it is too early here an I can not us mic<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): *use<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): with correction "and not from RO"<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Maxim's comment/question should take priority over mine (as far as I'm concerned).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @JEFF - The Policy and Implementation Working Group determined after a lot of work that there is no way to define what is policy and what is implementation. We should not be duplicating that work and there is not nearly enough cross-reference going on in this discussion with the work already done and adopted by the GNSO and subsequently by the ICANN Board.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): OK, thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Maxim's comment/question should take priority over mine (as far as I'm concerned).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @JEFF - The Policy and Implementation Working Group determined after a lot of work that there is no way to define what is policy and what is implementation. We should not be duplicating that work and there is not nearly enough cross-reference going on in this discussion with the work already done and adopted by the GNSO and subsequently by the ICANN Board.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): OK, thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Jeff - the whole purpose of the WG was to address issues that arise AFTER go live. We examined use cases just like these and that is why that framework developed.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - Please just ask Chuck Gomes<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): as I understand, we discuss processes between going live and execution of RA with the new Registries<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Also ask Marika - she was the ICANN policy person and Chuck Gomes led the WG<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): and processes specific to the next new gtld round, and not to other policies<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: No one is looking at how the framework already adopted by the Board in relation to issues arising after the applications are accepted interacts with this so-called Predictability Framework. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: On measuring position of impacted parties, the registry agreement amendment process has some useful precedents. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Defining where a change is supported or not by impacted parties.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): few year of approval/negotiations for annual process of RA amendment<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT - which of your "use cases" already fall within the description of issues in relation to "GNSO Guidance", "GNSO Input", Expedited PDP, or PDP. The question that has to be asked is which of your use cases ALREADY fit within that Policy and Implementation framework already established.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Okay Jeff - so we are saying one through 3 do not fit there?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: The change from digital archery to priority draw changed the balance among ICANN regions, so it's something that definitely should have gone to a community consultation. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): To say more - offshore applicants were added to EU region<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): even islands from ocean, which was far from Europe , and it changed balance for EU applicants<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: entire community in that case<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): +1 <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Trang Nguyen: How does the role of the ICANN CEO as the top executive with operational oversight and the role of the ICANN Board as an escalation path for ICANN org fit into this framework?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kavouss Arasteh 3: Jeff, we need to examine and decide on the scope ,magnitude of change, the entity or entities requesting and submitting the chane, the threshold for accepting changes, the manner and means to examine those changes , justification for changes, implementation of changes and more importantly the impact of change i.e. retroactivity or otherwise of changes if and when implemented<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Because it was not just the randomization, there was also a regional balance. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: DA had a per region system. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Not able to speak anymore, late here. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: How do you determine which party is affected and how big the effect is? Who makes that determination?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): also regional balance was shifted due to addition of applicants from some offshore jurisdictions to EU<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): without geo reasons (tiny islands in ocean are not in EU region)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): name collision definitely comes under the Policy & Implementation Working Group framework - at the very least GNSO Guidance.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Standing IRT is a GREAT idea!<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Specifically on topics of security and stability, RSTEP could also be invoked. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Greg Shatan: Also support the Standing IRT.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Mike Rodenbaugh: I don't think a standing IRT sounds very realistic, since any of a myriad of issues could arise, so the team to evaluate them might need different skillsets.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: The panel. The process would require some tweaks. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Trang Nguyen: Currently, org goes to the GNSO when we have policy questions. It seems if the recommendation is for org to go to an IRT instead, that the GNSO should weigh in on that recommendation.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Justine Chew: @Mike: composition of IRT can address that<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Trang - the way the IRT works, it brings issues to the attention of GNSO if needed.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): My concern is that the potential IRT panel members with the relevant skills are also most likely to be the folks who have an interest (financial, conflict of, etc.) in the panel's determination. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): @Kristina, most probably <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Mike Rodenbaugh: +1 Kristina. Maybe a standing IRT composed of subset of the GNSO Council might make most sense.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Mike - like that idea.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Justine Chew: and TOR for IRT should be specific<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: They being here. ;-)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Steve Chan: There could be a model were the GNSO Council members make decisions, but be supplemented with subject matter expertise as necessary?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: IRT, not IRP<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Greg Shatan: IRT = "Implementation Review Team"<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Thinking back to those Council as PDP days gives me a headache. Raises the issue, though, that having the IRT be subset of Council could overload a group of folks with extreme bandwidth issues to start with.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Mike Rodenbaugh: for sure<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Disagree with Kavouss - this is exactly the best and highest use of the IRT<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Mike Rodenbaugh: but I can't see a realistic vetting and selection process for such an IRT, outside of existing Council members, especially without knowing the specific issue(s) it might address<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: ICANN should have a procedure for participants to identify when they should recuse themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Greg Shatan: Acronym Collision<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Greg Shatan: The IRT is typically a subset of the WG. Often those hardy enough to remain engaged....<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Justine Chew 2: Every group should be subject to Conflict of Interest policy, if not already<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: In case of consensus-based groups like WGs, having published SOIs is considered enough. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Rubens Kuhl: But that assumes that less than the majority of members are non-conflicted.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Mike Rodenbaugh: remember that nearly half the Board recused itself from the NGPC<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): is request to extend history of text windows in Adobe Connect fall into minor changes (this tool might be used in the next round :)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): *does<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Do not support "perception or appearance of a conflict"" It disqualifies too<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Disqualiffies too many people<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): and registrars too<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): the issue is - industry is not large, and excluding all experts with "perception of appearance of a conflict" will make it full of totally non-relevant persons into the team ... I doubt that outcome will be great<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Mike Rodenbaugh: agreed, Maxim -- that is EXCTLY what happened with NGPC and it was a disaster, imho<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Justine Chew 2: Where a member of group gets into a position of where a conflct of interest is reasonably likely to arise should recuse herself, and only in respect of a decision that can greatly influence the outcome? Just thinking out loud.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): and diversity requirement might help in finding balance (so , for example registries are outweighted by registrants e.t.c.)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think a direct conflict could merit recusal. For example, there could be specific strings implicated in a particular issue . Direct<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Greg Shatan: Steve, that group is intended for "Council-level" review and comment on the Budget. Each of the SGs and Cs also comment individually on the Budget. So I don't think it is usable here.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Jeff here<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Steve Chan: Actually, one comment I forgot to raise is that the Council is ultimately responsible for initiating the GNSO Expedited PDP and Guidance Process<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Trang Nguyen: Also, as the issues are wide ranging, it would be important to ensure that the process allows for relevant expertise to be consulted (i.e., SSAC/RSSAC/other technical communities on technical issues).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Greg Shatan: @Steve, true, that is consistent with their policy management role.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): There was GAC advice that would have stopped certain applications from moving forward. The PIC process was developed to address that but GNSO definitely should have been consulted. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): and registrars, eventually.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Steve Chan: Sure Jeff, I'll grab your suggestion from the transcript.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Yes Jeff _ i think that is right<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): as I understand the current GDD Portal is intended to be used later by applicants (now used by Registries, and will be used by <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Greg Shatan: Now the call is interrupted....<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Justine Chew 2: Steve Chan is speaking<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Steve Chan: Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): @Jeff: please add this use case: Need to transfer contacts from Applicant to Registry in ICANN systems (or replacement with the Registry contacts) when RA executed (or right before the moment).in our case The RA was executed and ICANN was still trying to obtain approvals (such as passwords change, in situation where ICANN staff changed it "for our security") from the Applicant contact (consultant company) after RA execution.This created a deadlock (Applicant contact has no formal contract with the new Registry, and ICANN staff explicitly requests approvals from them, and not from RA , whith whom ICANN has an agreement.Given that the passwords were changed without confirmation from Applicant or Registry )which we had to resolve by mentioning that ICANN effectively sabotages execution of our RA.it looks to be Revised Process<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Steve Chan: That's easier than reading into the record!</span></span> </p></div></body></html>