<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;}
span.EmailStyle47
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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><o:p></o:p></a></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></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 12 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><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>For reference see the following link to the Applications Submission Periods: </span></span><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7dKOw/edit?usp=sharing"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7dKOw/edit?usp=sharing</span></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><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='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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'>Action Item:<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'>Application Submission Period: WG members should contribute suggestions for potential criteria to put into our initial report that we could use to say we are ready to go on to the next round and to answer who will make that determination. See: </span></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'></span><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7dKOw/edit?usp=sharing"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7dKOw/edit?usp=sharing</span></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>.</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:11.0pt'>Notes:<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'>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 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'>-- Next meeting 13 February at 1500 UTC. Discussing Applicant Freedom of Expression, Accountability, String similarity.<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'>-- Met on 12 February at 1500 UTC. Topic was Financial Evaluation. Converging on a possible model. Next call is 01 March at 2000 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'><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:<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 call is 20 February on 2000 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'>-- Still working on topics. Expect that it will be RSP Program and another topic.<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: Next call is 22 February at 1500 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'><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'>-- Next call is 21 February at 2000 UTC. Continuing from the last call on the different geographic terms in the AGB; looking at each individually to assess the positive and negative attributes.<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: Applications Submission Periods<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'>See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7dKOw/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'>General 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'>-- Some have said it should be first come, first served, and some have suggested rounds. We don't have consensus. The next application window is likely to be a round format.<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 we can come to a decision that we will always do rounds that would be fine, but don't think we have to put in our recommendations the definitive ongoing 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'>-- Both models work but we need to figure out what is best before moving forward. Someone applies for .jeff, but the application window would still be open and then others could apply and then go to a contention set. Open application 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'>-- Agree that we need to consider the open model as opposed to the "black box plus reveal" model from the first round. Open process might create more contention sets but avoid some who might not have applied.<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 we do have something without rounds we have to think about how all the objections, permissions, and rights protections would work. Current procedures assume a pool that is being reviewed.<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'>-- The idea of an open model where others could apply could address some concerns, but raises significant concerns about the process being used to blackmail someone into paying them off.<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'>-- Issues with window open to everyone simultaneously (as in 2012); too many applications all at once. Consider mini-rounds, which are pre-defined by grouping the criteria and objectives of certain numbers of well-identified groups of TLS, such as brands, geographicals, etc. Evaluation process would be quite different for such groups.<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'>-- Anyone disagree with the notion that the next opportunity for applications can be submitted that it should be a 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'><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'>avri doria: Alan, I thought there was a desire to prevent a future stall point, wouldn't another process risk becoming a future stall point?<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'>Alan Greenberg: Sorry, didn't mean to steal your thunder. I did wantto establish that MAYBE, we do not need full clarity for the long term in our recommendations.<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): if an application blocks other applications with the same string - then it will lead to private auction where the first auctions off the seat<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'>Alan Greenberg: @Avri, yes, perhaps, but we are living in a different world that we were in in 2007 when this process was first (at a policy level) started. We are seeing relatively stagnant domain sales, and that has to ultimately enter into our consideration.<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'>Phil Buckingham: i think it is very important that ICANN does some kind of outreach to try establish the level of demand / interest for a R2 .- say in 2020 , - particalarly amongst global .brands <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): Rubens, are you advocating for one model over another because of the secrecy consideration or were you just flagging the secrecy consideration as a factor to be taken into account?<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'>Alan Greenberg: Id it is known that .jeff is applied for and others could do so as well, that could get REALLY ugly - someone with deep pocketes sees an opportunity that no one had thought of and out-bids them.<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: Kristina, I don't have a preference in either model, so far. I think we need to establish which one we move forward and tune the process to that definition. <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): @Rubens: Thanks for clarifying.<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'>Christopher Niemi: @Phil +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'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: I don't think it's possible to deal effectively with contention sets unless there is a "window" of some sort. We can't have a situation where the applicant who hits the submission button 2 minutes before the next applicant for the same string gets the string. It will cause bedlam. 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): what benefit brings to the community identification of the fastest 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'>Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: As Greg said, it would be more difficult with permissions like support/non-objection and objections through first come, first serve applications <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: FCFS only works in absence of pent-up demand, so it wouldn't be a question of minutes between applications. <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): We are also going to have to deal with the high likelihood that the GAC will recommend a priority round for Community applications. (Let's not stick our heads in the ground on this.)<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'>Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: Anne +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'>Phil Buckingham: + CW I would envisage a round for .brands ( a closed model ) which could be run in parallel with (say) a round for geos ( an open model) . Their application / evaluation criteria / points scoring would be totally 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'>Rubens Kuhl: A community-only round will be rather unfortunate, since it will likely foster gaming that would hurt the image of community-based TLDs, which can exist for very good reasons, but would be used to get that TLDs. <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'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Next oportunity as a "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'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): let us know if you object to that assumption<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'>Christopher Wilkinson: Shpould be Rounds<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 Rubens, in this round only reach/well supported communities communities won<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: BTW, 2004 was a community-only round, we called it sponsored TLDs at the time. <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'>Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: Should be rounds<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'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): No of "A Round" not yet detailed in specs<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: There should be a *a* round, moving to FCFS in the long run. <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): FCFS does not work when there is pent-up demand.<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'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): That would be a "next step" discussion of course Rubens <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'>Requirements Considered (page 2 of the Google doc):<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'>-- Agreed that the 2008 GNSO recommendation should remain in place -- that there should be an ongoing mechanism for the introduction of additional new gTLDs.<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'>-- Must be clarity and predictability about how and when applications can be applied for in the future.<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'>-- There must not be indefinite gaps between the processing of applications to the acceptance of additional new gTLD applications.<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'>-- The choice of application submission methodology must address the potential impact on other areas of the program (e.g., objections, string contention, 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'>-- The application submission mechanism(s) should not negatively impact the stability, security, resilience and quality of the new gTLD program.<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'>-- The application submission mechanism(s) should not negatively impact operational effectiveness and the fiscal feasibility of ICANN or the new gTLD program.<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'>-- Concern that an excessive rapidity of releasing new gTLD strings could be a security and stability issue. The PDP WG has received responses from ICANN Org, RSSAC, and SSAC on the issue of the rate of delegation into the root.<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'>ACTION: Second to last bullet -- rewrite it to include ICANN (as in the last bullet). Not sure why ICANN was left out of the bullet. Change to "Of ICANN or the new gTLD program."<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'>-- Not sure why bullet 1 is limited to the clarity and predictability of how and when applications can be applied for in the future -- why it doesn't include other aspects is because what we are considering is just the mechanism for accepting applications. Need it around every aspect of the program, does that impact the mechanism for accepting applications? Not sure that point fits into this part of the process. Predictability and Clarity of the Application Process are actually their very own topics, fwiw.<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'>-- To help address Kristina's point, could we add "evaluation" to the 3rd bullet, with objections?<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'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): That there must be clarity and predictability in the proposed path<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'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): The question of "Gaps" not to be "indeffinate" but defined ( asper predictability requiremtnt) <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'>Hadia Elminiawi: +1 cheryl <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): Clarifying question, Jeff: Why does the last bullet refer to ICANN or the new gTLD program, but the second-to-last one only refers to the new gTLD program? And, fwiw, how does one measure the stability, security and resilience of a program?<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'>Emily Barabas: Top of page 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'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so far no scientific proof of the provided numbers was presented (5% growth and 1000 per year are both seems to be "looks safe")<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'>avri doria: There may be an iconsideration with the creation of the impementation of the system as Org may not know whether they are building a use once round mechasism or building something that will be used often the same way or are building something that can evolve into FCFS implementation.<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): Agree that it doesn't relate to rounds vs. non-rounds. Maybe drop a placeholder footnote to remind us that we need to do internal cross referencing later. <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'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Yes but the cosequences will effect intervals between any future offering of submission periods<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'>avri doria: a consideration - sorry<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'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Indeed Avri, good point<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'>Martin Sutton: To help address Kristina's point, could we add "evaluation" to the 3rd bullet, with objections?<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'>Solutions Considered (page 3 of the Google doc):<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'>[See options in the Google doc]<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'>-- Hold mini-rounds that are restricted to different types -- underserved regions, brands, geographicals, etc. Could be covered in options 2 or 3 depending on the rules.<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'>-- Predictable doesn't necessarily mean a set time period, but according to certain criteria -- such as 1 year after an identified dependency.<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 to capture the above-mentioned definition of predictability.<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'>-- Define predictability in terms of either timing and/or occurrence of some sort of dependency or event.<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'>-- Flag: thinking about the different mechanisms and what might serve as a trigger and the timing 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'>-- Could be a derivative of option 1 -- having staff decide the starting point for 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'>-- If we say that ICANN has to not open a round for a certain amount of time that could be problematic, or forcing them to open a round when they aren't ready could cause problems.<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'>-- Could that work with any of the options as long as there is some sort of an escape valve?<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'>-- Is there another alternative, which would be some form of batching?<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'>-- Not sure that anyone agreed that we could limit the number of applications overall.<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'>-- Another issue is ICANN's capacity to process applications. But can't make policy based on what ICANN can or cannot handle.<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'>-- Instead of setting a defined time range, could set criteria that would have to be met before a round starts, but haven't come to consensus on any 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'>-- Criteria make more sense than a hard and fast timeframe.<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 decides that the criteria have been met? It could be a combination of alternative criteria, but could be others. Doesn't necessarily have to be a time limit or single criteria. <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'>-- Great to get a list of potential criteria to put into our initial report that we could use to say we are ready to go on to the next round and to answer who will make 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'><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'>Paul McGrady: @Jeff, could we just leave it to Staff discretion as to when the next round starts? Do we have to dictate it?<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'>Paul McGrady: The next, next round, I mean.<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: Paul, I believe the main concern is the timing between procedures. The start of the next one is indeed something we can leave to discretion. <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'>Christa Taylor: Predictability is difficult as we have the yearly delegation rates and projected demand which would extend beyond years. The number of applications will impact the time required which then impacts predictability.<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): a round + typical cycle of life in ICANN period (at least a year)<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: Christa, the delegation rates are, for now, just artificial scarcity, until anything bad really happens, of which there is no sign that something would crash. <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): costant period available only in absence of issues (have we seen a round without issues so far?)<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'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Or a next round leading to a perminant or endless batch opportunities to follow @Greg?<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: Semi-parallel processing?<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'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): If it can be properly resourced - Why not?<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'>Emily Barabas: @Jeff, confirmed -- none of the CC1 comments suggested specific limits (see Subject 6 in the CC2 summary document here https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw )<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'>avri doria: who decides that the crteria have been met?<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'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I am personally very confortable with the "criteria' approach @Paul<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): 80%?<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: If we look at the 2012 round, we released 100 IE results per week. There's probably potential to push that number higher. It's difficult to say without knowing what changes will be made to 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): 80% of issues caused by 20% of applications (one of theories)<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 vice versa<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: Trang, was technical evaluation, registry services evaluation or financial evaluation the slower path in 2012 ? <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'>Martin Sutton: 50% passed evaluation or 35% contracts agreed or 25% are delegated<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'>Paul McGrady: @Martin - yes! Those are the sorts of fact based triggers we should be thinking about.<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'>Susan Payne 2: % have signed contract; or completed PDT. But a criterion tied to IE has the benefit that there would be a steady flow of work for evaluators<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'>Phil Buckingham: @ Trang - if ICANN has twice the number of evaluators then they could / should be able to push out 200 IE per week .? <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: They all occurred in parallel. No one of those 3 evaluations was more complicated or took longer than others.<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: Not necessarily. The evaluation firms that we engaged had the ability to scale.<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'>4. Planning for ICANN61; Two sessions in ICANN61: 1) SubPro PDP WG on Saturday, 10 March for Work Tracks 1-4 at 12:15-15:00; 2) Work Track 5 on Wednesday 14 March at 8:30 to 10:15.<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></div></body></html>