<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: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.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Dear Working Group members,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the
recording.</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Meeting recordings, transcripts and chat transcripts
<span class="apple-converted-space">are available at <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/IwWfB">
https://community.icann.org/x/IwWfB</a> .</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Emily<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Action Item 1: Develop poll to distribute to the WG based on questions displayed on slide 9 and on to 10.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Action Item 2: Revisit discussions with GDD about items that could help to speed up implementation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Notes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">2) Work Track updates</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">WT1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Next call at Thurs 6 Mar at 15:00 UTC. WIll try to fill in remaining holes in topics/WT1 working document.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">WT2<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Next call is Thurs at 15:00 UTC. Will discuss contractual compliance and TLD rollout. Will also discuss what will be covered at ICANN61.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">WT3<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Next call is Tuesday at 20:00 UTC, will discuss string similiarity and string confusion objections. WIll also discuss what will be covered at ICANN61.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">WT4<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Next call is Thurs 1 Mar at 20:00 UTC.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">WT5<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Welcome to Javier Rua-Jovet, the new co-lead from the ALAC.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- On the last call, discussed definition/scope of what geographic names may apply in future new gTLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">3) Continuation of discussion on TLD types (<a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit%5Bdocs.google.com%5D">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit[docs.google.com]</a>)</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Reviewing slide 6<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Reviewing slide 7<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Reviewing slide 8<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Reviewing slide 9<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Some support expressed for the idea that that no substantive change is needed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- .Brand does still need to be codified, since it was not originally captured in 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style="color:black">I think we should seek public comment on these various categories. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="color:#006600">@Cheryl, I think we need to at least to conduct a poll and not to base on the "temperature of the room" in this meeting</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- Support expressed by one member for geographic indicators needing specific treatment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="color:black">@Christoper, in my mind they already exist as a category and to that extent would be supported as status quo.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<b><span style="color:black">Heather Forrest: </span></b><span style="color:black">I understood after Jeff Neuman's response to my question at the start of the last WT5 call that in discussing the 'definition' of geo name the group is questioning whether a particular category of name should be analysed by the group, NOT whether a particular category merits different treatment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- Specification 13 may not be suficient to capture needs of .Brands. Should capture and include holistically in the process, if possible.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- We will definitely have categories in the future, so let’s agree that they will exist.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">- The categories so far concentrate more on the entity rather than the string. Why would an IGO applying be different than any other organization applying for the same string (assuming an unprotected IGO string)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="color:black">Doesn’t it really need to be “entity + type”?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="color:black">I'd take Donna's point and go farther - we're listing types based on the string, the applicant and the way in which the string is used (which gets us very close to the content line, IMHO).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Javier Rua-Jovet: </span></b><span style="color:black">Good points.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#006600">and non-for-profit is a form of legal body, so many Registries have this despite being GEO, generic or community</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><br>
<b>Justine Chew: </b>Should be purpose of use of string, taking Donna's point</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Phil Buckingham: </span></b><span style="color:black">Alan , we should have only two . Ones that will sell second level domains and ones that wont - ie only "selling internally within their organisation / brand .. then we categorizes from there. We need a tree diagram to distinguish the diffferent exceptions to the base .model .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">On the IGO front, there is all the time spent on IGO pre-emotive and curative rights, which may require some treatment for the protected strings.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><br>
<b>Philip Corwin: </b>IGOs generally have their own .int domains. Highly unlikely to be new gTLD applicants, both for that reason as well as aplication could be viewed as commercial endeavor.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="color:black">There are relatively few .ints compared to the number of IGOs, and I doubt that merely having a TLD would be viewed as a commercial endeavor.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- If certain entities get different treatment, perhaps those need to be defined.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">- Should we also look at purpose? Other entities may want to use their TLD for internal purposes (e.g., infrastructure). Maybe rather than creating categories, maybe the process for exemptions should be the goal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Edmon: </span></b><span style="color:black">generally agree with donna but building on what alan said, i feel it is more appropriate to really say that really its a combination of 3 things 1. the string, 2 the entity and 3 how thy are proposing to run it <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Edmon: </span></b><span style="color:black">and perhaps we need to ask, when we create (or not create categories) whether it adds to the fundamental goals: competition/choice/consumer trust<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="color:black">Agree with Edmon, it is really a “Trinity.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Alexander Schubert: </span></b><span style="color:black">we need to understand what we USE categories for? evaluation prioritization? prioritization of awarding the string (e.g. community)? RA? appllication requirements? application cost?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- Reviewing slide 10<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">- Applicant had to provide information about how the TLD was going to be used (question 18) and it was only relevant to community applications. Perhaps question 18 could be the basis for contractual requirements?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Does not properly take into account innovation and timeliess of application process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Challenges about not allowing applicants to change post-launch.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Could changes be handled via RSEP process?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- RSEP is currently used for technical stability reviews.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Contractual changes still go through public comment and ICANN Board review.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="color:black">I wasn't arguing about the concept, just that RSEP as defined could not be the right vehicle.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="color:black">@Kristina, I agree that it could stifle innovation, but I guess the point I was trying to make is that if we decide on additional categories then the applicant shoudl be held to something that they used in their application to make their claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Alexander Schubert: </span></b><span style="color:black">problematic example: somebody goes for .frankfurt but claims it is not for a city (hence needs no letter of non onjection). they afterwards "change" their application model.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="color:#006600">@Alexander, most probably mayors office of Frankfurt (one of them) will pull a letter from them</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): </span></b><span style="color:black">Given the duration of complex RSEPs, I have significant concerns about the business impact of pushing buiness model changes to an RSEP (in addition to the not-so-minor concern that we're then allowing ICANN to decide business models).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Action Item: Develop poll based on questions on slide 9 and on to 10</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- Reviewing slide 12<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Reviewing slide 13<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Reviewing slide 14<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Reviewing slide 15<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- </span>C<span style="color:black">ommunity-based applications need to be public from the outset, which makes them a target. It's difficult to apply as a community without awareness. This makes them a target for objections and
gaming.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="color:black">Some of those double-dip “communities” were dubious at best.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Robin Gross: </span></b><span style="color:#FF0080">I was just thinking that, Greg.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- Reviewing slide 16<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Jamie Baxter | dotgay: </span></b><span style="color:black">Yes. If we change nothing then community applications will continue to be targets of gaming<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style="color:black">COMMENT: I think public good is relevant to closed generics, but is not a relevant judgment in relation to community applications. I also don't think we can avoid high scrutiny/visibility on community applications. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- .brands were not in policy in the last round but existed in implementation. For things to remain the same from the 2012 round, we would need to make changes to the policy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">avri doria: </span></b><span style="color:black">i thought it was policy + agb + the rest of the rules that were added later in process were taken as the status quo?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="color:black">@Avri, i would support that explanation of the status quo.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">I am thinking the same as what Edmon and Avri posted also</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><br>
<b>Alexander Schubert: </b>maxim: if you claimed that your TLD would not be used (marketed) for the city purpose - you only needed a letter of non objection for capital cities! .frankfurt for a brand doesn't need a letter! </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><br>
<b>Michael Flemming: </b>So, the question is more along the lines of do we bring policy up to speed with implementation or make further changes?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><br>
<b>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </b>Agree with Avri. Let's acknowledge that when the Board acts, that is actually current policy even if not made by GNSO.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><br>
<b>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </b></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#006600">some of those decisions in 2012 round were not fact based or were not properly developed via the multistakeholder process</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><br>
<b>avri doria: </b>this is what i reacall was said way back at the beginning. Stauts quo is what exists.</span><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><span style="color:black">-- The status quo would need to be enshrined in policy in the new round as there were a number of provisions developed that are not reflected in the 2007 policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- What we are considering the status quo is the AGB plus whatever happened afterwards. Some of this is implementation, some was "ad-hoc" policy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- In the future, it may not be clear what was policy and what was implementation if it is all approved as a single package. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Another perspective - anything we put into our final report is policy, unless we affirmatively state that it is not. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#006600">implementation is actions of ICANN Staff and their actions does not constitute policy </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Edmon: </span></b><span style="color:black">@avri agree, but we should still explicitly point to those i think in this iteration of policy recommendation (i.e. if there are any policy changes from the previous recommendation even if we agree with the changes)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<b><span style="color:black">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style="color:black">There are GNSO policy recommendations. These don't actually become policy until adoptd by the Board.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<b><span style="color:black">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="color:black">If everything is policy, to change ANY of the details, no matter how much it looks like implementation, it will take a GNSO PDP (or equiv) to change.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<b><span style="color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="color:black">But of course — rejected policy recommendations are not policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<b><span style="color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="color:#006600">formally in ICANN legal framework there is no such thing as status quo</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<b><span style="color:black">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="color:black">what we should be concerned about is after we as a group conclude a policy of which elements are 'not adopted' by the Board then it's not policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Kurt Pritz 2: </span></b><span style="color:black">I think the bright line is, if the GNSO & Board voted on it, it is policy: i.e., the GNSO Policy reccommendations + the RPMs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="color:black">We spent a LOT of time a few years ago trying to differentiate policy from implementation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="color:black">Alan, what output of a PDP is not policy (when approved by the Board)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">avri doria: </span></b><span style="color:black">isn’t that what the new implementation groups deal with.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="color:#006600">for example current RSEP process, where current implementation contradicts the policy itself</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="color:black">That was usually in the opposite direction, where certain changes outside a PDP were either advanced as “implementation” or challenged as “policy.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="color:black">If you go back to the report that created the URS and TM Clearinghouse, it said in large bold type that this as implementation and not policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">The P&I Group created some ways of resolving that.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><br>
<b>Greg Shatan: </b>@Alan I don’t disagree with that.</span><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><span style="color:black">-- Suggestion – put the matrix of pros and cons for having categories out for public comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">4) Initial Report timeline/next steps<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Review of slide 24<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Target date for Initial Report - April 2018 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Work Tracks will reinitiate after public comment period for the Initial Report<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- No formal consensus calls will be taken prior to the publication of the Initial Report<br>
<br>
</span>Chat excerpt:<span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style="color:black">@Cheryl - issues must be highlighted in Initial Report for public comment. The issues I raised in Work Track 4 should form part of the Work Track 4 Initial report. I had understood these would be discussed further. Please add these issues to the call agenda for Work Track 4 March 1 call. Thank you, Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- Review of slide 25 - steps that will take place after this group delivers its Final Report and possible timeline. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style="color:black">QUESTION: When do we, as a group, see the Initial Report drafts and how much time will we have to consult our constituencies before the Intiial Report is adopted and published? QUESTION<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-- After the next leadership team meeting, the leaders will get back to the group on this question. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">--Was there a communication with Akram last year that there might be ways to speed up the implementation? If this discussion happened through the PDP WG, perhaps we can revisit this. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- This may have been a discussion initiated through the Contracted Parties House. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>Chat excerpt:<span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): </span></b><span style="color:black">COMMENT: We must be given enough time to review draft Initial Report with our constituencies. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">@Karen--not sure I understand.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Karen Day: </span></b><span style="color:black">Akram has said that FY19 budgeet contains no $ to start implementation work<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="color:black">@Karen, I'm talking about something different and it seems it may have been a communication coming out of the GDD Summit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="color:black">Karen Day: </span></b><span style="color:black">@donna, yes, I remember that was a conversation in Madrid, I was just meaning that if there is no $ they won't do anything no matter where we are <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">5) ICANN61 planning<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">-- Review of slide 27 and 28 - sessions at ICANN61<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">6) AOB<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">- The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call will be held on Monday, 05 March 2018 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.<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"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>