<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Helvetica Neue";
panose-1:2 0 5 3 0 0 0 2 0 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;}
p.p1, li.p1, div.p1
{mso-style-name:p1;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:9.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
background:#F1F1F1;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:"Helvetica Neue";
color:#323333;}
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.EmailStyle46
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle48
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle49
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle50
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle51
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle52
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle53
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:18046429;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:649262754 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1386949254;
mso-list-template-ids:64539536;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><a name="_MailOriginalBody">Dear WG Members,<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 30 April 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>For reference see also the attached document.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Julie<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'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b>Action Items: </b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Preamble/Introduction: WG Co-Chairs will suggest some language to make it clear that a consensus call was not held, and put it out to the list for review examples of how we got to a general type of agreement.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>General Note from the Co-Chairs to the WG list re: the issue of substantive comment vs report review and clarifications should be circulated in writing. <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1.2.2.2: <o:p></o:p></span></li><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=a><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Note in the deliberations whether there has been discussion here or elsewhere on whether or when a “full refund” might be considered or recommended. <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Specifically call out evaluation processes in the language so that it is very clear.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1.2.3:<o:p></o:p></span></li><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=a><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Correct typos: "of" not "or a round", "none months" -> "nine months" <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Add as a dependency limit of 1,000 delegation per year and note the link to Section 1.7.6.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Add as a dependency in addition to the CCT-RT Final Report, the SSAC NCAP study may affect this report if the SSAC develops a list of TLDs or a method for testing TLDs that yields the "DO NOT APPLY" category.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1.2.4: Add an additional question: “What would be the benefit of adding a further category/further categories?”<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1.2.5: <o:p></o:p></span></li><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=a><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Add to the deliberations section: Reflect the discussion that you could limit that applications by entity, if we could determine if an entity is making multiple applications.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Change the pros and cons to a tabular format.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Instead of “none” under the feedback section, should ask at least one question: "Do you concur with the assessment made by the WG?".<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1.2.6: Accreditation Programs<o:p></o:p></span></li><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=a><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Feedback section, Question 4:” Add text that this is not intended to limit that to only itself providing registry services, an application could also put forward a separate RSP.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Section b, last paragraph: New RSPs, etc. They aren’t really new <i>gTLD</i> RSPs. Add a note that the example is from the 2012 round and is not a complete list, or don’t identify by name.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Include links to the applicable sections in Work Track 4 that deal with technical evaluations.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo3;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Include in feedback a question about what minimum timing might be acceptable. On the amount of time on when the pre-approval process should be complete, or when it starts? Add two questions.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol></ol><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b>Notes:</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1. Initial Report Excerpts<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- General note from the chat: Given the fact that the issue of substantive comment vs report review has interfered with the progress of successive meetings, perhaps the repeated responses and clarifications by Jeff & Cheryl should be circulated in writing. With approximately 50 members joining the calls it does consume a lot of time that could be used more effectively to review the report.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1.2.2.1: Community Engagement</span>: No comments.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>1.2.2.2: Clarity of Application Process<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Should be a priority for entities that have not gotten any prior TLDs – dealt with this in Section 1.2.5 on application limits.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- We are trying to see if the initial report reflects the discussions that have occurred so far. If you have comments on substance those should be made in the public forum.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Question on the section where we talk about providing appropriate refunds when there is a change in the AGB after they applied. Did we discuss what was appropriate? Did we discuss the opportunity for a full refund? Answer: I don’t think we decided whether it is in full or part, so that is why we used the word “appropriate”. We may have had that discussion in another sections, such as name collisions. We will note this and make sure it gets addressed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Question: What is considered “multiple” with respect to applications? Also, what do we mean by “community”? Answer: This section only deals with the clarity of the application process. If multiple applications are allowed this section only notes that there should be a mechanism to handle multiple applications. Whether to allow multiple applications would be addressed in the section on Application Limits. From the chat: “Re some of your other questions. Multiple is any number more than 1; Cost is flat fee Per Application; We are not at the Section that discussed "Community" just yet.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- From the chat: “Question to the WT1 group .. does the reference to "all associated processes" include specific acknowledgement to evaluation processes? For example, community priority evaluation process was not formalized until after applications were submitted.” Answer: “To my understanding yes. The Applicant Guidebook should reflect and include all processes including community priority evaluation.” Response: “Could I request that evaluation processes be specifically called out in this language to that it is very clear.” <b>ACTION: Call out language on evaluation processes.</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>1.2.3: Applications Assessed in Rounds<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Will change the language to not use terms such as “recommending”.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Minor edits: "of" not "or a round", "none months" -> "nine months" <b>ACTION: Correct typos.</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Question: Who decides on the final processing of the pros and cons? If we count the number of pros and cons it is not possible to decide based on the number since they might have different weights; Answer: The WG will decide on the final recommendations based on the comments in the public forum. The WG won’t do a quantitative assessment, but weigh each pro and con appropriately. From the chat: it's not about the numbers or weight of pros and cons at this time, it’s to ensure that they are all captured.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Question: Does the limit of 1,000 delegation per year also impact this? Addressed also in 1.7.6 Security and Stability. <b>ACTION: Add in this section as a dependency.</b> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- COMMENT: In 1.2.3 Dependencies, in addition to the CCT-RT Final Report, the SSAC NCAP study may affect this report if the SSAC develops a list of TLDs or a method for testing TLDs that yields the "DO NOT APPLY" category. <b>ACTION: Add in this section as a dependency.</b> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>1.2.4: Different TLD Types<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Question from the chat: What would be the benefit of adding a further category/further categories? <b>ACTION: Add this as an additional question.<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>1.2.5: Application Submission Limits<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Even if there was no recommendation could we reflect the discussion that you could limit that applications by entity, if we could determine if an entity is making multiple applications? Answer: There were discussions about putting limits, but the WG could not agree on a mechanism to enforce those limits. <b>ACTION: Ensure this is included in the deliberations.</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- There should be a principle relating to people who try to warehouse TLDs via multiple applications.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- From the chat: Just a formatting suggestion. Pros and Cons were listed in a table in a previous section, but not this one. I think the tables are better presentationally. <b>ACTION: Put pros and cons in tabular format.</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- From the chat: I feel we should include questions for the public comment period. Just stating that there are none does not help to trigger the discussion. At least: "do you concur with the assessment made by the WG?" <b>ACTION: Add as a question in the feedback section.</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>1.2.6: Accreditation Programs<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Feedback -- Question 4:” If RSPs that go through the Pre-Approval process are required to go through a reassessment process, should RSPs/applicants that do not take part in the Pre-Approval Program also be required to go through the reassessment process?” Do you feel it will lead to inconsistent treatment of RSPs otherwise? Add text that this is not intended to limit that to only itself providing registry services, an application could also put forward a separate RSP. <b>ACTION: Edit text.</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Section b, last paragraph: New RSPs, etc. They aren’t really new <i>gTLD</i> RSPs. Add a note that the example is from the 2012 round and is not a complete list. From the chat: Perhaps best not to identify any entities by name. <b>ACTION: Edit text.</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Include the applicable sections in Work Track 4 that deal with technical evaluations. <b>ACTION: Add a reference.</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Include in feedback a question about what minimum timing might be acceptable. On the amount of time on when the pre-approval process should be complete, or when it starts? <b>ACTION: Maybe ask two questions on this issue.</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>2. ICANN62 Planning<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Monday: Two sessions on Work Tracks 1-4; cross-community session on Work Track 5.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Thursday: One session on Work Tracks 1-4, cross-community session on Work Track 5.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- See the draft GNSO schedule at: <a href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/icann62-draft-gnso-schedule-26apr18-en.pdf">https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/icann62-draft-gnso-schedule-26apr18-en.pdf</a>. Note that these are tentative and may change.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>