<!DOCTYPE html>
<html><head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head><body><p>Good evening:</p><p>I apologise for missing today's call. I expect to join the call on 29 May.<br>Thankyou for the Action Items and Notes. A few brief comments:</p><p><strong>Under Notes 2</strong>. The co-Chairs are aware of my reservations about the restriction on substantive discussions.<br>When I join a PDP WG Call it is precisely to discuss the proposed outcome of the WTs of which I am NOT a member.<br><br><strong>Under Section 1.5 Caveat.</strong> I note that the issue of tax havens has been recognised. The jurisdiction of the incorporation of a Registry IS an issue, that may well give rise to restrictive conditions.<br><br>- at the present time when several international entities and governments are concerned with tax fraud and tax evasion, ICANN's image would not be enhanced should we be seen to be facilitating tax evasion.<br><br>- regarding Geographical Names, I have already pointed out to WT5 that one might expect that public authorities issuing letters of non-objection (or similar) would normally require incorporation within their jurisdiction.<br><br><strong>Under Section 1.10.2 Registrar Non-Discrimination:</strong> I would enter a general reservation about the neutrality of Registrars among Registries under current conditions of 'vertical integration'. I shall return to this issue when we have had an opportunity to see the CCT-RT final report.</p><p>Regards</p><p>CW</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><blockquote type="cite">El 21 de mayo de 2018 a las 18:34 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> escribió:<br><br><div class="ox-0adafc43fa-WordSection1"><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><a name="_MailOriginalBody" class="mce-item-anchor"></a>Dear WG Members,</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 21 May 2018. <em>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</em>. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes will be provided separately.</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">For reference see also the attached documents.</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">Best regards,</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">Julie</p><div style="border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;"><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p></div><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><strong>Action Items: </strong></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p><ol style="margin-top: 0in;" start="1" type="1"><li class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0in;"><strong><em>WG members should review section 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria as preparation for the call on 29 May at 20:00 UTC (see attached section in PDF and Word)</em></strong></li><li class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">Section 1.5.5: Add a question in section e.: “Under what conditions would an applicant be entitled to a full refund?”</li><li class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">Section 1.10.2:</li><ol style="margin-top: 0in;" start="1" type="a"><li class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Question: For those of us who weren't on this work track, how did the work track propose to address the problem faced by at least one RO, namely, that no registrars were willing to sign its RRA? (It's my understanding that that situation has been resolved, but it raises the potential for anticompetitive behavior by registrars that don't like a particular RO's business model.) Thanks. Answer: There weren’t specific conversations on that particular RO. There were discussions of registries being able to seek an exemption if no registrars were willing to sign.</span></li><li class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Question re: the recommendation “Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars, unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted”-- Any consideration of proposed changes to provisions in the Registrar SG charter concerning exemptions from the registry code of conduct? Answer: The Work Track didn’t make the connection between proposed changes to the Registrar SG charter and the terminology used in the recommendation. Could consider including this as a question in section e as to whether the recommendation should say, “unless the Registry Code of Conduct doesn’t apply” rather than “an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted”.</span></li></ol><li class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">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.</li></ol><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><strong>Notes:</strong></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">1. Roll Call/SOIs: No updates.</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">2. Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received.</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released:</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">1.2: Overarching Issues</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">1.4: Pre-Launch Activities</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">1.5: Application Submission</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">1.6: Application Processing</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">1.10: Contracting</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">1.11: Pre-Delegation</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">1.12: Post-Delegation</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">-- Administrative Item: Please limit your intervention on the specific items we are covering to 2 minutes and if a second intervention please try to keep it to 60-90 seconds.</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><strong><span style="color: black;">Section 1.5: Application Submission (<s>Application Fees; Variable Fees; Application Submission Period; Applicant Support;</s> Terms & Conditions)</span></strong></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">-- Caveat: Don’t tie ICANN down to restrictive conditions – jurisdiction of incorporation of a registrant. In 2012 a certain number of registries deliberately registered in tax havens.</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">-- Make sure that we capture that a full refund is an option that is available. Could add it as a question. “Under what conditions would an applicant be entitled to a full refund?”</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">From the chat:</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">-- from Jim Prendergast to All Participants: for those not familiar - there was a graduated scale of refunds available to applicants depending on which stage they withdrew. But by the time ICANN made post submission changes, the refunds available were for 50% or less of the $185k fee. Thats not fair so there ws talk of ensure there would be a 100% refund if ICANN Changes the rules</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><strong><span style="color: black;">Section 1.6: Application Processing (Application Queuing)</span></strong></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">-- Question: Would there be any assurance with Digital Archery that there isn’t human intervention in setting the date of receipt? Answer: Because it is a random drawing there isn’t expected to be human intervention.</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">-- Question: Would there be an acknowledgement sent to the applicant that the applicant was received? Answer: In 2012 as soon as the applications were drawn it was made public. The Work Track assumed it would be done in a similar manner.</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">-- Question: Would people be able to have a clear picture of the situation, processing, and what priorities are assigned? Answer: The Work Track didn’t not discuss the system in this detail. The Work Track expected that it would be similar to the first round where you could log in and look at the status.</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">-- Question: Can applicants choose which priority number to assign to which application? Answer: Not sure if the Work Track discussed this in detail.</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><strong><span style="color: black;">Section 1.10.1 Base Registry Agreement</span></strong></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">From the chat:</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">from Rubens Kuhl to All Participants: ICANN already sent the agreement in the governmental version for gov. applicants, there was no need to ask specifically for it.</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">-- In the 2012 round, to the extent that ICANN knew that one was a government applicant they were then given the alternate sections.</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">-- Possible dependencies on the Base Registry Agreement – Registry Agreement may need to be changed to reflect the policies adopted by other relevant PDPs impacting new gTLDs, the results of the CCT-RT Final Report as well as the final recommendations of this Working Group, including those adopted with respect to Geographic Names at the Top-Level in Work Track 5.</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><strong><span style="color: black;">Section 1.10.2 Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization</span></strong></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">From the chat:</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">-- from kristina rosette to All Participants: Question: For those of us who weren't on this work track, how did the work track propose to address the problem faced by at least one RO, namely, that no registrars were willing to sign its RRA? (It's my understanding that that situation has been resolved, but it raises the potential for anticompetitive behavior by registrars that don't like a particular RO's business model.) Thanks. Answer: There weren’t specific conversations on that particular RO. There were discussions of registries being able to seek an exemption if no registrars were willing to sign.</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">-- Question re: the recommendation “Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars, unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted”-- Any consideration of proposed changes to provisions in the Registrar SG charter concerning exemptions from the registry code of conduct? Answer: The Work Track didn’t make the connection between proposed changes to the Registrar SG charter and the terminology used in the recommendation. Could consider including this as a question in section e as to whether the recommendation should say, “unless the Registry Code of Conduct doesn’t apply” rather than “an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted”.</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><strong><span style="color: black;">Section 1.11.1: Pre-Delegation (Registry System Testing)</span></strong></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">-- Question: What was the modality of the demonstration and procedure to verify capabilities and if the applicant is not accepted can it provide an argument? Answer: Did not close the possibility to provide self-certification. It was ICANN decided what were the criteria that the registry had to provide and the Work Track is not suggesting changes to that procedure.</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">-- Question: Any case where that demonstration of this capability was rejected? Answer: Don’t think there were any that failed. They all eventually passed, but were some benefits of the tests. They were a mixture of some self-certification and some actual live tests.</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">-- Question: Who checks the demonstration and if it is a self-certification how was that verified? Answer: There is text in the deliberation section that is applicable. If there are questions or clarifications, or things that aren’t included, let us know.</span></p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">-- Two dependencies: RSP Pre-Approval Program (Discussed in Section [1.2.6]) and Evolution of ICANN SLA Monitoring.</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal">3. Next Meeting: 29 May, 20:00 UTC: WG members should review section 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria as preparation.</p><p class="ox-0adafc43fa-MsoNormal"> </p></div></blockquote><p><br> </p><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</blockquote></body></html>