<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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle54
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle55
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle56
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle57
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle58
{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'>Dear WG Members,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 04 June 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></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>For reference see also the attached slides.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Julie<o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b>Action Items: </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'>Section 1.7.4: <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Section e: Add specific questions on these elements in Section f: <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>1. Contention Resolution: "Do Community Priority Evaluation and auctions of last resort continue to be appropriate methods of resolving contention? Are auctions of last resort are in the public interest?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>2. Private Auctions: What rules could be established to disincentivize gaming or abuse of private auctions?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>3. Synonyms in String Similarity Review: Should synonyms (for example .DOCTOR and .PHYSICIAN) be included in the String Similarity Review.? Such as when the strings are associated with a highly-regulated sector and one of the strings is a verified TLD.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Section 1.7.5:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Section c: Incorporate the definition of what is a variant from the AGB. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Section e question 2: Change from "Latin-language to Latin-script"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Section 1.7.6: Security and Stability<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Section e: Add the note that the SSAC recommends no emojis and TLD, but want to get views on this issue.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Section f (last sentence): Is Work Track the correct subject or should it be commenters? If Work Track is correct, may want revise the verb to "may look" . . .<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Section 1.7.7:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Re: suggested language: "Applicants will be allowed but not required to specify additional registry services." can we revise the report to say that the WT has disagreed and we specifically seek comment on the may vs. required issue? Seems to be a change in policy (from question 23). <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b>Notes:</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. Roll Call/SOIs: No updates.<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. Review of the Initial Report (continued):<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Section 1.7 (<s>Reserved Names; Registrant Protections; Closed Generics;</s> String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) -- see: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB">https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>* 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.</span></i><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='color:black'> </span></span><b><i>Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (</i></b><span style='color:black'><a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"><b><i>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</i></b></a></span><b><i>) in advance of the meeting.</i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>As a reminder,<span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB">https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB</a></span><span class=MsoHyperlink>.</span><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='color:black'> </span></span><span style='color:black'>As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released:</span><o:p></o:p></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='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></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='color:black'>1.2: Overarching Issues</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>1.3: Foundational Issues<o:p></o:p></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='color:black'>1.4: Pre-Launch Activities</span><o:p></o:p></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='color:black'>1.5: Application Submission</span><o:p></o:p></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='color:black'>1.6: Application Processing</span><o:p></o:p></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='color:black'>1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria</span><o:p></o:p></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='color:black'>1.10: Contracting</span><o:p></o:p></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='color:black'>1.11: Pre-Delegation</span><o:p></o:p></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='color:black'>1.12: Post-Delegation</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Section 1.7.4 String Similarity<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Section f: Add the three elements at the end of the section to Section e as specific questions on: Contention Resolution, Private Auctions, Synonyms in String Similarity Review.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Section c: Some explanatory text would be helpful. Those who have not followed the issue carefully won't understand why the first 2 bullets are not inconsistent. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Section 1.7.5 IDNs<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Section c: To help the reader know what is a variant, pull the definitions from the AGB.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Section e question 2, Change from "Latin-language to Latin-script"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- "Latin-language supporting ccTLDs such as .br and .ca" Change "could be it TLD-specific" to "could it be TLD-specific (same item).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Section 1.7.6: Security and Stability<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Add the note that the SSAC recommends no emojis and TLD, but want to get views on this issue.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Section 1.7.3.f (last sentence): Is Work Track the correct subject or should it be commenters? If Work Track is correct, may want revise the verb to "may look" . . . <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- From the chat: <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Section 1.7.6.c., 2nd para: Not clear what problem WT is trying to solve through the suggested Implementation Guidance. An explanatory sentence would be useful.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Section 1.7.7: Applicant Reviews<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Comment/question on Section 1.7.7.c (financial evaluation, subsection 2.d): It would be helpful for the report to state if the WT considered extending the conditions to include Affiliates. In other words, if the Applicant or an Affiliate is a company traded on an applicable national public market, etc. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- n Financial Evaluation, I remember people having doubts about the meaning of a "single registry family", a definition ICANN GDD uses. We might want to add a footnote with that definition. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- I'm confused and would appreciate some clarification from folks on the WT who worked on the Registry Services Evaluation recommendations. The Registry Services Evaluation Process implements the Registry Services Evaluation Policy, which I do not read as applying to gTLD applicants. So, how can an "applicant specify whether it wants [its new proposed service] evaluated through RSEP at evaluation time"?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Re: suggested language: "Applicants will be allowed but not required to specify additional registry services." can we revise the report to say that the WT has disagreed and we specifically seek comment on the may vs. required issue? Seems to be a change in policy (from question 23). <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Christopher Wilkinson: The financial plan should include a question about the aggregate leverage of the applicant (equity/indebtedness)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Comment/question on Section 1.7.7.c (financial evaluation, subsection 2.d): It would be helpful for the report to state if the WT considered extending the conditions to include Affiliates. In other words, if the Applicant or an Affiliate is a company traded on an applicable national public market, etc. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Rubens Kuhl: Kristina, could be a question like this ? "WT hasn't considered whether to include Affiliates in (...). Should such criteria be changed to include Affiliates ?"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Rubens: Yes.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Rubens Kuhl: On Financial Evaluation, I remember people having doubts about the meaning of a "single registry family", a definition ICANN GDD uses. We might want to add a footnote with that definition. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I'm confused and would appreciate some clarification from folks on the WT who worked on the Registry Services Evaluation recommendations. The Registry Services Evaluation Process implements the Registry Services Evaluation Policy, which I do not read as applying to gTLD applicants. So, how can an "applicant specify whether it wants [its new proposed service] evaluated through RSEP at evaluation time"?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Heather Forrest: So you would still be required to answer, for example, 29 on RPMs?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair): @heather<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Rubens Kuhl: I don't see us taking out question 23, or the number it becomes. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Rubens Kuhl: Because applicants still need to specify what they want in their agreements. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): In the interest of moving forward, can we revise the report to say that the WT has disagreed and we specifically seek comment on the may vs. required issue?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Kristina about this.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Services can't be hidden if they're new registry services. Post RA signature, the RO will have to submit an RSEP.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Rubens Kuhl: This would be curious seem we seem to agree, just not on how to say it... <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP WG Co Chair): This was WT 4 <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Rubens Kuhl: So if there is doubt, I am more from changing language to the point of people that agree, not to disagree. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Rubens Kuhl: (I am more to)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Let's not forget that one major factor in the development and design of the 2006 policy recommendations (and the subsequent AGB) was to avoid having ICANN making judgments about business models. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Kristina - the questin is timing - in the application itself or in the RSEP or RSTEP process afterward? That is why w eneed public comment. The work Track 4 discussed the pros and cons of this - particularly becaudse of question 23.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Christopher: Suggest you review this list if you're unaware of any new registry services: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rsep-2014-02-19-en<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Rubens Kuhl: Would "Applicants will be allowed to specify services beyond the base required services, but the base required services will be the only mandatory ones" cut for you, Anne ? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If that's Anne's concern, it assumes that there is a basis for a 3P to comment on or object to a proposed registry service - and I'm not aware of one.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to ask that question, we should also ask the commenters to identify why or why not it should be required, if 3P should be allowed to comment on or object to a proposed service in the application and, if so, on what basis?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Anne Aikman-Scalese: The question on which there was disagreement in Work Track 4 was whether disclosure of services known at the time of application - should you be required to disclose them?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Anne Aikman-Scalese: I would not require the tick box - I would expect integrity and honesty. And all I am looking for is public comment on the question.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Anne: Understood. But if we're seeking comment on whether disclosure should be be required, we need to ask people to explain their reasons.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes - Kristina - I absolutely agree with that idea to explain reaons.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Anne Aikman-Scalese: *reasons - yes<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Alan Greenberg: The REAL problem is we can only refuse an RSEP if it impacts stability, but here the grounds for objection could be much wider.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Rubens Kuhl: Alan, Stability or Competition. And the judge on Competition is external to ICANN, an applicable competition authority. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Alan - that is why changing Question 23 or modifying it is an important change in policy and this must be highlighted in the questions for public comment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Alan Greenberg: @Rubens, yes + competition, but the general comment still stands.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Rubens Kuhl: Anne, that part hasn't changed. Only the pre-approved services list and the opportunity to specifying timing for service evaluation, which could foster more disclosure. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>3. ICANN62 Schedule:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Session 1 for WTs 1-4 is on Monday, 25 June, 09:00-10:15<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Session 2 for WTs 1-4 is on Monday, 25 June, 10:30-Noon<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Session 3 for WTs 1-4 is on Thursday, 28 June, 13:30-15:00<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Session 1 for WT5 is on Monday, 25 June, 15:15-16:45 (Cross-Community Session)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Session 2 for WT5 is Thursday, 28 June, 15:15-16:45<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>-- Break out into groups and try to find some way to find areas of agreement. <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>