<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Jeff and Cheryl,</p>
<p>Per your invitation, I share my recollections of the Kobe meeting
below (which are different) and the uncertainty I share with Anne
and others about the consensus call. I think all pigs are equal,
but some are more equal than others. Let me try to explain:</p>
<p>There was a slide shown in the last face-to-face discussed that
summarized the subteam discussion of copying certain fields from
one application as supporting "identical" applications. I raised a
question about identical applications as something we had never
discussed.<br>
</p>
<p>- Cheryl, who was sitting right next to me, said that the slide
was not accurate on this point, and should not be taken too
literally. I think she said this to the full group as well. [1]<br>
</p>
<p>- Krista, who headed the subteam, described her recollection of
the comments as discussing certain fields for duplication, but not
identical applications. [2]</p>
<p>- I said I remembered opposition in the comments to the copying
of certain fields by IPC. I added that NCSG -- throughout its
comments to the WG - supported policies that aid the community's
ability to review, understand and comment on applications. Based
on this prior stance, NCSG joined IPC in opposing the duplication
of certain fields, especially those that the community relies on
to be distinct and individualized. [3]<br>
</p>
<p>To your question, I don't see is [1], [2] and [3] above in your
summary below. <br>
</p>
<p>So a few procedural questions:</p>
<p>A. What's the reason for the WG discussion: Are we only looking
at WG comments? Do we care what WG members say? If many comments
come from one set of stakeholders, are the others "outvoted"? <br>
</p>
<p>B. Can we all get clear and easy access to a few points that will
be covered before each WG meeting -- with clear links to the
underlying comment material? So that we can all easily review the
comments and background before we enter the discussion - and not
have to rely on what we remember from eight months ago?</p>
<p>C. Given the importance in the first round (2012) to public
portions of the application that the community, public and GAC
could (and did) closely evaluate, and given the clear and high
value today that that those who will be reviewing the future
applications ascribe to them, shouldn't our next step as a WG be <i>strengthening
the requirements </i>for clear and distinct responses to
certain application fields so the community can fulfill its
oversight function --<i> creating a race to the top, not a race to
the bottom.</i></p>
<p>Best, Kathy<i><br>
</i></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/19/2019 5:16 PM, Jeff Neuman
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:38BAC4E89FFC2C48AF6119A83CEAF0E405380503@ORD2MBX15C.mex05.mlsrvr.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle32
{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:671832720;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:527468524 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Anne,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for your e-mails and sorry it has
taken a couple of days for me to get back to this and recover
enough to respond.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, I don’t think we should get hung up
on the terminology we used for purposes of the triage
exercise. At this point, it does not matter whether something
is classified as a new idea or not. What is important is
whether the idea has enough support within the working group
to merit further consideration and ultimately whether it would
rise to the level of having Consensus support. So I would
strongly encourage us to not dwell on the label that was used.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With respect to the conversation on whether
an applicant can elect to copy one application for a TLD (or
certain fields from one application) into another application
for a second TLD, or whether an applicant can provide one
response to a clarifying question and ask that that response
be applied to all of its similarly situated applications, is
by no means complete at this point. That said, I am still
scratching my head (and this may be just me) to understand (a)
what we are trying to prevent / protect against, (b) how the
solution of not allowing copying of one answer to put into
another application would achieve (a) above, and (c) why is
this a concern for us.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What I heard during the discussion (and
correct me if I am wrong) was that we wanted to make sure that
at least with respect to the description of the mission /
purpose or each TLD, there was a concern that by having an
option to copy another application, we were encouraging
applicants to not differentiate their TLD applications. So
perhaps the argument for (a) above is that we are trying to
prevent an applicant from submitting identical applications
(albeit for separate strings). But where I get confused is
that the solution of not having an option for the system to
copy an answer, we are
<i>not preventing copying from going on.</i> All we are doing
is making applicants do this manually (which we cannot
prevent)?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And I am also trying to understand the (c),
<u>why are we concerned</u>. The BC stated in their comments
that they thought copying from one response to another “<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">can
result in unknown mistakes and may increase chances of
errors in the application.” My confusion is that if we
force applicants to “copy” answers manually where identical
answers make sense, then that could increase the chances for
mistakes over having the system do this in an automated
fashion. And I still don’t understand why we should be
concerned if there are similar answers. Leaving out
Question 18 (mission/purpose) for the moment, why do we care
if the following sections of each application are identical
except for having different strings:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">Applicant
Information (Name, Address, Phone Number, Fax, E-mail,
Website, etc.)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">Primary
Contact for the application (Name, DOB, contact
information, etc.)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">Proof
of Legal Establishment<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">Applicant
Background (Directors, Officers, Major Shareholders,
Criminal & Cybersquatting History, etc.)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">Registry
Services (Question 23)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">Technical
and Operational Capabilities (Question 24 - 29)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">Security
(Question 30)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">Technical
Architecture, Database Capabilities, diversity of
hardware, software, suppliers, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">DNS
Services, Data Escrow, Registry Continuity, Failover
Testing, Escalation Processes, DNSSEC<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">Financial
Information, Statements, etc.
<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">Even
if the mission/purpose of each TLD is different, the reality
is that all of the above information is most likely going to
be identical. So, either they will copy each of the answers
manually (which is more prone to mistakes) or there can be
an automated option to allow the automatic population of
these fields which could actually reduce mistakes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">As
Chair, for the record, this concept was supported by the
Work Track that made this recommendation without any dissent
prior to the Initial Report. As far as the comments we got
back, ICANN agreed with the recommendation, but expressed
concern as to the complexity of implementing this. The only
comment that disagreed was from the BC. Neustar, Lemarit,
Fairwinds and the BRG supported the recommendation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This e-mail does not represent any form of
decision or guidance by the Co-Chairs of the SubPro PDP, but
is merely intended to provide some of my outstanding questions
on the concerns. Thanks.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB">Jeff Neuman</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB">Senior Vice President <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB">Com Laude | Valideus<br>
</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB">1751 Pinnacle Drive
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB">Suite 600, McLean<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB">VA 22102, USA<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB"><br>
M: +1.202.549.5079<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB">D: +1.703.635.7514<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB">E:
</span><u><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"
lang="EN-GB"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a></span></u><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB"><br>
<a href="http://www.comlaude.com/" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#0563C1">www.comlaude.com</span></a></span><u><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="EN-GB"><br>
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are
clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com
Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely
for the addressee and may contain confidential
information. If you have received this message in error,
please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently
delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information
contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude
USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.</span><u><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org"><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Aikman-Scalese, Anne<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:47 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Julie Hedlund <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org"><julie.hedlund@icann.org></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action
Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 March
2019<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Thanks Julie.
To Jeff and Cheryl, I don’t think the concerns raised by
Kathy, Justine, and me in the Sub Pro call #3 about “rote
duplicative answers” as to Question 18 constitute a “new
idea”. These were rather concerns expressed about moving
forward with a policy recommendation to change the existing
policy in the 2012 AGB. Requiring individual answers in
Question 18 is not a “new idea”. It’s existing policy which
should not be changed unless there is a strong consensus in
the WG in favor of doing so. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Based on what I
have gleaned from our structure so far, it appears that
Leadership could take the position that a “new idea” may
only be recommended if it has unanimous or very strong
support. (This doesn’t mean the WG won’t reach Consensus as
to repetitive information being filed in numerous
applications at the same time in categories other than
mission and purpose.) But the fact that this idea received
support in public comment should not override concerns of
Working Group members relative to transparency and
encouraging practices which facilitate public comment. So,
in fact, rather than being a “new idea’, what you have is a
lack of strong Consensus in the WG about this recommendation
for the auto-fill capability as it relates to questions
dealing with mission and purpose. Again, that is NOT a
policy change or a “new idea.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">This will come
up again in relation to the disclosure of services at the
time of application filing. So it would be good if
Leadership could clarify EXACTLY how it intends to treat
items that are characterized as a “New Idea.” Call me crazy
but I think everyone is still a bit confused as to the
“disposition” going forward in relation to “new ideas”.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Thanks again
for your willingness to bring this PDP “home”. It’s not an
easy job and we really do appreciate Cheryl’s comment that
“they said it couldn’t be done” but the work is getting
done. My only point is that characterizing something as a
“new idea” in relation to the questions that were put out in
the Initial Report should not be used as a way to cast aside
an obvious lack of Consensus in the WG on a given
recommendation. The WG will have to be careful about this
all the way through its deliberations in the coming months.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Safe return
travels to all. I could not make it to Kobe but am planning
to be in Marrakech and Montreal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg [<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Julie Hedlund<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 13, 2019 1:19 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items -
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 March 2019<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">[EXTERNAL]</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">
<hr width="100%" size="2" align="center">
</span></div>
</div>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dear Working Group members,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Please see below the notes from the
meetings at ICANN64 in Kobe on 13 March 2019. These high-level
notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the
content of the call and are not a substitute for the
recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: <a
href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-03-13+ICANN64+Kobe+-+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-03-13+ICANN64+Kobe+-+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Please also see the attached referenced
slides.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Julie<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>Notes and Action Items:</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Session 3 of 3:<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>Topics that Might Warrant Closure</u>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Show how we have assembled the topic
review.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- How to bring this to closure.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Next steps.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Still are some potential open topics
that might need to go to the Implementation Review Team or do
more work.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">See the Public Comment Tool: <a
href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15zDdzlBwLCz5m2sNXui6N6pporbUq-lDFEwfh4rKi4A/edit#gid=1093601017"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15zDdzlBwLCz5m2sNXui6N6pporbUq-lDFEwfh4rKi4A/edit#gid=1093601017</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>1. Applicant Guidebook – Slide 20</u>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Information on the slide is conceptual,
not recommendation language.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>2. Systems – Slides 21-22</u>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Question: Which of the recommendations
are implementation guidance and which are policy? The first
bullet (adequate time) would be more specific than policy;
second bullet suggests implementation guidance. Also, change
to “real-time technical support” (delete “better”).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Both bullet points seem to be
implementation guidance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Prioritization would be key (such as
identifying field requiring non-ASCII characters).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Christopher Wilkinson: <COMMENT>Ihave
a general reservation abiout language which woud facilitate
multiople applications from a single applicant. Particularly
with regard to Geographical Names<COMMENT><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Christopher Wilkinson: <COMMENT>
permitting portfolio applications will result in further
concentration, more warehousing and speculation and threaten
the interests of international communities <COMMENT><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Creating multiple identical applications
doesn’t seem to serve the Applicant Guidebook Process.
Comment from Business Constituency was to be able to respond
to multiple applications with the same question. That this
answer applies to multiple applications.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Sections in some applications may be
pretty much the same, so the ability to copy text over would
be beneficial.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Should encourage clarity of what is
expected in the answers. Would be helpful to know in advance
what is expected of applicants.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Answers
to Question 18 should not be rote fill-in identical answers.
COMMENT<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: +1 to
Justine 's request and to Kathy's observation re Question 18.
We don't want to encourage super general language that is made
more vague so that it can be applied automatically in numerous
applications. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Should allow copy and pasting the same
answer to purpose and mission, but how can we prevent that?
Could do so by setting expectations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- The discussion was around efficiency and
ease of use for applicants. We didn’t consider what to allow
for which questions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Christopher Wilkinson: <COMMENT>
boilerplate replies from multiople applications will
facilitate gaming to avoid substantive comments from other
stakeholders and interested parties<COMMENT><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Re
public comment on applications, cookie cutter answers are
contrary to the principle of transparency. Applicants might
easily construct such answers for the purpose of avoiding
public comment. Justine's request is important. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- The more complex we make the system the
more costly it will be and difficult to use.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: It's
demeaning to the comments to say they are "in the weeds" and
they are not "high level". it just means you oppose them.
COMMENT<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- To address the issue you’d have to have
a policy recommendation that you can’t submit the exact same
information across applications or within applications.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- What is the problem we are trying to
solve, at a high level? If you can cut and paste you will do
it, but don’t know if that will avoid the issues being raised.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Seems that the problem is the pace the
submission outpacing the ability of the community to review
the volume of applications received.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- New Idea: Maybe prohibit duplicative
language if you are a portfolio applicant.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: It is
not about solving a problem, it is about creating a new
problem by making this recommendation. Jeff's suggestion to
use languge that excepts the practice in relation to questions
that go to Mission and Purpose. That is not a policy change.
COMMENT<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Christopher Wilkinson: <COMMENT> one
of the objectives of having several specialised rounds or
batches is precisely to limit the volumes of applications to
the capacity of the evaluation resources, over time
<COMMENT><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>3. Communications – Slides 23-24</u>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Bullet 1: Minimum of 4 months –
shouldn’t be summarized; there was a variety of comments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Bullet 2: Know what is in the GSE
toolbox.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- For the two bullets – not a lot of
mention of studying of objectives and holes for applications;
what are we looking to achieve by communications and
outreach. Would be good to measure.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- When we were talking about applicant
support there were comments on how to measure success in
future.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Communications is different from
applicant support, but we need to look at both.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Open topics: The WG could do it, give
it to an IRT, or recommend that ICANN Org do it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Christopher Wilkinson: <COMMENT>
communications periods will be critical for geographical names
because very few of local stakeholders world wide have been
participating in Wt5 etc. <COMMENT><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION Was
there something in the public comments related to making
real-time chat available for applicants? QUESTION<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>4. Universal Acceptance – Slide 25</u>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- UASG has been successful in promoting UA
– getting several major email providers to be UA ready. The
question is whether the Registries/Registrars are using those
email services.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Might be too much to ask to expect
Registries/Registrars to do what the major email providers do.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- This sounds like more of an issue with
all TLDs – why would we just put it in as a condition of a new
TLD if it isn’t a condition for legacy TLDs?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- ALAC – suggesting UA if the
Registry/Registrar are owned by the same entity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>5. Application Submission Periods –
Slides 26-27</u>: Start on the next WG call.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Re
Topic 5, how do we take into account the Neustar proposal re
windows within an application period? That should be
captured. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="4" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the
intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message or attachment to the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the
personal and confidential use of the intended recipients,
and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>