<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:"MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@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:"\@MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 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:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">With Correct Subject Line<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Dear Working Group members,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Please see below the notes from the meeting on 16 March at 1500 UTC.
<b><i>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,</i></b> which will be posted at:
</span><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-16+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP">https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-16+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Kind regards,<br>
Julie</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Notes and Action Items:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Actions:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation xx (rationale 4)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Move the Implementation Guidance into the recommendation. Paul McGrady and Anne Aikman-Scalese will work on developing language relating to “if deemed necessary” in the AGB, paragraph 2, 4.2.3,
pages 4-9.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: Qualifications of Panelists</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Note that we had not developed a recommendation relating to the qualifications of the panelists and need to consider the need for a quantitative and qualitative assessment by experts in communities.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Notes:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2. Discussion of Final Report Topics – see the documents at:
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing</a> and attached as a PDF.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">a. 2.9.1 Community Applications </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Does the WG want to affirm or otherwise address this PIRR recommendation? Recommendation 4.1.a: Consider all dimensions of the feedback received to revisit the CPE scoring and framework before the next
application round. Comment from Jeff: Comment from Jeff Neuman: Technically I am note sure we are affirming this whole Guideline F. For example, I am not sure yet whether we will allow mutual agreement resolution...and the last part about giving the ICANN
Board discretion, etc. The only thing we are affirming is the priority of communities in a contention set. COMMENT IS ADDRESSED.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Comment from Staff: Does the WG want to provide any detail here? Request from ICANN org: "It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could provide more detailed guidance on the specific areas of the CPE
process that “must be more transparent and predictable.” Additionally, it would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could provide more specific guidance on what should be changed or added that would enhance transparency and predictability for the CPE process."</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Started a thread on changes to the CPE guidelines. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Staff to send the updates to the CPE guidelines based on the WG discussions. DONE: See --
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit</a>. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation xx (rationale 4)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: ICANN must consider ways to improve evaluators’ ability to gather information about an application. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: Evaluators should continue to be able to send clarifying questions to CPE applicants but further, should be able to engage
in written dialogue with them as well.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: Evaluators should be able to issue clarifying questions, or utilize similar methods to address potential issues, to those
who submit letters of opposition to community-based applications.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Discussion</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Question: Did we get access to the actual research of the evaluators? Answer: We didn’t, but they did refer to research in their decisions. This was not consistent. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- There should be no basis for an independent evaluator to do his or her own research. Worried about how this recommendation was developed.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Not all of the facts may be in the application, which is different from the UDRP. There should be research that may need to be done.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Shouldn’t that be on the complaining party to make their case?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- We are saying that if there is independent research that is allowed then ICANN should improve evaluators ability to get information.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Perhaps it would be helpful to add to the recommendation “as described in the IG below” or “as set out in the Implementation Guidance below.”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- It's okay for evaluators to find independent info - but they should disclose sources when ruling on the CPE.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- The application should be robust and supported.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> And the public gets a chance to comment, right?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- If you have support from major organizations, how does an evaluator know that they are real? They aren’t likely to be subject-matter experts.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- If they are going to be doing research they could research who these organizations are to make sure they meet the requirements to support the application.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Anything that an evaluator is relying on should be disclosed to the applicant, particularly since we’ll have an appeal process. The applicant has to have the ability to challenge any independently developed
information.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Trying to choose between two models 1) that the applicant should put together a robust application, encourages a robust public comment period, and discourages the evaluator from being in the role of a biased
researcher 2) evaluators being inadvertently advocating for third parties that didn’t show up.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- If we have all these criteria doesn’t it make sense that due diligence is done provided they give the applicant the ability to do clarifying questions in response. For example, the requirement for the
uniqueness of the string would seem to be something that would require independent research. Also, documented support from the recognized community institutions.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Shouldn’t rely only on the information provided by the applicant.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- The examiner should rely on a fulsome record, rather than create their own record. There is a requirement to gauge opposition from third parties. We should figure out a way to make them narrow, as with
the Implementation Guidance -- maybe move those into the recommendation.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Don’t agree that we ban a panelist from doing outside research. Seems too extreme.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- We are lacking notice to competitors. Need to let the examiners look at opposition.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Say, “In the event panelist(s) rely on independent research, that will be disclosed to the applicant through a Clarifying Question and the applicant should be allowed to respond prior to ruling.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- If we require the evaluator to notify the applicant, isn’t the applicant just going to push back? The applicant should just have to provide a fulsome application.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- If the applicant provides links/sources then at a minimum the evaluator can look at those links.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- But how would an evaluator know that a term is commonly used in other industries without doing research. The Applicant is not going to put that into its own application.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Needs to be very clear that there isn’t just a request for a string with nothing to support it. It is one thing for the evaluator to confirm the information, but another for an evaluator to seek out opposition
to it.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Need to remember that this is an evaluation -- in other evaluations in ICANN, say financial, does the evaluator only rely on what is provided by the applicant.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Add “except as needed for verification purposes and should be disclosed”. To verify the information.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Does the AGB currently allow evaluators to do research? Research is specifically noted. In paragraph 2 in 4.2.3. Bottom of the paragraph, pages 4-9. We are working on putting some guardrails around this.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Need to figure out what “if deemed necessary” means.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- If we limit the ability of the evaluator to do research we should call that out in the public comment as it is a fairly significant change.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Important to encourage dialog, but can’t require it. If you have a community application that has overwhelming support, those who are in opposition should step up and encouraged to enter into a dialog.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- The amount of opposition should be compared to the amount of support. 5 letters of opposition might be irrelevant - if you have 500 letters of support. 1 or 2 letters shouldn't automatically cost a point.
Opposition should be weighed against support.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- There should be a public and transparent verification of an organization stating opposition in a letter.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Move the Implementation Guidance into the recommendation. Paul McGrady and Anne Aikman-Scalese will work on developing language relating to “if deemed necessary” in the AGB, paragraph 2, 4.2.3,
pages 4-9. Jamie Baxter also should consider what should be added in order to encourage dialog, and public and transparent verification of statements of opposition.</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: The Working Group notes that CCT-RT Recommendation 34 states: “A thorough review of the procedures and objectives for community based applications should be carried out and improvements made to address
and correct the concerns raised before a new gTLD application process is launched. Revisions or adjustments should be clearly reflected in an updated version of the 2012 AGB.” </span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Staff Comment: From the CCT-RT recommendations tracking spreadsheet: As the WG refines recommendations on this topic, it may want to consider whether to make additional recommendations regarding objectives.
Note that the CCT-RT recommendations consider "a higher rate of success for such applications" to be a measure of success.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Are we trying to get a higher success rate and what can be done other than the recommendations we’ve already made?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Need to have a requirement that the evaluators are knowledgeable about the community. Need to avoid the mistakes from the previous round.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- We do have a section on accountability and appeals -- in the section on Accountability Mechanisms.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- The qualifications of the panelists is not something we spent a lot of time on. Need to see if we can improve that.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Need quantitative and qualitative assessment by experts in communities.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Note that we had not developed a recommendation relating to the qualifications of the panelists and need to consider the need for a quantitative and qualitative assessment by experts in communities.</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>