<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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="en-BE" link="#0563C1" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<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
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">14 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">April at
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">3:00</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> 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:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/nC2JBw">https://community.icann.org/x/nC2JBw</a></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;padding:0cm"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Kind regards,<br>
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">Emily<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;padding:0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="OLE_LINK7"></a><a name="OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEMS:
<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM (</span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7">Base Registry Agreement</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">):
Include question for public comment about Code of Conduct exemption.</span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM (</span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7">Base Registry Agreement</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">):
Include question for public comment about whether contractual provision stating that the RO will not engage in fraudulent and deceptive practices should be in the form of a PIC.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">ACTION ITEM: Under “</span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span style="color:black">Recommendation
xx (rationale 2)</span>: The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments must require public comment.</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">” Ensure that this recommendation
includes all items discussed that must require public comment. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM (Application Change Requests): Include recommendation for .brands to be able to change the applied-for string under narrow circumstances.
Include question for public comment on whether there should be other circumstances where the applicant can change the applied-for string and also request input on whether any additional guardrails are needed.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><span lang="EN-US">NOTES:<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">1.
</span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7">Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Request from WG member to ensure that there is sufficient time to discuss the letter from the GAC under AOB.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Request noted by leadership. Ten minutes will be left at the end of the call.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- First batch of draft final sections will go out today. These will be sent with a form for members to fill out and send by email if there are
items that they “can’t live with.” Comments should include proposed edits to resolve the identified issue. These proposed edits should be in line with previous discussions.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- The sections that will be released are: Systems, Communications, Fees, Applicant Guidebook, Application Submission Period<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- WG members will have 7 days to review the sections and provide feedback.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Confirmation that this is an additional refinement step. This is not a consensus call. There will be an opportunity to make any final adjustments
in the weeks before the report is published for public comment.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Consensus call will take place after final revisions are made following public comment.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">2.
</span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7">Discussion of Final Report Topics: </span></span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6_6uJcJ_8Di93BJYPNxu7gHa5bsOKi5X5fL6J-o8cBw&s=_76BWCkrGEIpA6zwus_WOFyzVChcDeGC5eY8Jq63HPA&e="><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
[docs.google.com]</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"></span></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">a.
</span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7">2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement, Section C New Issues, start on page 77<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Topic under part C – Code of Conduct exemption for registries that have made a good faith effort to get registrars to carry the TLD, but were
unable to do so. Should this be a recommendation or IG?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Question – do we know how many registries are in this position?
<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Answer – there is only anecdotal evidence of this issue. Data is not available.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Question – what are the current grounds for exemption?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Answer – the only way to gain an exemption currently is included at the end of Spec 9. They have to meet all criteria. They have to be a single
registrant TLD. They may not qualify for Spec 13. They have to provide a justification that there is no harm to the public interest by having the exemption. See
</span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Some support expressed for including this item as a recommendation to support innovation.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Counter-argument – this only impacted a few registries is the 2012 round, registries should do due diligence before they apply to make sure there
is a distribution channel. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Question – what is the standard for evaluating candidates for this exemption?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Answer – there are no purely objective standards to determine what constitutes a good faith effort. Registries should be able to show the reached
out to registrars. The WG would need to leave some discretion to ICANN org. <o:p>
</o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Suggestion – include proposed standards in the question that goes out for public comment. Question could include request for input on how to
evaluate those seeking the exemption.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Some support for including as a question for public comment.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM (</span></b></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b>Base Registry Agreement</b></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><span lang="EN-US">):
Include question for public comment about Code of Conduct exemption.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Discussion topic - contractual provision stating that the RO will not engage in fraudulent and deceptive practices.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Agreement that there should be a question for public comment about whether this should be a PIC.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM (</span></b></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b>Base Registry Agreement</b></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><span lang="EN-US">):
Include question for public comment about whether contractual provision stating that the RO will not engage in fraudulent and deceptive practices should be in the form of a PIC.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">b.
</span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7">2.4 Application Change Requests, page 79<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Comment – need to make sure that the previous discussions under other topics are reflected in this section regarding which types changes require
public comment. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">ACTION ITEM:<u> Under “</u></span></b></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><u><span style="color:black">Recommendation
xx (rationale 2)</span></u></b></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><span style="color:black">: The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments must require public comment.</span></b></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">”
Ensure that this recommendation includes all items discussed that must require public comment.
<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></b></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- From the 2012 round, there was a list of items that do not require public comment. The challenge of listing all items that do require a public
comment is that you might miss something. The Working Group might want to include an exemplary list of items that require public comment and may also include items that will not require public comment, drawing on the list from 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on this item on the mailing list.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Note that ICANN Org requested that the WG provide additional guidance with respect to
</span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><u><span style="color:black">Recommendation xx (rationale 3)</span></u></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">
– details of this request are included as a comment in the document. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- This recommendation touches on a few different issues and may need to be reworked.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- It may make sense to revisit these recommendations after the section has been revised and see if the ICANN org concerns are addressed.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">-Review of proposal to allow applicants to change the applied-for string in part c of the section. There are currently no recommendations on this
topic. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- We have ruled out the ability of applicants to change the string under all circumstances. We are focused on some possible, narrow exceptions,
specifically: <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- in response to an objection, for example GAC Advice – example: The GAC issues advice against a brand name, but is comfortable with the a TLD
that includes the name plus “company.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Two or more .brand applicants apply for the same string. The parties agree that one or both applicants change the applied for string. Example
– two brands apply for .sas, one of the applicants could change the applied-for string to .sassoftware or similar.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- In both cases, changes would be subject to public comment and would trigger an opportunity for objections. The new string must not create a new
contention set or expand an existing contention set.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Concern expressed about potential gaming. WG would need to narrowly define circumstances where this is allowed to prevent gaming.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Some support expressed for this narrow solution as a common-sense approach, noting that there needs to be a process and criteria for implementation.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Feedback that if this proposal becomes a recommendation, their needs to be appropriate guardrails in place.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- If this is included as a recommendation, it should be accompanied by a question for public comment.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Is this proposal too limited? Should there be other circumstances where a change should be permitted?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- From one perspective, if guardrails are in place (public comment, ability to object, no new contention set), the proposal could be broader, might
not even need to limited to brands.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Suggestion that the discussion of guardrails should be more specific – must need to comply with all other rules of the program related to applied-for
strings (name collisions, IDN variants, etc). <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Some support had been expressed on previous calls for the proposal only if it is narrowly tailored.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM (Application Change Requests): Include recommendation for .brands to be able to change the applied-for string under narrow circumstances.
Include question for public comment on whether there should be other circumstances where the applicant can change the applied-for string and also request input on whether any additional guardrails are needed.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- What about allowing a change, using the same guardrails, in response to other types of objections, not only GAC Advice?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Feedback from ICANN org – the proposal regarding .brands changing the applied-for string could potentially change the criteria used for Spec
13. Under the current criteria, one of the things that is looked at is whether the string is an exact match of a trademark.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Response – they would first have to qualify to be a .brand, only in that circumstance would they qualify to change the applied-for string. The
new string would also need to be considered at brand TLD, which would be a narrow exception to the exact match.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Comment: From a common sense perspective, it makes sense to have an exception, but is it unfair to companies who would like to apply for the
exact match of their brand name and it is not available for some reason, but they can’t apply for an alternate string as a .brand.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Example: GE could not apply for .ge, but they were told that something like .gecompany could not be a .brand and they would have to apply for
an exemption to create a quasi-.brand.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Possible alternative if the WG does not believe the new string should be eligible as a .brand - the new string could be eligible for a Code of
Conduct exemption instead.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">3.
</span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7">AOB</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US"> -
</span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7">Letter from the GAC<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- GAC raised concerns about the current timeline that the PDP is following in light of COVID-19 and would like to see the PDP follow the worst-case
scenario timeline included in the GNSO Project Change Request. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Suggestion from WG member – Submit a Final Report on the current schedule covering all topics except the 5 that most interest the GAC and then
submit a supplemental Final Report after ICANN68 that focuses on the five issues that most interest the GAC.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Jeff’s response – The GAC has already given really good feedback on those five issues that the WG can take back and discuss. It is too early
at this stage to know if we need to proceed with a new plan.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- The PCR presents a worst case scenario, so it is unclear why the GAC is relying on that document. This is something that the WG should continue
to discuss.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Cheryl’s response – there could be an opportunity to collect additional input from the GAC on the five topics as long as it doesn’t impact the
overall timeline of the report.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Jeff’s response – we will welcome the GAC’s response during the public comment period.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Question - the Work Plan still reflects a start date of the public comment period of July 20, is this current?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Response - the current goal is to get the report out before ICANN68. The Work Plan needs to be updated to reflect this.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Comment – is there a way to enable additional GAC input on the topic that interest them during ICANN68?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Note that SubPro co-chairs spent a significant amount of time with the GAC during ICANN67 ensuring that GAC members were up to speed and had
an opportunity to provide input.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Suggestion to reduce frequency of calls.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- Leadership would like to keep the current frequency to continue the current momentum.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK8"><span style="mso-bookmark:OLE_LINK7"><span lang="EN-US">- In slides for ICANN67, we said the timeline depicted was a worst case scenario, but there is still likely an opportunity for outreach to the
GAC, in particular from the Council. The Council may want to connect with the GAC about its renewed emphasis on building more conservative timelines for projects, which may result in projects moving ahead of those timelines.
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>