<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" 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: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:#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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:329063684;
mso-list-template-ids:-719571150;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1211500222;
mso-list-template-ids:-1225363466;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:1891528964;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1838205788 1021366440 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-start-at:2;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;}
@list l2: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 l2: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;
mso-bidi-font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2: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;
mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2: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 l2: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;
mso-bidi-font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2: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;
mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2: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 l2: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;
mso-bidi-font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Dear Working Group members,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Please see below the notes from the meeting on 02 June at 0300 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/display/NGSPP/2020-06-02+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP">
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-02+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Kind regards,<br>
Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Notes and Action Items:</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Actions:</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">PACKAGE 1:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation<s>Implementation</s> Guidance xx (rationale 4)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: In the event that an application fee floor is used to determine the application fee, excess fees
received by ICANN should [must] be used to benefit the New gTLD Program and not any other ICANN program or purpose; that includes one or more of the following elements of the New gTLD Program: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: “(e) other purpose(s) that benefits the New gTLD Program.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised text in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.5.3 Application Submission Period<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">b. Deliberations and rationale for recommendations and/or implementation guidelines<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: [Namely, if <b>ICANN’s</b> communications and outreach efforts are effective prior to the point at which the window opens, prospective applicants will be prepared to apply and will therefore need less
time to actually submit the [application.] <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised text in boldface.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.5.5 Terms and Conditions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">a. Recommendations and/or implementation guidelines<br>
<u>Recommendation xx (rationale 1)</u>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Change the text to: “</span><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation xx (rationale 1)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: [Unless required under specific laws, [or by the ICANN
Board members’ fiduciary duties, or the ICANN Bylaws] <b><s>or as the Board determines in the exercise of its fiduciary duties as contemplated in the ICANN Bylaws</s></b>, ICANN must only reject an application if done so in accordance with the provisions of
the Applicant Guidebook.]” Consider whether the language can be made more clear.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation xx (rationale 3)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Make it clear that “recourse” refers to refunds and differs from the normal refund schedule.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">PACKAGE 2:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Look for comments from Anne Aikman-Scalese and incorporate them into the production document.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">PACKAGE 3:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Rationale for Affirmation xx (rationale 1)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: While the Working Group recognizes that some parties believe the New gTLD market to already be saturated [others have indicated that they are aware of interested potential applicants, including dot Brands.
Overall], the Working Group did not agree that a compelling reason was identified to override existing policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Rationale for Affirmation xx (rationale 2)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: A major theme that was repeatedly raised throughout the life cycle of this PDP was the need for predictability for all
parties involved. The desire for an “orderly, timely and predictable” New gTLD Program is universally supported. [A major theme that was repeatedly raised throughout the life cycle of this PDP was the need for
<b>balanced</b> predictability for all parties involved. <b>It is on this basis that t</b>he desire for an “orderly, timely and predictable” New gTLD Program is universally supported.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">d. Dependencies/relationships with other areas of this report or external efforts<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Section 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: [The Working Group Chair has directed a letter to GNSO Council relative to addressing CCT-RT recommendations re DNS Abuse holistically. The letter is dated 27 April 2020 and is attached to this report
as ______________.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation xx (rationale 2)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: Upon the commencement of the next Application Submission Period, there must be clarity around the timing and/or criteria for initiating
subsequent procedures from that point forth. More specifically, prior to the commencement of the next Application Submission Period, ICANN shall [must] publish either (a) the date in which the next subsequent round of new gTLDs will take place or (b) the specific
set of criteria and/or events that must occur prior to the opening up of the next subsequent round. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Page 30, block of highlighted text:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets and find a more appropriate place for the bullet identified.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation xx (see rationale 3)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: Application procedures must take place at predictable, regularly occurring intervals without indeterminable periods of review
unless the GNSO Council recommends pausing the program and such recommendation is approved by the Board. Unless and until other procedures are recommended by the GNSO Council and approved by the ICANN Board, ICANN must only use “rounds” as part of [to administer]
the New gTLD Program. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Rationale for Recommendation xx-xx (rationale 2)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Leadership will consider how/whether to call out dissenting views.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.2.5 Applications Submission Limits<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: New text from Kathy Kleiman<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Leadership will consider how/whether to call out dissenting views. At least include the final paragraph.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.2.6 RSP Pre-Evaluation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Re: [Ultimately, the Working Group did not think a recommendation was necessary.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised text in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Notes:</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2. Review "Can't Live With" comments on packages 1-3: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">PACKAGE 1:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.5.1 Application Fees & 2.5.2 Variable Fees, page 12<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation<s>Implementation</s> Guidance xx (rationale 4)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: In the event that an application fee floor is used to determine the application fee, excess fees
received by ICANN should [must] be used to benefit the New gTLD Program and not any other ICANN program or purpose; that includes one or more of the following elements of the New gTLD Program: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Neustar 1.1 - Neustar proposed changing "should" to "must" in this sentence. Rationale: "ICANN should not have any discretion regarding excess fees."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: “(e) other purpose(s) that benefits the New gTLD Program.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- With this additional category it seems there is a potential for a very large amount of money to be stuck in this category and not really be usable; need to have some level of exception.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- WG agrees to the additional text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised text in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.5.3 Application Submission Period<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">b. Deliberations and rationale for recommendations and/or implementation guidelines<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: [Namely, if <b>ICANN’s</b> communications and outreach efforts are effective prior to the point at which the window opens, prospective applicants will be prepared to apply and will therefore need less
time to actually submit the [application.] <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- KK1.1 - Kathy Kleiman proposed adding "ICANN's" to this sentence, as indicated in bold text. Rationale: "It’s unclear in current text who should be reponsivle for the communications and outreach efforts.
Since it’s ICANN, we should make that quite clear. It’s ICANN’s outreach into communities around the world, including the Global South, that will help to generate the diversity of applications we are seeking."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised text in boldface.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.5.5 Terms and Conditions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">a. Recommendations and/or implementation guidelines<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
<u>Recommendation xx (rationale 1)</u>: Unless required under specific laws or the ICANN Bylaws, ICANN must only reject an application if done so in accordance with the provisions of the Applicant Guidebook. [Unless required under specific laws, [or by the
ICANN Board members’ fiduciary duties, or the ICANN Bylaws] <b><s>or as the Board determines in the exercise of its fiduciary duties as contemplated in the ICANN Bylaws</s></b>, ICANN must only reject an application if done so in accordance with the provisions
of the Applicant Guidebook.] <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- AAS1.3 - Anne Aikman-Scalese proposed alternate text (in bold). Rationale: "The language does not account for the fact that the Board is required to act in a fiduciary capacity. For example, you cannot
say that the Board has to approve an application made in accordance with the AGB if the Board determines it has a fiduciary duty to reject the application or if it would be permitted by the ByLaws, in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, to reject it. (This
is different from saying that the ByLaws require them to reject it.)"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Seems to open up a huge loophole to basically give the ICANN board complete discretion to reject an application for any reason, it sees fit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Seems to give the Board the right to rewrite the AGB.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Whether or not this language is in here the Board is going to act according to its fiduciary duties.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- It’s part of their fiduciary duties to keep ICANN from harm and they could reject an application if they thought it would harm ICANN. Don’t think you can tie their hands and not allow them to do that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Can we have some examples of how the Board would do that?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- The Board has to act in good faith and it could say that it was acting in good faith in rejecting an application.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- For the Board to decide at the last minute to reject an application is contrary to ICANN’s mission and the multi-stakeholder process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- It could be something that was a danger to the DNS, such as an application that causes name collisions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Compromise to change to: “</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;background:white">[or by the ICANN Board members’ fiduciary duties, or the ICANN Bylaws]
<b><s>or as the Board determines in the exercise of its fiduciary duties as contemplated in the ICANN Bylaws</s><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Change the text to: “</span></b><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation xx (rationale 1)</span></u></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: [Unless required under specific laws,
[or by the ICANN Board members’ fiduciary duties, or the ICANN Bylaws] <s>or as the Board determines in the exercise of its fiduciary duties as contemplated in the ICANN Bylaws</s>, ICANN must only reject an application if done so in accordance with the provisions
of the Applicant Guidebook.]” Consider whether the language can be made more clear.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation xx (rationale 3)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: Applicants must be allowed some type of recourse if substantive changes are made to the Applicant Guidebook or program processes
if such changes have, or are reasonably likely to have, a material impact on Applicants. [Applicants must be allowed to challenge substantive changes made to the Applicant Guidebook after applications are submitted through an appeals mechanism or Request for
Reconsideration or both, at Applicant’s discretion. In such cases, the Applicant will have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the change has, or is likely to have, a material impact on the Applicant.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- AAS1.4 - Anne Aikman-Scalese proposed alternate text for this recommendation. Rationale: "The recommendation does not specify:<br>
(1) What “some type of recourse” means.<br>
(2) The timing at which changes are made that result in the “material impact”.<br>
(3) The standard of proof for determining “material impact”<br>
This language is very confusing and indefinite in many respects. Did we establish a separate appeals mechanism for decisions by ICANN that fit under this recommendation? And how do the Applicant’s rights in this regard fit into the application of the Predictability
Framework?"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Not sure the appeals mechanism or the Request for Reconsideration are the appropriate methods to challenge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- We originally were thinking in terms of a refund, as opposed to a challenge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- What would happen if the AGB was changed due to an appeals mechanism which could put in jeopardy previous applications.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Maybe just solve it my saying that this intended to reference refunds.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Should we put in “full refund”? Not sure we should in this case. Thought we would leave this to the Implementation Team.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Make it clear that “recourse” refers to refunds and differs from the normal refund schedule.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">PACKAGE 3:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Rationale for Affirmation xx (rationale 1)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: The existing policy for New gTLDs states that there will be a “systemized manner of applying for gTLDs to be developed
in the long term.” <b>In affirming the continuation of this policy the Working Group applied the consistent approach outlined in Section xx [the introduction] of this report</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Valideus3.1 - Susan Payne/Valideus proposed changing the second sentence of the rationale. Rationale for proposed change: "The Final Report will contain a number of Affirmations of the existing policy.
It makes more sense, and presumably was the intention, to have an overarching/introductory section which explains the Working Group’s overall approach, since this applies not just to this particular affirmation but to all of them. If that is not the case,
then the overall approach applied ought to be specified against every other Affirmation the WG makes and not just in this case."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: While the Working Group recognizes that some parties believe the New gTLD market to already be saturated [others have indicated that they are aware of interested potential applicants, including dot Brands.
Overall], the Working Group did not agree that a compelling reason was identified to override existing policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Valideus3.2 - Susan Payne/Valideus proposed adding text to this sentence. Rationale: "Rationale focuses only on the negative opinion of some that the TLD market is “saturated” and does not also acknowledge
that there are also areas of demand, including from among Dot Brands who do not rely on sale of second level names and thus are not impacted by any perceived market saturation at the second level (if this even exists), and would challenge the notion of market
saturation at the top level."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Rationale for Affirmation xx (rationale 2)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: A major theme that was repeatedly raised throughout the life cycle of this PDP was the need for predictability for all
parties involved. The desire for an “orderly, timely and predictable” New gTLD Program is universally supported. [A major theme that was repeatedly raised throughout the life cycle of this PDP was the need for
<b>balanced</b> predictability for all parties involved. <b>It is on this basis that t</b>he desire for an “orderly, timely and predictable” New gTLD Program is universally supported.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- JC3.1 - Justine Chew proposed edits to this sentence. Rationale: "It is important to recognize that the need for predictability be balanced for all parties involved and should not necessarily default in
favour of or against applicants. The universal support for the affirmation is, arguably, predicated on this understanding. For eg, in Section 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Round, we expressedly mentioned, “Rounds enhance the predictability for applicants
(e.g., preparation), the ICANN community and other third-party observers to the program (e.g., public comments, objections)”"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">d. Dependencies/relationships with other areas of this report or external efforts<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Section 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: [The Working Group Chair has directed a letter to GNSO Council relative to addressing CCT-RT recommendations re DNS Abuse holistically. The letter is dated 27 April 2020 and is attached to this report
as ______________.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- AAS3.1 - Text proposed by Anne Aikman-Scalese. Rationale: In light of all the text in Rationale 1 and references to the March 1, 2019 Board Resolution, Section 2.2.1.d. should refer to Jeff Neuman’s letter
to the GNSO Council re DNS Abuse<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Staff note: Suggest citing this letter instead under Global Public Interest, where the CCT-RT recommendations on DNS Abuse are discussed. Letter is available at: <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/neuman-langdon-orr-to-drazek-27apr20-en.pdf&sa=D&ust=1591125853489000&usg=AFQjCNGsVNCsBadpSjbPkD9B_x_H-XFV5Q" target="_blank">https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/neuman-langdon-orr-to-drazek-27apr20-en.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Cite in GPI section (where DNS Abuse is discussed).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation xx (rationale 2)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: Upon the commencement of the next Application Submission Period, there must be clarity around the timing and/or criteria for initiating
subsequent procedures from that point forth. More specifically, prior to the commencement of the next Application Submission Period, ICANN shall [must] publish either (a) the date in which the next subsequent round of new gTLDs will take place or (b) the specific
set of criteria and/or events that must occur prior to the opening up of the next subsequent round. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- AAS3.3 - Anne Aikman-Scalese proposed changing "shall" to "must." Rationale: "What do we mean by the use of the word, “shall”? Do we mean ICANN “must”? Or ICANN “should”? This is a Recommendation so we
need to be very specific. What are the conventions in relation to the use of the terms, “shall”, “must”, and “should” in the draft Final Report?"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Page 30, block of highlighted text:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- JC3.3 - Justine Chew proposed reordering the elements of this IG. Rationale: "The phrasing and/or formatting of ths Implementation Guidance is confusing and problematic insofar as the affirmative is mixed
with the negative.<br>
It starts off with, “It should not be possible to apply for a string that is still being processed from a previous application round, specifically:…” and,<br>
• the 1st bullet deals with delegated strings - doesn’t delegation constitute the end of processing? Are delegated strings still be considered as being processed?<br>
• by the 3rd bullet, it provides for circumstances where a new application will be allowed.<br>
• the 4th bullet deals with a delegated TLD for which an RA has been terminated but no reassigned to a different RO – again would this still be considered as being processed?<br>
• the 6th and last bullet refers to a TLD that is “Not Approved” - at what point does a string be referred to as a TLD? Are we using “string” and “TLD” interchangeably here?"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Placement of this bullet is awkward; find a different place: “If a Registry Operator has terminated its Registry Agreement and (i) the TLD has not been reassigned to a different Registry Operator, and (ii)
in the case of a Specification 13 Brand TLD, it is more than 2 years following the Expiration Date (See RA Section 4.5(a)), then applications will be allowed to be submitted during a subsequent round.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets and find a more appropriate place for the bullet identified.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation xx (see rationale 3)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: Application procedures must take place at predictable, regularly occurring intervals without indeterminable periods of review
unless the GNSO Council recommends pausing the program and such recommendation is approved by the Board. Unless and until other procedures are recommended by the GNSO Council and approved by the ICANN Board, ICANN must only use “rounds” as part of [to administer]
the New gTLD Program. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- JC3.4 - Justine Chew proposed changing "as part of" to "to administer". Rationale: "What does “as part of the New gTLD Program” mean?"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised language in brackets.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">b. Deliberations and rationale for recommendations and/or implementation guidelines<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Rationale for Recommendation xx-xx (rationale 2)</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: [Dissenting View: In recognition Principle G, Applicant Freedom of Expression, timely applications for any string previously applied for but not yet delegated should be permitted, but such applications
should not be processed further unless and until the matching string from the previous round has been classified as “Will Not Proceed”. The stated rationale for the Dissenting View was that applicants from prior rounds would retain too much power to (a)
insist on non-compliance with new policy requirements applicable to subsequent procedures and (b) be able to effectively block later applicants for the same string who are willing to comply with new subsequent procedures policy requirements. Examples provided
related to evolving name collisions policy and closed generics policy.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- AAS3.2: Anne Aikman-Scalese proposed text to replace the paragraph above. Rationale: "Dissenting Views should be noted in the draft final report with more prominence and particularity as to the rationale
for the Dissenting View."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Call this a “dissenting view” since there isn’t a minority report as there is no consensus call.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Need to decide if we are going to include dissenting views wherever they are and this report is going to capture all of them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- In the preamble we can add some language with some dissenting views are included where a text was submitted, but this may not include all of the dissenting views.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Leadership will consider how/whether to call out dissenting views.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.2.5 Applications Submission Limits<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Re: New text from Kathy Kleiman<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- KK3.1 - Kathy Kleiman proposed alternative text for part C. Rationale: "The issue in our discussions wasn’t fairness (I think there was a strong view that allowing a few large players to dominate isn’t
fair), but feasibility. How would we enforce limits? How could they be detected if subsidiaries were created? Certainly this issue of ownership has been reviewed and incorporated by other groups – foreign ownership restrictions, for example, on US broadcast
stations by the FCC. But it was not something this group found feasible at this time. "<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Leadership will consider how/whether to call out dissenting views. At least include the final paragraph.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2.2.6 RSP Pre-Evaluation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Re: [Ultimately, the Working Group did not think a recommendation was necessary.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- JC3.6 - Justine Chew suggested adding a sentence to the end of the paragraph. Rationale: "This last paragraph seems to lack a conclusion."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Accept the revised text in brackets.</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>