<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:"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:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage18
{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><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="DE" link="#0563C1" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Hi all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I’m referring to:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 13: Dotzon re: certain character combinations not allowed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Check on what are the problematic character combinations.</span></b><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">During the last application window, ICANorg informed applicants about an issue with angle brackets in the technical part (question 22-44) of the TAS. That must have been around April 10, 2012, so
pretty short before the application window was supposed to close.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Some applicant provided responses using angle brackets (the “<” and “>” characters) to show HTML or XML code. According to ICANNorg, those characters could not be properly displayed due to security
concerns. ICANNorg advised applicants to amend their answers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">My comment was that we strongly recommend that the new application system shall be tested againt potential characters used to show HTML and XML code to avoid this kind of issue in future application
rounds.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I hope this clarifies the topic. If further information is needed, I can dig into the communication from back then.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Kind regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Katrin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow<br>
Akazienstrasse 28<br>
10823 Berlin<br>
Deutschland - Germany<br>
Tel: +49 30 49802722<br>
Fax: +49 30 49802727<br>
Mobile: +49 173 2019240<br>
<a href="mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting"><span style="color:blue">ohlmer@dotzon.consulting</span></a><br>
<a href="http://www.dotzon.consulting/"><span style="color:blue">www.dotzon.consulting</span></a></span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Besuchen Sie uns auf
<a href="https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh"><span style="color:blue">LinkedIn</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
DOTZON GmbH<br>
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598<br>
Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer<br>
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Von:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Julie Hedlund<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2020 20:24<br>
<b>An:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Betreff:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 29 October 15:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Working Group members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Please see below the notes from the working sessions on 29 October at 15:00 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/2020-10-29+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP">
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-29+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP</a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kind regards,<br>
Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">==</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">Notes and Action Items:</span></b><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"><b><span lang="EN-US">Action Items:</span></b><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"><span lang="EN-US">Topic 17 Applicant Support:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 19 – RySG:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Re: 17.5 Bid Credits, also 17.9, 17.13, and 17.17<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Staff to review the RySG comments (17.9, 17.13, 17.17) to determine how they can be incorporated into the Final Report. Re: 17.5: Leadership to send a question to the list re: bid credits.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 23 – ALAC re: Metrics<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Add the metrics suggestions to the metrics section of the Final Report.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 25 – GAC re: “Middle Applicant”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Ask on the list whether WG members want to develop a definition of “middle applicant” or re-write the recommendation to avoid use of the term.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Topic 32: Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 15 – ICANN Org re: Appeals Mechanisms and Bylaws<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Flag the issue of the interrelationship between ICANN as an evaluator and the accountability mechanisms; add to the chart in Annex F where ICANN is the evaluator the parties that can challenge and the
mechanism to address that challenge.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Topic 12: Applicant Guidebook<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Multiple Comments re: AGB publication in other languages.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Take the discussion to the list as to whether the timeframe for the publication in UN languages could be shorter.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 13: ICANN org re: 12.4 clarity of language<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: re: 12.4 and clarity of language: Move the Implementation Guidance 12.8 into the recommendation 12.4; staff to reach out to ICANN org to see if that language addresses the issue.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Topic 13: Communications<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 17 -- ICANN org re: Goals and Affirmation 6.1.1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Re: “It would be helpful to understand the PDP WG’s definition of the goals of the Program and whether this Recommendation is in reference to Affirmation 6.1.1.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Re: ICANN org comments on goals and Affirmation 6.1.1: Ensure that the Recommendation on the goals of the Program is linked to Affirmation 6.1.1.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Topic 14: Systems<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 13: Dotzon re: certain character combinations not allowed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Check on what are the problematic character combinations.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 15: ICANN org <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Bring to the list the ICANN org comment on Topic 14 Systems: “ICANN org would like to note that for issues related to security and stability, as well as the proper functioning of systems, ICANN org cannot
be constrained to the processes outlined under Topic 2. ICANN org will need to respond rapidly to any issue that may fall under these categories.”<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">Notes:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1. Updates to Statements of Interest:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Maxim Alzoba has stepped down from the RySG position on the Standing Selection Committee (SSC).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports">https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports</a> and review the following topics:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Discussion on the list: Predictability and GAC/Board Questions: Comments due by Monday, 02 November.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT_gMRSkQ/edit#gid=1163822586">Application Submission comment review document</a><span style="color:black">:</span> Topic 17 Applicant
Support<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- A lot of the comments have been considered.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- We did say that there should be a work stream specifically set up for Applicant Support for implementation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Lots of comments that have specifics. Most would be referred to an IRT.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Provide more guidance on bid credits/multiplier.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Meta question: based on the comments do we think we are in good shape? Answer: There are a few actions, but otherwise we are in good shape.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 19 – RySG:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Leadership Comments: A lot of these are for clarity; could be adopted if the WG agrees.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- RySG and ALAC comments mention metrics. These also could be referred to an IRT.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- 17.17: Use the colloquial term “going out of business” – we should define it better. Take the RySG definition.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- 17.13: Also worth adopting.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- 17.5 Significant concerns on how bid credits, multipliers, and other features may be used in other unintended ways beyond benefiting AS applicants, and how the risk of gaming can be mitigated. Leadership to send a
question to the list.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Staff to review the RySG comments (17.9, 17.13, 17.17) to determine how they can be incorporated into the Final Report. Re: 17.5: Leadership to send a question to the list re: bid credits.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 22 – InfoNetworks LLC re: reduced fees. Also Row 24: ICANN Board concerns<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Leadership Comments: Consider Implementation Guidance for IRT? Further WG discussion.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-US">Discussion</span></u><span lang="EN-US">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Reducing fees is a Pandora's Box. If ICANN can lower them for certain registries what is keeping them from raising them for others? .museum is an outlier and should stay that way.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Could consider a degree of payment is linked with a degree of activity in the TLD.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- There were a number of comments on the theme of no matter what happens an applicant has to meet all of the other qualifications, such as the technical requirements.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- If the ICANN Board wants to favor one type of speech over another type of speech by reducing or raising its prices, I'm not sure that is something this WG wants to be involved in at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Wouldn't that be the type of content based decisions the Board has expressed concern about?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- There were comments on both sides – reduced fees or not. Seems that we are not going to get consensus on ongoing support once an applicant becomes a registry.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- I don't think Applicant Support assessment is content based. Isn't is more about underserved regions and slower economies in the Global South etc.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"MS Gothic""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 23 – ALAC re: Community<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Leadership Comments: Look to see if there is overlap with the request for metrics from the RySG. Isn’t supposed to have the same definition of “community” as CPE.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Add the metrics suggestions to the metrics section of the Final Report.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 25 – GAC re: “Middle Applicant”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Leadership Comments: We do address "middle applicant" but don't define it. Either develop a definition (maybe through a small team), or restate the recommendation without using the term.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-US">Discussion</span></u><span lang="EN-US">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Generally speaking - its best if we, the Sub Pro WG, define any terms so they are not misconstrued during implementation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Ask on the list whether WG members want to develop a definition of “middle applicant” or re-write the recommendation to avoid use of the term.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1SId9ZGU/edit#gid=1163822586" title="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1SId9ZGU/edit#gid=1163822586">Dispute
Proceedings comment review document</a>: Topic 32: Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 11: INTA and GBOC re: 32.5 Appeal<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Leadership Comments: This was addressed by the WG, but flag for discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-US">Discussion</span></u><span lang="EN-US">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Any way to strengthen the recommendation that the appeal should not be heard by the same people?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- 32.5 does say “must” in the Implementation Guidance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 15 – ICANN Org re: Appeals Mechanisms and Bylaws<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Leadership Comments: WG to consider if ICANN is a party to the appeal/challenge how does the process work. Seek clarification on Org's comments on interplay of limited challenge/appeals mechanism on the Bylaws accountability
mechanisms.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-US">Discussion</span></u><span lang="EN-US">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Where ICANN is the evaluator, the Accountability Mechanisms should apply rather than instituting new appeals mechanisms. It's duplicative. But what does ICANN org say about this?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- The accountability mechanisms are meant to address Bylaws related issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Not always a Bylaws issue. It also says "failure to take into account relevant information when making the determination". Accountability Mechanisms are not limited to ByLaws as far as I know.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Question: Could we just say that if there is an appeal it would stay any accountability mechanism deadlines? Answer: Don’t think the WG has the authority to recommend this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Should flag to the Board that it wouldn’t be efficient to have two appeals mechanisms running at the same time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- There is a group working on the timing rules for IRTs. Susan Payne is on this group and will ask that it bear it in mind. The WG also could send a note to the group. The rules also will go out for public comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Can’t see making recommendations to change the accountability mechanisms.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Add to the chart in Annex F where ICANN is the evaluator the parties that can challenge and the mechanism to address that challenge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Flag the issue of the interrelationship between ICANN as an evaluator and the accountability mechanisms; add to the chart in Annex F where ICANN is the evaluator the parties that can challenge and the
mechanism to address that challenge.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QY2ChMLEvTNIumpKl65XTVcSYNMaUhucE1YQsepwk-Q/edit#gid=1163822586" title="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QY2ChMLEvTNIumpKl65XTVcSYNMaUhucE1YQsepwk-Q/edit#gid=1163822586">Pre-Launch
Activities comment review document</a>: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Topic 12: Applicant Guidebook<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Multiple Comments re: AGB publication in other languages.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Leadership Comments: The WG has considered it and addressed this concern.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-US">Discussion</span></u><span lang="EN-US">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- The English version will always be out earlier in draft versions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Could change to 1 month instead of 2 – making it 3 months instead of 4, but check with language services.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- We do say it should be as soon possible but application window can’t open until 2 months after publication.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Perhaps strengthen the intent to have them out *together* or as close as possible.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- As a policy statement we could say “take measures to translate as quickly as possible” rather than debate 2 mos vs 3 mos.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- But there were concerns about that language.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- You could always say as soon as possible, but not later than 2-3 months.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Take the discussion to the list as to whether the timeframe for the publication in UN languages could be shorter.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 13: ICANN org re: 12.4 clarity of language<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Leadership Comments: Discussed the issue of min/max timeframe: tried to develop a range but WG was unsuccessful. On the second issue, this is something the IRT can focus on when writing the AGB, but note that we should
focus on language that is measurable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-US">Discussion</span></u><span lang="EN-US">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- We can address this by giving examples, or we could leave this as a high-level principle.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- If it comes to the IRT we will have the same problem.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- There is a term of art: “plain English” with standards for it available.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- If we cannot come up with examples or more guidance, we can't expect the IRT members to.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- ICANN has a style guide.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Examples: Make sure to reduce the ICANN acronyms, legal jargon, use plain English, remove historical background.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Need to tie this to the Implementation Guidance 12.8 where the WG gives examples. Could put this into the recommendation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: re: 12.4 and clarity of language: Move the Implementation Guidance 12.8 into the recommendation 12.4; staff to reach out to ICANN org to see if that language addresses the issue.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Topic 13: Communications<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Multiple comments re: longer communications period:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Diverse support for what the WG recommended concerning the communications period; don’t need to revise the recommendation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 17 -- ICANN org re: Goals and Affirmation 6.1.1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Re: “It would be helpful to understand the PDP WG’s definition of the goals of the Program and whether this Recommendation is in reference to Affirmation 6.1.1.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Re: ICANN org comments on goals and Affirmation 6.1.1: Ensure that the Recommendation on the goals of the Program is linked to Affirmation 6.1.1.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Topic 14: Systems<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 13: Dotzon re: certain character combinations not allowed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Leadership Comments: This is new information not considered. Find out what were the problematic characters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Check on what are the problematic character combinations.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Row 15: ICANN org re: “ICANN org would like to note that for issues related to security and stability, as well as the proper functioning of systems, ICANN org cannot be constrained to the processes outlined under Topic
2. ICANN org will need to respond rapidly to any issue that may fall under these categories.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Leadership Comments: Addressed, primarily in Predictability Framework.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Bring to the list the ICANN org comment on Topic 14 Systems: “ICANN org would like to note that for issues related to security and stability, as well as the proper functioning of systems, ICANN org cannot
be constrained to the processes outlined under Topic 2. ICANN org will need to respond rapidly to any issue that may fall under these categories.”<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>