<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: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;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.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:85540591;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-105633344 622903748 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:5;
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:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Working Group members,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 01 December at 03:00 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/2020-12-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP">
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP</a>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,<br>
Julie</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Notes and Action Items:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Action Items:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=1688811020" title="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=1688811020">Topic 3: Applications
Assessed in Rounds</a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Row 17 – NCSG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">ACTION ITEM: Reference with “subject to the Predictability Framework” and revise to add an "extraordinary circumstances" provision to 3.5, as with 3.6.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Row 19 – ICANN org<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Re: 3. Have we concluded that applications can be forced to close (or forced with withdraw)? Thought the Board could close a round and force a withdraw, but not sure.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">ACTION ITEM: Revise the recommendation to say that if there is a reason for withdrawal then all remaining applications for that string would be closed unless there is a reason not to do so.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT_gMRSkQ/edit#gid=1163822586" title="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT_gMRSkQ/edit#gid=1163822586">Topic 16:
Application Submission Period</a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Row 10 – ICANN Org re: Provide min and max timeframe.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">ACTION ITEM: Revise according to the ICANN org comment on min and max timeframe, to perhaps 12-15 weeks.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jS1m66MxbJRWhhQQTZBpyZnIuWm4ncpJFkiWz5qmASc/edit#gid=1163822586" title="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jS1m66MxbJRWhhQQTZBpyZnIuWm4ncpJFkiWz5qmASc/edit#gid=1163822586">Topic 19:
Application Queuing</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Row 15 – ICANN Org re: Clarify affirmation of 2012 implementation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Modify the affirmation with that it is the prioritization draw but that the logistical details of the draw can be decided by the IRT. Tie the Implementation Guidance to the affirmation.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> Notes:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 and comments:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=1688811020" title="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=1688811020">Topic
1: Continuing Subsequent Procedures</a></span><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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Overview – Leadership Comments:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Extremely wide / diverse support. No real need to address any of the comments during the call from Leadership perspective.<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="color:black"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=1688811020" title="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=1688811020">Topic
3: Applications Assessed in Rounds</a></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Row 6 – GBOC re: Accept .brand applications on a rolling basis; Row 13 -- Minds + Machines Group Limited<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Leadership Comments: Noted. This has been discussed on several occasions and not adopted by the Working Group.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Row 14 – IPC re: Should be possible to pause rounds if necessary; Row 15 -- ALAC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Leadership Comments: Working Group to discuss. Where is the 30-day pause limitation (IPC)? Noted. This has been discussed on several occasions and not adopted by the Working Group.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:black">Discussion</span></u><span style="color:black">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- If anyone from the IPC could take note it would be helpful to send something on the list.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Row 17 – NCSG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Leadership Comments: New Round is not likely to start until 2022/23. Any recommendations based on Covid 19 today is not likely to be the case for that time period.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:black">Discussion</span></u><span style="color:black">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Question: What should go into the recommendation? Is this policy or implementation? Answer: That the predictability would that future rounds should take into account world events.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- IPC comment: Seems that there is mention of an emergency procedure, but it’s not explicit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Predictability model has a number of procedures relating to emergencies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- 3.5 governs predictability along with the Predictability Framework.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Maybe just add an "extraordinary circumstances" provision to 3.5, like 3.6?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Just build a bridge saying “subject to the Predictability Framework”?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">ACTION ITEM: Reference with “subject to the Predictability Framework” and revise to add an "extraordinary circumstances" provision to 3.5, as with 3.6.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Row 19 – ICANN org<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Leadership Comments: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">1. ICANN asks whether we have defined what it means to end a round - We have tried on several occasions, but no good definition exists to declare a round completely done.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">2. We need to confirm that the wording meanings are the same.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">3. Have we concluded that applications can be forced to close (or forced with withdraw)? Thought the Board could close a round and force a withdraw, but not sure.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">4. Change delegation in "If all applications for a particular string have been withdrawn, meaning the string has not been delegated" to "meaning that no Registry Operator has signed a Registry Agreement for the
string."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">5. We do not view this recommendation as inconsistent with 4.6(d)(iv) of the bylaws on CCT-RT's ability to make recommendations for future rounds. In fact, it recognizes that changes can be made through the Predictability
Process and if they are material changes, they will apply to the next round after the round in which the changes are recommended.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:black">Discussion</span></u><span style="color:black">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Re: 3. Have we concluded that applications can be forced to close (or forced with withdraw)? Thought the Board could close a round and force a withdraw, but not sure.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Should we have a recommendation that these applications should be closed and a refund issued, or if the applicant can’t be identified, then the funds would go to identified programs (see relevant sections.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- Worried about instituting an administrative withdrawal. What about if there were ongoing legal disputes?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- It’s not an absolute rule. Could say all remaining applications for that string would be closed unless there is a reason not to.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">ACTION ITEM: Revise the recommendation to say that if there is a reason for withdrawal then all remaining applications for that string would be closed unless there is a reason not to do so.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Row 20 – Nameshop<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Leadership Comments: Need to make sure that the terms are self-explanatory as to when things are final. Maybe don't rely on specific terms, but say what is intended. When there is no further option to appeal or
challenge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=1688811020" title="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=1688811020">Topic
5: Application Submission Limits</a></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Rows 10 and 13 – NCSG re: Support limiting applications submitted<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Leadership Comments: Noted and previously discussed. This came in with their last set of comments and was not accepted by the Working Group. Noted. If this recommendation is supported by all of the groups listed
above, then the NCSG is free to submit a minority report with its position.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT_gMRSkQ/edit#gid=1163822586" title="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT_gMRSkQ/edit#gid=1163822586">Topic
16: Application Submission Period</a></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Row 10 – ICANN Org re: Provide min and max timeframe.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Leadership Comments: Consider revisiting issue of providing a range as opposed to an exact week count. 12-15 weeks?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">ACTION ITEM: Revise according to ICANN org comment on min and max timeframe, to perhaps 12-15 weeks.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jS1m66MxbJRWhhQQTZBpyZnIuWm4ncpJFkiWz5qmASc/edit#gid=1163822586" title="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jS1m66MxbJRWhhQQTZBpyZnIuWm4ncpJFkiWz5qmASc/edit#gid=1163822586">Topic
19: Application Queuing</a></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Row 14 -- Internet DotTrademark Organisation Limited re: Prioritize IDN variants.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Leadership Comments: Refer to ePDP?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Row 15 – ICANN Org re: Clarify affirmation of 2012 implementation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Leadership Comments: The Affirmation was on the prioritization Draw. If there are changes that still utilizes the Draw (eg., in person or not) or the law changes, then those should be discussed during the IRT and/or if after the Guidebook
with the SPIRT. Might need to do an affirmation with modification, but logistics left to IRT. Boil down to what MUST be in there. There is Implementation Guidance in 19.4 -- maybe need to tie this IG to the affirmation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Modify the affirmation with that it is the prioritization draw but that the logistical details of the draw can be decided by the IRT. Tie the Implementation Guidance to the affirmation.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>