<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>Dear WG members,</div><div><br></div><div>Here are some follow up notes and action items stemming from our call of earlier today.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Use of Sub Teams:</b></div><ul><li>A fourth Sub Team, to identify and allocate additional topics for review, will be formed to supplement the three existing Sub Teams (on 1.3.2, 1.3.3 and Annex E).</li><li>Each Sub Team is expected to do a “first pass” at reviewing all the public comments received for its specific topic; with a view toward providing the full WG with suggestions as to potential responses and appropriate actions including, where applicable, suggestions for amending existing language and/or Preliminary Recommendations in the WG Initial Report (please refer to the WG Guidelines for further details on the use of sub teams).</li><li>While the Sub Teams are intended to serve as an efficient and focused method for working through all the public comments received on those topics that the WG considers to be open questions or issues of major concern to the community, the work of the Sub Teams does not supersede the responsibility of the WG to ensure that they actively participate in the work, that comments are thoroughly analyzed and ultimately to participate in consensus calls (per the WG Guidelines).</li><li>For the three existing Sub Teams, staff will provide a template/matrix modeled substantially on the Public Comment Review Tool, which will contain those public comments and online responses to our questions template that directly address that specific topic.</li><li>For the fourth Sub Team, staff will provide a blank template/matrix (as above) for the Sub Team to fill in, as this exercise is expected to involve some “judgment calls” that may be inappropriate for staff to make at this point.</li><li>For transparency – as these templates/matrices are all linked to in the WG’s Final Report - all templates/matrices will include columns that align specific comments and commenters with the Sub Team’s suggested approach.</li></ul><div><u>Please see the attached document for the current list of Sub Teams and their volunteers</u>, and let me know if you would like to sign up for any of them. There are no specific rules as to how many or who should participate in a Sub Team, but ideally each Sub Team should represent a balance of skills and interests (per the WG Guidelines).</div><div><br></div><div><b>Staff Support for Sub Teams:</b></div><ul><li>Sub Teams are encouraged to do as much of their work as possible using email and other online tools (e.g. a wiki or Google Docs). Should it be necessary to schedule a call, staff can assist with providing a call-in number. Please note that the availability of staff (policy and secretariat) support for such calls will depend on the time/day/regularity of such calls. In particular, please note that while for transparency reasons it would be preferable to record such calls, this will require the presence of secretariat staff, so please take this into account if scheduling a call.</li></ul><div><br></div><div><b>Proposed F2F Meeting in Dublin:</b></div><ul><li>Proposed date: Friday 16 October</li><li>Proposed duration/scope: TBD by the WG (need not be a full day)</li><li>Use of professional facilitator: Little support for one at this stage in the WG’s deliberations</li><li>Travel support: Hotel only; generally, maximum 6 participants per GNSO SG or ICANN SO/AC (1 hotel night each, or maximum of 2 hotel nights per person if the SG/SO/AC does not fill up all its 6 slots). However, depending on takeup rate, the WG co-chairs may be able to advise additional hotel nights or participants if doing so would ensure representativeness and diversity of participation</li><li>Remote participation: Yes</li></ul><div><u>Please provide your feedback as to whether or not this WG should proceed with a F2F meeting in Dublin as soon as possible</u>. The GNSO Council will discuss the selection of a PDP WG for a Dublin F2F meeting at its meeting this Thursday. Staff will note that there is some interest among this WG to do one, but that a final decision has not yet been made.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Planning for Subsequent WG Meetings:</b></div><ul><li>Some preference to extend calls beyond one hour rather than schedule additional calls</li><li>Any change to the current duration/day/time would need more than a week’s notice, and possibly a Doodle poll</li><li>Current preference is to stay with one-hour calls and to revisit the matter should it appear necessary to change this arrangement</li></ul><div><br></div><div>Thanks and cheers</div><div>Mary</div><div><br></div><div><div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Mary Wong</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Senior Policy Director</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Telephone: +1 603 574 4889</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Email: mary.wong@icann.org</font></font></div><div><br></div></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><br></div></body></html>