** The 30 May 2016 is a holiday in the US and in the UK. In order to avoid losing a significant number of participants, the meeting has been rescheduled to 01 June at 22:00 UTC.
Please make sure to delete the old calendar entry from your calendars (30 May)
Dear All,
The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, 01 June 2016 at 22:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
15:00 PDT, 18:00 EDT, 23:00 London, 00:00 CEST
for other places see: http://tinyurl.com/ztppoax
AGENDA:
- Review Agenda
- Roll Call/SOIs
- Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw)
- CC1 Discussion, continued (Working Draft here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh8ugZAomD2AGNymmVRgKGP9TA2KQ7BkQbrRAEvsrxs/edit?usp=sharing)
- AOB
- Work Plan – As there have not been any objections to the attached draft work plan, it will be considered as adopted by the WG, although this certainly does not prevent revisiting and revising in the future.
Apologies: Vanda Scartezini, Jorge.Cancio, Alan Greenberg, Katrin Ohlmer, Amr Elsadr,
On audio only: None
Actions/Notes:
1. Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw)
#7: Work Plan: Complete - Integrated comments received from PDP WG; further refinement likely needed in future, including integrating CCT-RT expected outputs.
#19 Liaison for Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs): Staff is facilitating a search for a volunteer.
#22 Drafting Team to Develop Constituency Comment 1: Staff is finalizing the document based on the discussion during the 01 June call. Produce final after 06 June call and send prior to 10 June document deadline.
#24 Pull data on who applied, how many applied, and how many for at least the top 10 applicants (from discussion on application limits, pros and cons) – ongoing.
2. CC1 Discussion (Working Draft here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh8ugZAomD2AGNymmVRgKGP9TA2KQ7BkQbrRAEvsrxs/edit?usp=sharing)
Action Items:
1. Document format -- send as a cover letter with an annex.
2. Staff will produce a final document after the meeting on 06 June. Deliver the letter and document to the SO/AC/SG/C Chairs.
3. Enumerate questions for each section.
Discussion Notes:
Letter:
1. Staff confirmed that the letters be personalized if the Working Group desires.
2. Move the first sentence further down in the letter.
3. Look at the PDP Manual to determine if "Constituency Comment" is the correct terminology.
4. Deadline: 35 days is the minimum. Increase deadline from 35 days to 45 to account for Helsinki?
Annex/Questions:
General: Check consistency of use of terms. For example, instead of “types” use "categories" throughout the document. Another example, put “rounds” either in quotes or not.
Question 1, page 4:
1. Use "ongoing" instead of "continuing".
2. Risk to "healthy development of the DNS market" or something more neutral, since the competition verdict is not out yet? - or "would the absence of a continuing mechanism have an anti-competitive effect?"
3. What does it mean to make a diverse set of names more diverse? The basic assumption is "Choice and Trust".
Question 2, page 6: Delete “further information” comment.
Page 7: Change to "Open for only one or a limited number of gTLDs".
Question 3, page 8: Take out "further explanation".
Page 9:
1. Put rounds in quotes, or drop them from the previous question (check for consistency).
2. Change to: "Does restricting applications to rounds or other cyclical applications models lead to more consistent treatment of applicants?"
Page 10:
1. Change to two separate questions: Do rounds create artificial demand and/or artificial scarcity?
2. What is an ideal interval between rounds? Please explain.
Page 11: Re-word introductory question.
Page 12: Change to: What are the impacts on applicants, users and related parties/consumers from a process that lacks predictability?
Page 13:
1. Define DG.
2. Change to: community engagement from early engagement.
3. Move PDP related questions lower, and more of a catch-all question at the end.
4. The more pre-work done, in theory, may lead to less problems downstream. However, not amount of planning will account for all problems that may arise.
Page 14: Requires wording help: "Is there a time at which the application procedure in one application window should be frozen until after a new application window is opened for policy review.?"
3. Any Other Business: Work Plan
Action Item: As there have not been any objections to the attached draft work plan, it will be considered as adopted by the Working Group, although this certainly does not prevent revisiting and revising in the future.
