Page History
...
Dial outs:
On audio only:
Slides: WT2 Meeting 3.pdf
Notes/Actions:
1. Prioritization/Grouping/Dependencies:
For the timeline and scope of new gTLD activities that are underway see: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews.
Discussion Notes:
- Look at dependences and relevant issues for each topic to determine start date.
- Look at a schedule that has the relevant reviews or PDPs showing when they will end.
- Current priority trys to reflect the weight of each topic.
- Rubens Kuhl -- On 2nd level RPMs: One note is that any RPM not revisited by the RPM WG needs to be revisited in this WG. It's a charter requirement.
- Alexander Schubert -- Reserved Names: The CCWG on Territory Names according to my observations won't provide useful input: Their scope of work is way broader then what we seek. So let’s watch them - but do not wait for input: There won't be any.
- On coordinating with the CCWG: Annabeth Lange and Heather Forrest are on the CCWG. Ask them to provide updates.
- Paul McGrady: This is not a PDP. Take that into consideration concerning their recommendations.
- Avri Doria: But should fully take into account any issues they raise, particularly if we take an alternate path.
- IGO/INGO -- already a PDP -- with ICANN Board to reconcile GAC advice and PDP recommendations; Also the Country and Territory Name Cross Community Working group. Phil Corwin is Chair. This is a placeholder if something is not resolved by these two efforts. Review the outputs.
- Phil Buckingham: Registry/registrar separate was controversial
- Jeff Neuman: We are not remaking decisions about whether to allow registrars to be registries and visa-versa. Looking at issues about the code of conduct.
- Phil Buckingham: Global Public Interest -- look at work already done in CCWG-Accountability.
- Paul McGrady -- What does it mean in this context?
- Phil Buckingham -- Seems outside of our remit.
- Michael Flemming -- Decide whether to even have recommendations.
- Jeff Neuman: The Sub Team should go back to the Discussion Group report to see why Global Public Interest was included.
2. Base Agreement (High level discussion):
Action Items: Staff will endeavor to find out how many .brands signed up for Spec 13.
4.3.2.4 Rationale for Policy Development (from Final Issue Report):
Questions:
- Does a single base agreement make sense for all types of registries?
- Jeff Neuman -- Need to have different physical agreements for some of the categories, such as .Brand. But likely to be a set of common terms and conditions.
Additional questions for the Sub Team to consider from Jeff Neuman:
- Does anyone not agree with the notion of having different agreements for different types of TLDs?
- Other than "brands", are there any other categories of TLDs that merit their own agreement?
- With respect to brands, are the qualifications set forth in Specification 13 the right ones to measure a "brand"?; (4) What are the processes for switching to a different agreement?