Page History

Data Analysis -

• Team to review latest version in detail at earliest opportunity

All

Consumer Choice -

• Jordyn to clarify the need for policy 

Jordyn

DNS Abuse Chapter -

• Drew to normalize paper formatting per suggestions from Waudo
• Recommendations pending the DNS abuse study
• Team to review document ASAP to give Drew input

Drew

All

Data Analysis -

• include changes to the base registry agreement and legacy registry operator agreements in the recommendation
• Team to read document online and suggest edits and additions

IMPACT OF SAFEGUARDS Paper

Safeguards for all new gTLDs

Rec 1 (p. 3) - Jonathan/Jamie are supposed to discuss effort involved with providing more granular data on complaints.

Rec 2 (p. 3) - remove Board reference, revise to call for more community discussion and allocate to other review teams with a more appropriate remit to the discussion; soften language to make it less prescriptive (Jordyn/Laureen/Jamie to edit language)  Medium priority but not a prerequisite to subsequent rounds - Consensus approved

Mitigating Abusive Activity:

Rec. 3 (p.5 ) - Repeat study at regularly designated intervals - more specificity about timing.  Laureen/Drew/Brian to collaborate on language. High priority, not a prerequisite.  Consensus approved. 

Security Checks:

Rec (p. 6) - Consensus approved as modified by Jordyn.  Medium priority, no priority.

Making and Handling Complaints:

Rec (p.7) - Laureen to reformulate rec per discussion and move the rec.  

Chapter VI. Consumer Trust - 

Rec. 1 (p. 15) - Consensus approved, pending addition of prioritization matrix

Rec 2 (p.16) - Delete reference to the Board. High priority, prerequisite to subsequent rounds. - Consensus approved

Further Review Recommendation 1 (p. 17) - High priority, not a prerequisite to subsequent rounds - Consensus approved

Further Review Recommendation 2 (p. 18) - Medium priority, not a prerequisite to subsequent rounds - Consensus approved

EMPLOY MATRIX in RECOMMENDATIONS

Draft Report Recommendations

- add prioritization at beginning of recommendation: Priority: low, medium, high - consensus approved pending addition of prioritization

- Consider adding the prioritization to all recommendations - add as agenda item to plenary call 

Data Analysis -

• Team to review latest version in detail at earliest opportunity

CCT-RT

Consumer Choice -

• Jordyn to clarify the need for policy 

Jordyn

DNS Abuse Chapter -

• Drew to normalize paper formatting per suggestions from Waudo
• Recommendations pending the DNS abuse study
• Team to review document ASAP to give Drew input

Drew

CCT-RT

1
1
1

COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE 

Data Analysis -

• include changes to the base registry agreement and legacy registry operator agreements in the recommendation
• Team to read document online and suggest edits and additions

Introduction to the Competition and Consumer Choice Analysis -

• address Kaili's comment:
• reflect the new recommendations format

 - Change title to "Background on the Competition, Consumer Choice and Consumer Trust Review" to clarify that the paper is about the review and not the team selection

 - Address metrics via footnote: 

"The review team aimed to base all its analysis on facts and evidence available and to ensure that its recommendations could be implemented in the time periods suggested. "

 - Add footnote about Bylaws retention of this review/subject matter

Introduction to the Competition and Consumer Choice Analysis -

• address Kaili's comment:
• reflect the new recommendations format

 - Change title to "Background on the Competition, Consumer Choice and Consumer Trust Review" to clarify that the paper is about the review and not the team selection

 - Address metrics via footnote: 

"The review team aimed to base all its analysis on facts and evidence available and to ensure that its recommendations could be implemented in the time periods suggested. "

 - Add footnote about Bylaws retention of this review/subject matter

• Consumer Trust Paper:

Edits pending

• PIC Paper:

 - Res. 1 - no objections

 - Res. 2 - keep rec as written pending JB's informal survey

 - Res. 3 - replace existing recommendation that emphasizes rationale that members of the community receive PICs in an appropriate timeframe

• Benefits v. Confusion:

Recs: Refine terminology, remove last recommendation, ask for refining input from other team members - Laureen to review with edits/refinements

Next plenary call to include Executive Summary and Data Summary - review Stan Besen document

Team to review ALL docs in Google docs for prompt and targeted discussion

Get most recent versions of Megan's documents back to her in Word format for editing - DONE

Reword/rework the recommendations on VIII. Voluntary PICs

Work to make recommendations and data requests as specific as possible

Eleeza to contact the Registry Stakeholder Group to see if Nielsen can talk to them about joining the applicant survey

High Level Findings Doc (Laureen): Add "Documented Registry and Registrar Abuse Contacts" currenty not included in technical safeguards. 

Nielsen study to date didnt have the data to answer all of the questions.  One recommendation will be for ICANN to collect certain data in the future.

Waudo, Carlton & Carlos to go thru AM Global Report to categorize the finding/recommendations into those that address: 1)  the impediments to applying from the Global South and 2) promoting a greater applicant pool in the Global South

Hyderabad Logistics: Pamela to gather RT members' arrival times and share it with Team members

Review Vienna action items https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61605156 and advise Alice if you have completed your(s) action item(s)

Contact DRPs for any additional data they could share re: LRO and Comm Objections and String confusion objections

Determine how the registrant survey phase 2 can help address questions/sub-questions (seek information/confirmation from David Dickinson).

Provide David Dickinson with high-level and sub-questions.

Send to Eleeza proposed questions that relate to the reconsideration process

Add explanatory blurbs for the research template 

CLOSED

(AM Global)

CLOSED

(AM Global)

Subgroup focused on determining why candidates dropped out. 

Categories: incumbent registrars and registries, large brands, developing 
world 

Update TOR according to meeting notes and circulate to the list for formal adoption.

Incorporate Laureen's proposed definition of consumer.

Create document that maps the PDP issues against the CCT's list of issues to identify gaps,,

enable CCT to prioritize identify low risk areas to send to the PDP

Create short summaries of each reconsideration request, 

characterize the nature of the objection, similar for CEP and IRP requests

Change consumer choice definition to include all consumers (i.e. users, registrants, etc.)