Page History

Recommendations 19, 34, C

Recommendations 40, 41, 42

• David to update language based on comments received and share via email with the review team
• Jordyn to look at public comments, at TMCH, to provide suggestions to update Rec. 42

David

Jordyn

Recommendations 13, 15, 33

• Review Team to read and send comments on consolidation suggested by Jordyn. Consolidation of recommendations will be submitted on plenary call  #70

Recommendation 5

• Jordyn to add a citation to trademark holder section under 1.1
• Jordyn to update paper based on input received (plenary, and Laureen’s suggestions via email), and resubmit on plenary call #70

Review Team to submit input to Drew on recommendations A, B, D + individual statement before tomorrow EOD. Drew to submit updated version of recommendations before the end of this week (4 March 2018).

Jordyn/Jonathan suggest adding language  in Choice section to  discuss encouraging a diversity of new gTLD business models.  The new language in the Choice section would cross-reference Rec. 14 and a new introductory sentence would be added  to that effect. Jordyn to circulate update via email.

Rec. 12: Dejan to share updates on recommendation with the review team. Postponed to plenary call #66

Rec. 12: David to update recommendation and circulate new version by the end of this week.

Set up discussion after ICANN 60 with ICANN org on standardizing recommendation language so they may be translated into Board resolutions.

ICANN Org to review and clarify to Jonathan how a subset of the team is maintained to help with recommendations’ implementation after conclusion of the review?

Use DNS Abuse study’s rec 3 to have ongoing data collection related to DNS abuse in place of current rec 34, which may be subject to deletion, pending Drew Bagley’s review.

Rec. 14 (assigned to David Taylor): Rewriting it to include removal of barriers to diversity (i.e. more niche TLDs or other business models?) to incentivize it rather than encouraging a particular business model.

Rec 35: remove recommendation, pending Jamie’s review. Delete rec 36. Some of rationale from recs 35 and 36 should be included in rec 14 or elsewhere in the text. i.e. Observations about risks and costs and benefits in the text.

Jordyn to draft text (by Monday 30 Oct) to capture discussion on registrant survey with INTA Survey (rec. 40), ICANN should seek other ways to ensure TM holder perspective is included in registrant survey if INTA stops doing the survey.

• Updates to Final Report:
  • Executive Summary to include a section on conclusions about the program (Jonathan)
  • Final numbering of recommendations: Restart with clear numbering and digestible way of reporting recommendations. Add a paragraph under the public comment section in the appendix “review process” describing which recommendations were consolidated based on the input received from comments.
  • Recommendation summary: add a column with level of consensus.
  • Finish consolidation exercise, circle back to staff for a cost analysis of the new/consolidated recommendations, CCTRT to determine whether each recommendation is worth/not the cost, and if it’s not then delete.
  • Review Team to identify any sections in the draft report that need to be updated based on public comments received, and all to compare public comment sheet to apply changes.

During editing process, proof readers should make sure that the references to the surveys (consuner end-user and registrant) are consistent throughout both the Report and the Recommendations. 

• SubGroups to review recommendations and consolidate related recommendations and eliminate duplicative ones.
• SubGroup to review wording to ensure that it's expressed in a manner so that the Board can adopt our recommendations Verbatim.
• SubGroups to review recommendations to harmonize terms such as "should" "shall" "must" (refer to https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) and consider that as the SubGroups work to standardize terms throughout the report.
• Clarify which group will implement the recommendations if Board approves (who is best to take this on during the implementation process)
• SubGroups to review assigned recommendations and add details on rationale and success measures(and especially regarding data we recommend collecting).

Add more clarity on terms such as "Global South, Underserved Regions", align with terms used by other groups e.g. Subsequent Procedures Working Group.