Page History

Board letter: Once recommendations are finalized, Jonathan will scrub the timing related information (priority of recommendations) and prescriptive tone in recommendations.

Consolidated Recommendation on “Periodic Registrant Survey”: Jordyn to update the document and split the registrant and end-user survey into two separate recommendations. Laureen to look into update version and reference it within the safeguards & trust section.

Substitution Analysis Paper: Jonathan to take the pen back, and add input following conversation with Brian Aitchison about the flat demand for second level domains, and submit to the list the updated version prior to the next plenary call.

Statement of Interest:  update neededfor Jonathan who is running for ALAC.

Review team to provide input by Monday 23 April COB on below updated versions of :

• Rec 9 (see attached)
• Success Measures of Recs. A, B, C, E. (see attached)

Drew/Jordyn to update rec. B based on today’s discussion.

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

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.

• 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.

Final Report: 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.