Page History
...
Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the GNSO Secretariat. If you did not receive these participation details, please contact the GNSO Secretariat for assistance (gnso-secs@icann.org).
AttendanceAttendance
Apologies: Craig Schwartz, Rudi Vansnick, Susan Payne, Christopher Momanyi, Liz Williams (Will be late), Corinne Cath, Richard Padilla, Paul Mcgrady,
...
Monday, 2 May 2016 at 2200 UTC
...
Notes/Action Items:
...
1.
...
Update on CCT-RT/
...
PDP WG Leadership Coordination Call
Action Item: Staff will establish regular coordination meetings between the leadership of the two groups.
2. The path forward to Constituency Comment 1
Action Item: Start a Drafting Team to frame the questions and seek volunteers. Volunteers: Christa Taylor, Tom Dale, Katrin Ohlmer, Gangesh Varma, Jay Westerdal, Cecilia Smith, Iliya Bazlyankov, Grace Mutung'u.
3. Subject 2: Should the subsequent procedures be rounds? Pros and Cons
Action Items: PDP WG Members should review the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p7RqPPNafMOViLyG-y_isLeYkcqsjHLIgLEXTOPKp_s/edit?usp=sharing.
4. Subject 3: Predictability Pros and Cons
Action Items: PDP WG members should review the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qwbdz_iwAHVVpJwm2RPJK5w07QXxjM9QNn0NAyquVT8/edit?usp=sharing.
5. Action Item List on Wiki
Action Item: PDP WG members should review the actions and comment as desired. See: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/e.+Action+Items. The Chairs will provide a status update at the beginning of each meeting.
6. Timing of Meetings
Action Item: Staff will continue to review the geographic spread of the current PDP WG members and determine whether the rotating times should be changed.
------------------- Additional Notes (Captured in Google Docs) ------------------------
...
Action Item: Staff will establish regular coordination meetings between the leadership of the two groups.
2. The path forward to Constituency Comment 1
Action Item: Start a Drafting Team to frame the questions. Seeking volunteers. Volunteers thus far: Christa Taylor, Tom Dale, Katrin Ohlmer, Gangesh Varma, Jay Westerdal, Cecilia Smith, Iliya Bazlyankov, Grace Mutung'u.
3. Subject discussion: Should the subsequent procedures be rounds? Pros and Cons
4. . Subject discussion: 4.2.2 Predictability: Pros and Cons
5. Action Item List on Wiki: PDP WG members should review the actions and comment as desired. Do a quick review and status update at the beginning of each meeting.
6. Timing of calls: Continue to look at the times.
How can we ensure that predictability while balancing changes in the process?
Pros
1. predictability offers the chance to improve the communication of the introduction process of new gtlds.
...
7. Lack of predictability causes applicants to loose faith+trust in process
Cons
1. Too much predictability may affect flexibility.
Standards to be expected of predictabilty
Pros
1. (Include here or under predictability?)Develop adaptations to policy based on a cross-community effort from the start. We have learned a lot since the last AGB, and work in silos is slowly being superseded by cross-community work.
...
3. Predictability on deadlines both from applicant and ICANN such as response times for application review, negotiation process, etc
Degree to which guidebook is final and should be stuck to
Mitigating Factors
Pros
1. I suggest ICANN Board analyses and makes decisions on GACs input to final AGB principles AND agree with GAC not to change rules for applicants AFTER applications have been submitted - in this way we would not experience such things as "sensitive strings" , "closed generics" Two letter release applications etc etc....
...
