Page History

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

ACTION ITEM 1: Add to the agenda for the full WG call -- ideas on implementation planning that could be passed from the WG to Goran for ICANN64.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.

2. Discussion of Public Comments: 2.3.4: Universal Acceptance

General Comments: Line 4, ALAC

2.3.4.c.1:

Lines 6&7, BRG and RySG -- Agreement

Lines 8&9, ALAC and BC -- Agreement and New Idea

2.3.4.e.1:

Lines 11-13, RySG, Valideus, Brand Registry Group -- Agreement

Line 14, BC -- Concerns

Line 15, RrSG & ALAC -- New Idea

3. Discussion of Public Comments: 2.4.1: Applicant Guidebook

General Comments:

Lines 4&5, RySG and INTA -- Agreement

2.4.1.c.1:

Lines 7-10, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, INTA, FairWind Partners -- Agreement

Line 11, BC -- Agreement, New Idea

2.4.1.c.2:

Line 13, Neustar -- Agreement (qualified support)

Line 14, Govt of India -- Agreement

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT:  I dont' think the AGB is particularly "verbose".  It strikes me that it will not be less "verbose" as a result of this complicated policy process and it seems pretty clear that it will take time to redraft the AGB once our policy recommendations are approved by the ICANN Board.  COMMENT

Line 15, Fairwind Partners -- [comments below]

2.4.1.c.2.1:

Lines 17-20, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, INTA, Fairwind Partners -- Agreement

Line 21, ALAC -- Agreement Concerns -- In so far as the AGB’s primary target audience is applicants, the ALAC agrees with this preliminary recommendation. We also believe it is important to maintain a reference to historical context and that ought to be made easily available.

2.4.1.c.2.2:

Lines 23-26, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, INTA, Fairwind Partners -- Agreement

Line 27, ALAC -- Agreement Concerns: In so far as the AGB’s primary target audience is applicants, the ALAC agrees with this preliminary recommendation. However, we believe it is important to maintain the link between application process and policy which underpin the same.

2.4.1.c.2.3:

Lines 29-32, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, INTA, Fairwind Partners -- Agreement

Line 33, BC -- Agreement, New Idea

2.4.1.c.2.4:

Lines 35-39, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, INTA, FairWinds Partners -- Agreement

2.4.1.c.2.5:

Lines 41-45, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, INTA, FairWinds Partners -- Agreement

2.4.1.c.2.6:

Lines 47-51, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, INTA, FairWinds Partners -- Agreement (as long as it does not cause delays)

2.4.1.c.2.7:

Lines 53-56, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, FairWinds Partners -- Agreement

Line 57, INTA -- Agreement Concerns: NTA agrees with this recommendation but is concerned that any agreements or terms of use are non- negotiable. The WG could explore whether there is a way for those who wish to negotiate to flag that intention.

4. Discussion of Public Comments: 2.4.2: Communications (time permitting)

2.4.2.c.1:

Lines 4-7, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, Neustar, FairWind Partners -- Agreement

Line 8, Valideus -- New Idea: The amount of time necessary between the final AGB being approved and the opening of the application window would depend upon possible factors such RSP pre-approval, but it should not be unduly long.

Line 9, ALAC -- New Idea: The ALAC believes that the amount of time between which the final AGB is released and the time until which applications would be finally due is a function of (1) the clarity of policies, rules and procedures for the Program, and (2) how well they are set out in the AGB and made accessible.

2.4.2.c.2:

Lines 11&12, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency -- Agreement

Line 13, ALAC -- Agreement New Idea

Line 14, Neustar -- New Idea

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: Neustart makes a very good poiint at line 14 - hopefully this will be tagged for discussion in full WG

Line 15, Fairwinds Partners -- [comments below]

2.4.2.c.2.1:

Lines 17&18, Brand Registry Group, FairWind Partners -- Agreement

Line 19, BC -- New Idea

Line 20, ALAC -- Agreement, New Idea

2.4.2.c.2.2:

Lines 22&23, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency -- Agreement

Line 24, ICANN Org -- Concerns: The PDP Working Group might want to consider revisiting this preliminary recommendation once discussion regarding preliminary recommendation 2.2.3.c.1 has completed in order to ensure that the two recommendations align.

Line 25, ALAC -- Agreement, New Idea

2.4.2.c.3:

Lines 27-28, Business Constituency, Neustar -- Agreement

Line 29, ALAC -- New Idea, Divergence

Line 30, BRG -- Divergence

Line 31, LEMARI -- [Does not seem directly related to this recommendation]

2.4.2.c.4:

Line 33&34, Neustar, Brand Registry Group -- Agreement

Line 35, BC -- Agreement, New Idea

Line 36, ICANN Org -- New IDea

Line 37, ALAC -- Concerns

Line 38, LEMARIT -- Divergence: Not needed.

2.4.2.c.5:

Lines 40-45, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, Neustar, FairWind Partners, LEMARIT -- Agreement

Line 46, ICANN Org -- New Idea

2.4.2.c.6:

Lines 48-52, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, Neustar, FairWind Partners -- Agreement

Line 53, ICANN Org -- New Idea

2.4.2.c.7:

Lines 55-59, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, Neustar, FairWind Partners, LEMARIT -- Agreement

Lines 60&61, BC & ICANN Org -- New Idea

2.4.2.e.1:

Lines 63&64, ALAC & ICANN Org -- New Idea

2.4.2.e.2:

Lines 66-69, Jamie Baxter of dotgay LLC, ALAC, ICANN Org, RrSG -- New Idea

Line 70, FairWind Partners -- New Idea, Concerns

2.4.2.e.3:

Lines 72-75, Jamie Baxter of dotgay LLC, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency - Agreement (to shorten communications period)

Line 76, LEMARIT -- New Idea

Next Meeting: 2.4.3: Systems

Notes/ Action Items