Page History

...

For other times: http://tinyurl.com/jcy7dnx

PROPOSED AGENDA: 

1. Welcome and Admin 

2. SOI Update 

3. Prioritization/Grouping/Dependencies: Here we will address the issue

of priority of subjects again. This time Phil and I have gone ahead and drafted

a chart that prioritizes and groups the subjects while listing dependencies and

relevant issues. I am hoping we can seek consensus on this to begin moving

forward with a better work plan. 

4. Base Agreement (High level discussion): This will be a return to the Base Agreement,

but this time we will focus specifically on high level discussion questions. 

5. AOB: Last time, I believe Paul McGrady highlighted that this working track should tackle

the T&Cs of applying for a New gTLD. I would like to spend some more time on this

issue and seek to outline if we do need to consider this matter; while at the same time

discussing the background, any relevant material, and whether this is policy.

Mp3

AC Chat

Attendance

Apologies: Susan Payne

Dial outs: 

On audio only: none

Slides: WT2 Meeting 3.pdf: 

Notes/Actions:

1. Prioritization/Grouping/Dependencies:

For the timeline and scope of new gTLD activities that are underway see: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews.

Discussion Notes:

• Look at dependences and relevant issues for each topic to determine start date.
• Look at a schedule that has the relevant reviews or PDPs showing when they will end.
• Current priority trys to reflect the weight of each topic.
• Rubens Kuhl -- On 2nd level RPMs: One note is that any RPM not revisited by the RPM WG needs to be revisited in this WG. It's a charter requirement.
• Alexander Schubert -- Reserved Names: The CCWG on Territory Names according to my observations won't provide useful input: Their scope of work is way broader then what we seek. So let’s watch them - but do not wait for input: There won't be any.
• On coordinating with the CCWG: Annabeth Lange and Heather Forrest are on the CCWG.  Ask them to provide updates.
• Paul McGrady: This is not a PDP.  Take that into consideration concerning their recommendations.
• Avri Doria: But should fully take into account any issues they raise, particularly if we take an alternate path.
• IGO/INGO -- already a PDP -- with ICANN Board to reconcile GAC advice and PDP recommendations; Also the Country and Territory Name Cross Community Working group.  Phil Corwin is Chair.  This is a placeholder if something is not resolved by these two efforts.  Review the outputs.
• Phil Buckingham: Registry/registrar separate was controversial
• Jeff Neuman: We are not remaking decisions about whether to allow registrars to be registries and visa-versa.  Looking at issues about the code of conduct.
• Phil Buckingham: Global Public Interest -- look at work already done in CCWG-Accountability.
  • Paul McGrady -- What does it mean in this context? 
  • Phil Buckingham -- Seems outside of our remit. 
  • Michael Flemming -- Decide whether to even have recommendations.
  • Jeff Neuman: The Sub Team should go back to the Discussion Group report to see why Global Public Interest was included.

2. Base Agreement (High level discussion):

Action Items:  Staff will endeavor to find out how many .brands signed up for Spec 13.

4.3.2.4 Rationale for Policy Development (from Final Issue Report):

Questions:

• Does a single base agreement make sense for all types of registries?
• Jeff Neuman -- Need to have different physical agreements for some of the categories, such as .Brand.  But likely to be a set of common terms and conditions.

Additional questions for the Sub Team to consider from Jeff Neuman:

• Does anyone not agree with the notion of having different agreements for different types of TLDs?
• Other than "brands", are there any other categories of TLDs that merit their own agreement?
• With respect to brands, are the qualifications set forth in Specification 13 the right ones to measure a "brand"?; (4) What are the processes for switching to a different agreement?