Page History

Next Proposed Meeting:

Monday, 13 June 2016, 1300 UTC

Notes/Action Items:

1. Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw)

#16 Catalog of Advice and Statements from 2012 round of New gTLDs: Response received from the SSAC.

#19 Liaison for Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs): Staff is facilitating a search for a volunteer.

#22 Drafting Team to Develop Constituency Comment 1: Staff is finalizing the document based on the discussion during the 06 June call.  Produce final after 06 June call and send prior to 10 June document deadline.

#24 Pull data on who applied, how many applied, and how many for at least the top 10 applicants (from discussion on application limits, pros and cons) – ongoing.

Action Item: Incorporate timelines from other efforts, like Advice/Statements, into the PDP WG timeline

2. CC1 Discussion (Working Draft here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh8ugZAomD2AGNymmVRgKGP9TA2KQ7BkQbrRAEvsrxs/edit?usp=sharing)

Action Item:  Staff will produce a final document incorporating changes from the meeting on 06 June.  Deadline to send - 10 June (but document should go out at the earliest opportunity); give option to SO/AC/SG/Cs to answer either as online questionnaire or in document form.  Deadline for responses - recommend 45 days, deadline of 23 July (ICANN56 ends 30 June; RPM WG's input solicitation letter requests responses by 9 July).

Discussion Notes:           

1.  Question 1(b): Will absence of ongoing mechanism have anti-competitive effect for potential applicants - what does "ongoing mechanism" mean? Does this cover all potential methods of having all applications received or something else?

ANSWER: Assumption was that this meant "absence of any subsequent procedures for further new gTLDs", what about clarifying further to say "absence of any mechanisms or procedures to apply for any more new gTLDs"?

NOTE: Could also define "mechanism" as it is used regularly throughout the document OR just delete the word "ongoing" (phrase "ongoing mechanism" originated in the 2007 GNSO report)

CONSENSUS: Co-chairs and staff to discuss refining or modifying existing phrasing, to be shared on the list for resolution.

2. Change final question in each section to specify "on this subject".

3.  Add footnote regarding Spec 13 (for Subject 2, page 6).

4. What does "Open TLD with minor charter registration challenges" (one of the several possible categories) mean? Some open TLDs have registration restrictions or may have them subject to a DRP (not the same as validated restricted registries).

SUGGESTION: Change to "Challenge Policy Restricted Registry" or render it a sub-type of validated restricted registries or clarify "self-validated" and "prior validation versus subsequent challenges"? In any case, the word "minor" does not seem appropriate - delete "minor" and replace with "self-validated" or other word/phrase?

CONSENSUS: Co-chairs and staff to discuss and propose alternative wording to the list.

5. Page 13, change "like ... in the ICANN Bylaws" to "e.g." – OK.

6. Be consistent as to usage of "Subsequent Procedures" (or similar phrasing) rather than "Rounds". Clarify language where necessary.

7. "Aggregate application limit" - intended to differentiate between total applications in a window/process/round versus an individual number of applications in a window/process/round;

SUGGESTION -

(1) change subject heading to be more precise: "Application Limits during an Application "Round"" – OK.

(2) substitute "total" for "aggregate" – OK.

8. Should Subject 6 (Question 6(b)) also cover total number of strings?

SUGGESTION - add "and/or the total number of strings" within each of the questions in Subject 6 – OK.

9. 6(e) & 6(f) - could their placement create confusion? Move 6(g) up so it appears first – OK.

10. For 6(g) - "number" not "numbers"; change "entity" to "applicant" – OK.