Plenary - Action Items

Rec 1 - Incorporate comments received on call #52 

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. 

Parking - Clarify language on renewal rate and Jonathan to work on hypotheses. Jordyn to refine language.

• SubGroups to review recommendations and consolidate related recommendations and eliminate duplicative ones.
• SubGroup to review wording to ensure that it's expressed in a manner so that the Board can adopt our recommendations Verbatim.
• SubGroups to review recommendations to harmonize terms such as "should" "shall" "must" (refer to https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) and consider that as the SubGroups work to standardize terms throughout the report.
• Clarify which group will implement the recommendations if Board approves (who is best to take this on during the implementation process)
• SubGroups to review assigned recommendations and add details on rationale and success measures(and especially regarding data we recommend collecting).

Rec.1: Redefine the recommendation and its rationale and success measures. 

Add more clarity on terms such as "Global South, Underserved Regions", align with terms used by other groups e.g. Subsequent Procedures Working Group.

Parking Paper: Review the parking paper and look into the DNS Abuse Correlation with Parking.

Review accuracy of the public comment summary and confirm to staff accuracy /changes by July 6 COB.

Schedule subgroups call as from the week after ICANN59 for a period of 4-5 weeks (Deadline August 1)  to review the public comments received and incorporate edits. Subgroup calls should last one hour and be extended if necessary.

Review Team to publish for public comment only new sections to the draft report (DNS Abuse Study, INTA Survey...), edits following the first period of public comment will be incorporated in the final report before it is sent out the Board.

Engage with Registry Stakeholders Group and comment on draft report

DNS abuse discussion - use as springboard to longer discussion

By end of week, leadership to read comments on their sections and to contact subteam members, as needed, to gather input on the public comments.

Review Team members to share the Draft Report Public Comment page, deadline is this Friday 19 May 2017.

Review Team members to review the Draft Report updates, and share any comments before Friday EOD (UTC).

Expand discussion and possible hypotheses regarding parking information

Extend the public comment deadline to 19 May 2017

Respond to GAC and put an announcement on the public comment page

Team to petition SO/AC contacts for meeting possibilities during ICANN59; consider a hybrid approach 

Review Team members to review Stan's paper written in response to the calculations on country-level concentration ratios and HHIs :

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JO3syL6Mgqt3t_oAPhASO8qlQjitCmRbDs4FVbfmxhc/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs[docs.google.com]

IMPACT OF SAFEGUARDS Paper

Safeguards for all new gTLDs

Rec 1 (p. 3) - Jonathan/Jamie are supposed to discuss effort involved with providing more granular data on complaints.

Rec 2 (p. 3) - remove Board reference, revise to call for more community discussion and allocate to other review teams with a more appropriate remit to the discussion; soften language to make it less prescriptive (Jordyn/Laureen/Jamie to edit language)  Medium priority but not a prerequisite to subsequent rounds - Consensus approved

Mitigating Abusive Activity:

Rec. 3 (p.5 ) - Repeat study at regularly designated intervals - more specificity about timing.  Laureen/Drew/Brian to collaborate on language. High priority, not a prerequisite.  Consensus approved. 

Security Checks:

Rec (p. 6) - Consensus approved as modified by Jordyn.  Medium priority, no priority.

Making and Handling Complaints:

Rec (p.7) - Laureen to reformulate rec per discussion and move the rec.  

Chapter VI. Consumer Trust - 

Rec. 1 (p. 15) - Consensus approved, pending addition of prioritization matrix

Rec 2 (p.16) - Delete reference to the Board. High priority, prerequisite to subsequent rounds. - Consensus approved

Further Review Recommendation 1 (p. 17) - High priority, not a prerequisite to subsequent rounds - Consensus approved

Further Review Recommendation 2 (p. 18) - Medium priority, not a prerequisite to subsequent rounds - Consensus approved

EMPLOY MATRIX in RECOMMENDATIONS

Draft Report Recommendations

- add prioritization at beginning of recommendation: Priority: low, medium, high - consensus approved pending addition of prioritization

- Consider adding the prioritization to all recommendations - add as agenda item to plenary call 

Data Analysis -

• Team to review latest version in detail at earliest opportunity

CCT-RT

Consumer Choice -

• Jordyn to clarify the need for policy 

Jordyn

DNS Abuse Chapter -

• Drew to normalize paper formatting per suggestions from Waudo
• Recommendations pending the DNS abuse study
• Team to review document ASAP to give Drew input

Drew

CCT-RT

1
1
1

COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE 

Data Analysis -

• include changes to the base registry agreement and legacy registry operator agreements in the recommendation
• Team to read document online and suggest edits and additions

Introduction to the Competition and Consumer Choice Analysis -

• address Kaili's comment:
• reflect the new recommendations format

 - Change title to "Background on the Competition, Consumer Choice and Consumer Trust Review" to clarify that the paper is about the review and not the team selection

 - Address metrics via footnote: 

"The review team aimed to base all its analysis on facts and evidence available and to ensure that its recommendations could be implemented in the time periods suggested. "

 - Add footnote about Bylaws retention of this review/subject matter

• Consumer Trust Paper:

Edits pending

• PIC Paper:

 - Res. 1 - no objections

 - Res. 2 - keep rec as written pending JB's informal survey

 - Res. 3 - replace existing recommendation that emphasizes rationale that members of the community receive PICs in an appropriate timeframe

• Benefits v. Confusion:

Recs: Refine terminology, remove last recommendation, ask for refining input from other team members - Laureen to review with edits/refinements

Next plenary call to include Executive Summary and Data Summary - review Stan Besen document

Team to review ALL docs in Google docs for prompt and targeted discussion

Get most recent versions of Megan's documents back to her in Word format for editing - DONE

Reword/rework the recommendations on VIII. Voluntary PICs

Work to make recommendations and data requests as specific as possible

Eleeza to contact the Registry Stakeholder Group to see if Nielsen can talk to them about joining the applicant survey

High Level Findings Doc (Laureen): Add "Documented Registry and Registrar Abuse Contacts" currenty not included in technical safeguards. 

Nielsen study to date didnt have the data to answer all of the questions.  One recommendation will be for ICANN to collect certain data in the future.

Waudo, Carlton & Carlos to go thru AM Global Report to categorize the finding/recommendations into those that address: 1)  the impediments to applying from the Global South and 2) promoting a greater applicant pool in the Global South

Hyderabad Logistics: Pamela to gather RT members' arrival times and share it with Team members

Review Vienna action items https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61605156 and advise Alice if you have completed your(s) action item(s)

Contact DRPs for any additional data they could share re: LRO and Comm Objections and String confusion objections

Determine how the registrant survey phase 2 can help address questions/sub-questions (seek information/confirmation from David Dickinson).

Provide David Dickinson with high-level and sub-questions.

Send to Eleeza proposed questions that relate to the reconsideration process

Add explanatory blurbs for the research template 

CLOSED

(AM Global)

CLOSED

(AM Global)

Subgroup focused on determining why candidates dropped out. 

Categories: incumbent registrars and registries, large brands, developing 
world 

Update TOR according to meeting notes and circulate to the list for formal adoption.

Incorporate Laureen's proposed definition of consumer.

Create document that maps the PDP issues against the CCT's list of issues to identify gaps,,

enable CCT to prioritize identify low risk areas to send to the PDP

Create short summaries of each reconsideration request, 

characterize the nature of the objection, similar for CEP and IRP requests

Change consumer choice definition to include all consumers (i.e. users, registrants, etc.)