Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 October. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. See the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/x/tQ2bAw. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC Agenda: 1.     Welcome 2.     SOIs 3.     Accreditation Discussion (continued) 4.     Application Support 5.     Applicant Guidebook 6.     AOB Action Items: 1. Accreditation Discussion: Comments that have been provided (from Donna Austin and Rubens Kuhl thus far) will be incorporated in the Google Doc.  WG members are encouraged to provide comments. 2. Applicant Support Discussion: Seek JAS alumni to discuss -- Carlton Samuels and Rakif Dammik were co-chairs on the JAS. 1.  Accreditation Discussion (continued) [Reading from 3. Problems to solve in the Google Doc.  See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKveU...] · Donna expanded on the notion on RSP ability to interact directly with ICANN re: technical issues. · Re: 3.d. -- This is an immediate issue -- portability of TLDs: The process for Registry Operator switching backend providers is unpredictable.  Improve ability to switch RSPs.  Can this be taken up more quickly?  Perhaps by GDD? · Staff: The GDD is looking at that topic -- RSP certification. One thing in particular is the community input model at ICANN57.  How best to ensure that community input is taken into account.  Not sure what that model will be.  Probably provide a proposed model and get input. 2. Applicant Support · Look at the normative view of should the developing economies have the ability to get new gTLDs and is the program for the developed economies prohibitive for them?  Demand is not a good guidance parameter. · Copied from the chat room: Avri Doria: a bit more on the Applicant Support program, the GAC had several recommendation on applicant support at the time, with specific recommendations that we need to include in the next pass at this discussion. · A survey of new gTLD prospects being prepared for the CCT RT that might be useful as input to this aspect of the discussion 3.  Applicant Guidebook · Anything in Module 1 that really sticks out as an issue?  Or in the AGB itself?  What were the problems in each subject matter? · All of these topics are being discussed by the various Sub Teams. · JAS Report: Application Process: The timeline for changes in application content was an issue. Several applicants say that the process of making admissible changes, especially the time line, needed clarity. · Copied from the chat room:  o Jeff Neuman: A couple of questions:  Is this the right format for applications for new TLDs?  Should there be additional topics to be included in the AG?  Was there too much information in the AG (background)?  Was there not enough information on certain topics? o Carlton Samuels: @Registry Service Reviews: This is where the idea of a set of accredited RSPs would be useful; that process would be a black box to the application process with just an on-ramp to the Application process. Declare you will use an accredited RSP and that’s it. · Should there be different AGBs for different perspectives? · Could be one AGB with extensions.  Whatever vehicle is used will need to be accessible and available to all. · What was discussed was potentially have an AG for RSPs, one for Escrow Providers, a separate document that discusses the RPMs, etc. · Modules allow the AGB to be scalable.  Continue with the format. · Based on feedback: Seem to have the right format.  Anything in module 1 or 2 that will need a deeper dive or more details? · Coordinate with other work tracks on the content.  This topic could revisited after work is done on the various topics.  Could rearrange the timeline of work to address this at the end. · Add: A discussion of merging in of all the other documents that came out later into the AGB.