Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 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 chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings.  See also the attached slides that are referenced below and posted on the wiki. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 20 October Action Items: 1. Base Registry Agreement: Michael Flemming will reach out to Validated TLD (vTLD), CTAG.  When reaching out, should ask what particular accommodations are needed and why. 2. Reserved Names: Staff will pull out the different categories of names that might have resulted.  AGB 2.2.1.2.1 -- reserved names, also the names in-eligible for delegation.  Then try to draw a line from the recommendations to the AGB sections such as they exist. Discussion Notes: 1.  Base Registry Agreement · Reached out to BRG, Geo TLDs (Sebastien Ducos). · At the current time we are explaining the arguments of single versus category.  Asking for justification and everyone understands that doesn't mean we need a fully separate agreement, but could mean accommodations in the current agreement.  We are reaching out to category-specific groups on their understanding.  When we do get that feedback it should be specific and allow us to continue our discussion.  Will indicate on the email list which groups we are reaching out to. 2.  ICANN57 Teaser Questions [Reading questions 1, 2, 3 from page 4-5 of the attached slides.] · Question: Reserved Names -- At the top level and the second level? Answer: Both. · The questions seem to overlap what other work tracks might be considering -- is there coordination in relation to the questions?  What are we intending to do with these?Answer: A lot of the other working tracks are look at similar issues and they will overlap in some ways, but these have our perspective.  These questions are not to provide final conclusions, but it's an opportunity to solicit community feedback, and to encourage further participation. · Could add to the COI questions whether the COI is still required. · Could try to get feedback on other problems on the COI from other consultants. Copied from the Chat: Kevin Kreuser: @Kurt, ICANN would welcome eliminating the COI itself, but is still going to want a way to fund EBERO Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Someone should take a look at the transcript of the new gTLD session in Toronto. Many participants raised complaints and concerns about the COI.  ICANN's responses seem unlikely to be different now, IMHO. Kurt Pritz: @Kevin.  there are a lot of ways to skin that cat. For later substantive discussion Kevin Kreuser: absolutely 3. Reserved Names (See slide 6.) · Review the composition of the reserved names list. · Reserved Names Working Group (2006) -- look at the recommendations.  Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate. · Look at excerpt of Issue Report -- 4.3.1 Reserved Names: 4.3.1.4 Rational for Policy Development [reading the section]. · 4.3.1.1 Explanation of Subject [reading from section]. · Look at a higher level what the policy states.  Look at how reserved names came to the mix. · There were 30 recommendations in the final report of the Reserved Names Working Group.  We should go through all of those.  See: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm.  [Reading from the Roles of Reserved Names Table -- existing Reserved Name Requirements (at that time)].  · Take them one-by-one, see what the policy recommendation was, and then compare what was done. · Rather than reading all of the recommendation, we take the first three recommendations, then we look at the AGB to see how it was implemented and any differentials, then discuss whether there is any justification to change them. · Suggest that we start with what was in the AG and only revert back to the Reserved Names WG recommendations and the 2000/2003 Reserved Name requirements, as needed? · Do we think the recommendation still hold up then are these the right names or should they be supplemented?  Also look at the new structures to see if some of these are no longer relevant. · Possible resource: Staff can pull out the different category of names that might have resulted.  AGB 2.2.1.2.1 -- reserved names, also the names in-eligible for delegation.  Then try to draw a line from the recommendations to the AGB sections such as they exist. · Continue discussion at meeting after Hyderabad.