Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 08 September. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 08 September 1. Meeting Times: Discussion Notes: · Rotating Times: 0300, 1500, and 2000 UTC. · These times are not set in stone.  This is the original rotation for meetings on Thursdays. · The 2000 time works in general, but there is support for rotation too. 2. Working Methods/Schedule: Discussion Notes: · Use the wiki for topic discussions. · Decide whether to work in parallel or in sequence. · Michael Flemming: What is our end date? · Jeff Neuman: Goal is to get everything done with a preliminary report with all input by mid 2017 and get feedback on it. Action Items: 1.  Discuss final goal/dates on the next call. 2.  Discuss whether to work in parallel or in sequence on the next call. 3.  Project Management: Discussion Notes: · Give everything a priority number. · Have a start and end date for the team, but need to look at prioritization and grouping to work more effectively.  Ignore the start and end dates for things we need to come back to, such as input from SO/ACs. 4. Work Plan: Discussion Notes: · Jeff Neuman and Heather Forrest: CWG on Country and Territory Names: Hopes to have the report finalized by Hyderabad.  This may be a dependency.  How to scale up CWG who aren't used to working with GNSO groups.  Perhaps have a separate work track?  Suggest delaying this discussion in order to take into consideration the research from the CWG and final report. · Rubens Kuhl: Other possible reserved names with security issues (in Work Track 4). · Michael Flemming: Make sure to come back to reserved names and consider adjusting the time. · Paul McGrady: Right to postpone, but skeptical about why this is in the legal/regulatory track. · Jeff Neuman: Reason it is in the track is because legal and regulatory issues at the second level of reserved names. · Michale Flemming: IPC has had a lot of debate with respect to whether any country rights exist. · Jeff Neuman: We have the territory issue because:  1) address at the top level and the second level reserved names 2) also a policy issue.  There is certain law that deals with this, but we need to address it from a policy issue. · Phil Marano (Mayer Brown): IGO-INGO seems broader than reserved names, since it potentially covers curative rights, yes? · Jeff Neuman:  Yes, but there is a separate group working on finalizing their recommendations. · Paul McGrady: Base Agreement is a big topic.  Maybe terms and conditions in the AGB might come first? · Steve Coates: Agree with Paul. · Jeff Neuman: When we said we are dealing with the "Base Agreement", I think we aredealing now only with the concept of whether to have 1 agreement to fit all, or whether we as a group support the notion of potentially having separate agreements for separate categories · Michael Flemming: Prioritization is what we need to address and should address your point. · Paul McGrady: Also look at all mandatory contracts, e.g. Terms of Service for any mandatory Applicant Portal and Terms of Service for the TMCH.