Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 22 September. 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/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. In addition, the slides used in today’s call are attached and posted to the wiki. A general note from the call is for the next meeting to start with the issue raised by Paul McGrady: Paul highlighted that this working track should tackle the T&Cs of applying for a New gTLD. He would like the Sub Team to spend some more time on this issue and seek to outline if we do need to consider this matter; while at the same time discussing the background, any relevant material, and whether this is policy. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 22 September 1. Prioritization/Grouping/Dependencies: For the timeline and scope of new gTLD activities that are underway see: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews. Discussion Notes: · Look at dependences and relevant issues for each topic to determine start date. · Look at a schedule that has the relevant reviews or PDPs showing when they will end. · Current priority trys to reflect the weight of each topic. · Rubens Kuhl -- On 2nd level RPMs: One note is that any RPM not revisited by the RPM WG needs to be revisited in this WG. It's a charter requirement. · Alexander Schubert -- Reserved Names: The CCWG on Territory Names according to my observations won't provide useful input: Their scope of work is way broader then what we seek. So let’s watch them - but do not wait for input: There won't be any. · On coordinating with the CCWG: Annabeth Lange and Heather Forrest are on the CCWG.  Ask them to provide updates. · Paul McGrady: This is not a PDP.  Take that into consideration concerning their recommendations. · Avri Doria: But should fully take into account any issues they raise, particularly if we take an alternate path. · IGO/INGO -- already a PDP -- with ICANN Board to reconcile GAC advice and PDP recommendations; Also the Country and Territory Name Cross Community Working group.  Phil Corwin is Chair.  This is a placeholder if something is not resolved by these two efforts.  Review the outputs. · Phil Buckingham: Registry/registrar separate was controversial · Jeff Neuman: We are not remaking decisions about whether to allow registrars to be registries and visa-versa.  Looking at issues about the code of conduct. · Phil Buckingham: Global Public Interest -- look at work already done in CCWG-Accountability. o Paul McGrady -- What does it mean in this context?  o Phil Buckingham -- Seems outside of our remit.  o Michael Flemming -- Decide whether to even have recommendations. o Jeff Neuman: The Sub Team should go back to the Discussion Group report to see why Global Public Interest was included. 4. Base Agreement (High level discussion): Action Items:  Staff will endeavor to find out how many .brands signed up for Spec 13. 4.3.2.4 Rationale for Policy Development (from Final Issue Report): Discussion Notes: Questions: · Does a single base agreement make sense for all types of registries? · Jeff Neuman -- Need to have different physical agreements for some of the categories, such as .Brand.  But likely to be a set of common terms and conditions. Additional questions for the Sub Team to consider from Jeff Neuman: · Does anyone not agree with the notion of having different agreements for different types of TLDs? · Other than "brands", are there any other categories of TLDs that merit their own agreement? · With respect to brands, are the qualifications set forth in Specification 13 the right ones to measure a "brand"?; (4) What are the processes for switching to a different agreement?