Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 28 November.  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/uQ2bAw Best, Steve New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Monday, 28 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Apologies: On audio only: Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Recap from ICANN57 Subsequent Procedures Session on WT2 Issues 4. Reserved Names on the Top Level 6. AOB Notes/Action Items: 3. Recap from ICANN57 Subsequent Procedures Session on WT2 Issues - Single base agreement vs category-based agreements: recognize that there are different needs, but still up for debate whether separate agreements are needed, or those differences could be accounted for via specifications (or similar). - BRG, other groups to prepare feedback on specific needs of certain types of TLD category - Can ICANN handle operationally? - COI - Agreement that EBERO is needed, but can consider whether COI is the proper mechanism to support EBERO. - Reserved Names - Discussed briefly. Misc - Moving forward, allow for more consideration of background materials and provide a basis before delving into substantive discussion. Make topics more digestible as well (e.g., like only concentrating on top-level RNs today) 4. Reserved Names on the Top Level - ONLY looking at top-level today - Only revisit rationale if change is needed (or may be needed)? - ICANN/IANA names - additional ICANN names were added in AGB, does not include PTI, since it did not exist. LATNIC not included, but otherwise no changes. Should RFC6761 be added/integrated b/c of authorities granted via the IETF MoU and its management of protocols? - Consider whether new IANA names should be included (e.g., PTI) - Only English, so any reason to expand to any other languages? Acronyms in other languages may not be sensible, but perhaps EXAMPLE, INVALID, etc. ACTION ITEM: Staff to gather list of acronyms related to IANA transition - Symbols - why were hyphens not allowed (other than in 3rd and 4th positions for IDNs)? May be worth considering rationale here and determine if there is any technical (or other) reason otherwise to avoid hyphens. - Single Letters - Any additional research completed to allow for release of single letter TLDs in ASCII? ACTION ITEM: Investigate single character IDNs, find experts to provide analysis. - Single and Two Digits - AGB went further and required only letters. Can consider 1) ALL digits and/or 2) letters and digits. - No objections to continuing prevention of ALL digits. - Letters and digits - may introduce more UA issues, since numbers are not currently expected in code. Code was written specifically to avoid allowing entry of invalid TLDs (and not necessarily just lazy code). - Should it be up to the applicant to determine if the risk is worth it? - Kurt - There was a concern that a leading or trailing digit would be interpreted as the start as an IP address by some applications / browsers. That concern is demonstrable. It is less demonstrable that an interior digit would be interpreted somehow by an IP address. Could interior digits be considered separately? - Should digits be disallowed b/c of known code issues, which perpetuates the issue? [possible] ACTION ITEM: Ask for guidance around letters and digits (and other issues) from the UASG, SSAC, other experts. Two Letters - not allowed in policy and AGB. However, 2-char IDNs allowed unless a) visually similar to one-char label (and script) or b) visually similar to two-char ASCII combos. Tagged Names - Consistent between policy/AGB. Nic/Whois/www - Consistent between policy/AGB. Could consider adding RDDS (and/or RDS)? Roger Carney - they are technically different where "Most peopole see RDS as larger - Registration Directory Services, RDDS Registration Data Directory Services. RDDS being more specific to Data and RDS being more general about the system. It was a discussion in the RDS pDP WG" Geographic Names - Skipped for now while waiting for CWG-UCTN, GAC WG, etc. Geopolitical Names (including IDNs) - Consistent between policy/AGB. May be touched on by GAC Geo Names WG. Controversial Names - No list, but a dispute policy -> became the LPI objection process. Should make sure outcome of Limited Public Interest Objection is understood (from WT3). Declared Variants Strings Ineligible for Delegation String Requirements Name Collision (Reserved Names) Steven Chan
 Sr. Policy Manager

 ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 steve.chan@icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886
 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/