Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. The slides, recording, and chat transcript for this meeting will be available at https://community.icann.org/x/DwWfB. Kind regards, Emily ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Action Items: Action Item 1: Cancel WT3 meeting tentatively scheduled for 6 March 2018. Notes: 1. Welcome & Introductions 2. SOI Updates - no updates 3. Plenary Update - The last plenary call took place at 3:00 UTC today. The topic was Types of TLDs. 4. String Similarity and String Confusion - Slide 4 - review of recommendation 2 and points of general agreement - From the slide: Going forward allowing plurals and singulars in the same language to move forward is not desirable; Terms need to be intended as plurals and singulars. Thus the TLDs .new and .news would not be considered a plural or singular of the same string; Elimination of the SWORD Algorithm. Chat excerpt: Gg Levine (NABP): Agree strongly with plurals/sigular issue. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Support the points of general agreement Donna Austin, Neustar: Support the points of general agreement as well. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): happy for points of General Agreement to be agreed to. - Slide 5 - Review of proposal for string confusion objection Chat excerpt: Rubens Kuhl: The only thing missing is standing. - Comment: we need to provide for an exception for a prior agreement between the parties. We don't want to put people in the position where they have to decide between filing an objection against one applicant and violating a prior agreement with another applicant in the same contention set. - Question: This potentially implicates the Independent Objector. There shouldn't be anything in private applicants' agreements that would prevent the IO from taking action, correct? Chat excerpt: Trang Nguyen: Regarding the string similarity review, ICANN org will provide input on the points of general agreement during the initial report public comment process. Rubens Kuhl: 2012 AGB had no standing for IO to file SCOs. I would like that standing to be added. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): IO doesn't have standing for SCO. Rubens Kuhl: (If IO still exists, of course) Rubens Kuhl: Kristina - Current registries, current applicants and IO would have standing. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): So, to be clear, we're talking about automatic consolidation, right? - WT leadership confirmed that we are talking about automatic consolidation. - What would the group like to see in terms of standing on this objection? Chat excerpt: Rubens Kuhl: Standing needs to be defined. I have a suggestion, others might prefer different standings, but we need to pick one. Rubens Kuhl: Option 1: 2012 AGB (Registries and Applicants) Rubens Kuhl: Option 2: Registries + Applicants + Independent Objector Rubens Kuhl: Option 3: Anyone Rubens Kuhl: My vote: option 2, to add IO. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to relax standing (which would be IO and anyone), we need to require an early dismissal mechanism so applicants don't have to spend $ defending ridiculous objections. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I see advantage in an early dismissal process regardless,Nye's @Kristina Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Rubens' earlier point is important - can we be reminded what we agreed w/r/t IO? (No point in saying we're giving him standing for SCO if we're eliminating it) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Option 2 looks fine. Agree there needs to be IO reform - and more than one IO so conflicts of interest can be avoided. - One perspective - the IO should have standing on the string confusion objection. - Slide 6 - Outstanding questions from previous discussions: Is consolidation of objections inherently unfair in anyway? How to proceed if the objector is an existing TLD operator? Are special considerations/guidelines needed? - Question - why was this question raised on slide 6 - "how to proceed if the objector is an existing TLD operator?" - The issue of verified TLDs in a highly regulated sector has come up in previous conversations. If there is an application for a string that is a synonym/exact translation of a highly regulated string in the same sector and that new string is not regulated, one perspective is that there could be a public safety issue. In this view, if the additional string is allowed, it should have the same restrictions. Chat excerpt: Steve Chan: For the last point about appeals on the previous page, is that specific in any way to the string confusion objections? Or is that the appeal mechanism that has been discussed for all objections grounds and evaluation elements? Rubens Kuhl: I don't see any difference for the 2nd bullet from 2012; if existing TLD, application fails. Like .COM and .ECOM. Rubens Kuhl: Restricting in the same sector would be anti-competitive. Rubens Kuhl: Anything in that sector should only have to carry similar PICs. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): important point Jamie the for raising that Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): might be hard to mandate though Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with GG re regulated strings and eligibility Rubens Kuhl: SCOs in 2012 were actually not expensive. So as long as ICANN keeps it in that range, people will likely won't get "denial of money" attacks. avri doria: Rubens, not all applicants are quite as well set for money. Rubens Kuhl: Avri, I was in the receiving end of one such SCO... and except for the ones in Applicant Support level, I assure you it wouldn't be a problem. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): There's another reason to avoid automatic consolidation - one of the applicants may have trademark rights in the mark that the string matches - required consolidation would likely weaken that applicant's ability to prevail in an SCO Rubens Kuhl: But that could be particular to that dispute resolution provider... if it was carried by ICC, then it could be a million instead of 5 thousand. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Is ICC the provider for string confusion panels? Rubens Kuhl: Consolidate by default, allow for exception to be request by applicant, perhaps ? Jamie Baxter | dotgay: The problem with letting the provider make a final decision on consolidation is that the loss of income for them will always be an influencer Rubens Kuhl: Anne, not in 2012. For SubPro, who knows ? - In response the the first question, one perspective is that consolidation should happen when possible and should be encouraged. In the view of one WT member, there should be additional guidance about where and how to consolidate, so that costs for applicants are not unnecessarily high. - Concern raised about consolidation of objections - failure of weakness of one applicant's response will have an impact on the other applicants in the contention set. - One perspective - the consolidation should be more focused on the financial aspect than it is on only giving one answer. In some cases in the 2012 round, the same answer was given on multiple objections but they were all paid for independently. - Comment: the objectors should be able to provide a rationale for why the objections should be consolidated. - Comment: Unless we hear how existing TLD operators should be treated differently, there is no merit in keeping that question for further consideration. Chat excerpt: Steve Chan: Would the opposite make sense perhaps? Where an objector can specifically request that their objection not be consolidated? Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Steve .. i believe the objector should have the option to make a case for consolidation. the final say on consolidation however cannot be left exclusively in the hands of the provider because money has proven to be a nasty inflencer Steve Chan: @Jamie, I was thinking perhaps in addition to your point? Essentially, the objector would have some say whether or not consolidation for their objection takes place. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Steve .. i see that as being fair as well. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Steve .. what cannot happen however is that the provider declines consolidation because of a single concern from an applicant that financial info may be shared with other applicants in the consolidation when financials had nothing to do with the objection. for the provider to decline consolidation and then assign the same panelist to all cases is a slap in the face and a clear attempt to bill for as much money as possible. 5. Upcoming Meetings - Upcoming call tentatively scheduled for 6 March at 15:00 UTC. The WT would go over material for the Initial Report and prepare for the face-to-face session at ICANN61. - WT members expressed that they may not be able to attend this meeting prior to travel for ICANN61. This meeting will be cancelled. - WG face-to-face session - 10 March 12:00 local time - this session will include material for Work Track 3. - Question - how will the face-to-face meeting be organized? Will this be a good setting to discuss the draft document? - Suggestion - circulate the draft document as early as possible prior to ICANN61. - The leadership team is working on developing draft content and this document will be shared as soon as possible. - For the session in ICANN61 - each Work Track will have a segment of time to cover WT topics. This may be a good opportunity to review draft recommendations and outstanding questions at a high level. 6. AOB - None.