Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 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. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 September See the referenced documents on wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490779. 1.  Proposed order of work Discussion Notes:  · Start out with specific objections: a. Morality & Public Order; b. Legal Rights of Others; c. Confusingly Similar; and d. Community. · Then move to: a. applicant's Freedom of Expression; b. String similarity; and c. Accountability. · Agreed to adopt the above as the work order. 2.  Timeline of the work Action Item: Karen Day and Jian Zhang will circulate a timeline to the list. Discussion Notes:  · Karen Day: o Time needed for each issue would require an overlap in order to aim for end of April 2017. o Might spread ourselves thin to tackle more than one at the same time.  May need to extend the duration of the calls. · Avri Doria: Support the view that we don't want to further split the group and working on parallel tracks.  Think about starting one now, not as a separate track, but as another item to look at while other work (such as staff research) is ongoing. · Phil Buckingham: Need to look at overlaps with other work tracks and running topics/issues in parallel. · Karen Day: The April 28 date in the timeline, is that firm or is it a soft target? · Avri Doria: I think it is a soft target as a first projection. · Jeff Neuman: I am not comfortable calling it a soft target this far out. · Karen Day: Should we be dealing with geo names at the same time as WT2 is dealing with the reserved names list? · Phil Buckingham: That would make sense to us. · Karen Day: I will move forward this week in getting a timeline together to circulate for people to comment on the list. 3.  Other business prior to starting the work Discussion Notes: a. Response to GNSO Council re: Board Letter: Update on the letter to the GNSO Council in response to the Board query on starting subsequent rounds sooner. · Jeff Neuman: The letter was sent on 25 September.  The Council will discuss during its meeting on 29 September.  The PDP WG will discuss in Hyderabad. b. Outreach to SOs/ACs for input into the Work Track 3 work area.  Come to consensus on whether to do that now to get feedback earlier in the process? · Steve Chan: We should consider coordinating inquiries with all the work tracks.  Hinders response rate if there are multiple inquiries. · Jeff Neuman: Prefer having specific questions to send out.  Phil Buckingham agrees. · Avri Doria: Feel strong that we don't need to get this out now.  All Sub Teams should be coming up with material questions, which we won't know until we've had discussions on the work items. 4. Objections – Review of Question, Mapping & Statistics Action Item: Staff will find the Rec 6 Group final report and see if there is anything that needs further discussion. Discussion Notes: a. Principle A -- New gTLDs must be introduced in an orderly, timely, and predictable way.  · Jian Zhang: Is this broad enough to cover all discussions? Can we map different principles into different questions? · Objections: What principles can be applied? o Jeff Neuman: The way that the objections were implemented did they meet the criteria of the principles.  If not what changes need to be made to meet that objective?  Example: Morality and Public Order -- Leave this for the objection process in first round.  How to carry out the objection process -- went through extensive discussion. o Phil Buckingham: Overriding is to enhance consumer choice, consumer trust and competition , innovation , but overriding  stability security on the DNS. o Avri Doria: Still a reasonable principle, but may need to be reviewed based on other work ICANN is doing on these issues, such as the work in Accountability Work Stream 2 on the framework on human rights. o Jeff Neuman: Perhaps staff can come back to us on how Morality and Public Order was used in the last round and what the result was.  When it was used, how it was used, and what was the result.  Link to objection stats. o Avri Doria:  Look at the Rec 6 group formed during the AGB timeframe talking through these issues.  b. Legal right of others: · Karen Day: Since it was unsuccessful in the first round does that affect how it could be addressed in the next round? · Paul McGrady: This principle was not incorporated adequately in the AGB.  Mismatch for the Paris Principle.  Now we know it is defective at the fundamental level.  Need to address this at the next round. · Jeff Neuman: Agree in part, but I think it was fairly effective in scary someone away from applying for something that was someone else's brand.  Where it failed in some cases -- Ping, a trademark in golf didn't prevail because of the infringement analysis.  Does need some fixes. · Karen Day: Look at where people think the improvements could be in the AGB: 3.2.2.2 Legal Rights Objection, 3.2.2.3 Limited Public Interest Objection · Jeff Neuman: One thing we can discuss is question 18 asked of all applicants -- an unscored part of the application and not carried forward into the registry agreement, "What is the purpose of your TLD?" · Paul McGrady: What is the effect of questioning; what is a second-level infringement of a top-level Domain Name -- how to monitor and enforce?  Should applicants be bound by responses to Question 18?  Raised a lot of thorny issues -- Pandora's box. · Jian: Who is the rights holder?