Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 30 January 2018. 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 chat transcript or the recording. The slides referenced on the call are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 30 January 2018 1.  Statements of Interest Updates: No updates. 2.  Plenary Co-chair Update: -- This weeks' SubPro PDP WG call was canceled. -- Tentatively rescheduled to 06 February at 0300 UTC. -- Held Leadership Meeting between RPM PDP WG and SubPro PDP WG to coordinate the timelines.  Meet more regularly. -- For next SubPro continue discussion of test cases. 3. Coalesce Objections, Continued: a. Limited Public Interest: Slide 4: -- Cross-reference to human rights and freedom of expression -- framework from Accountability Work Stream 2 Cross-Community Working Group Sub Team on Human Rights.  Make sure we aren't in conflict with that work--harmonization and effects that may need to be realized.  What is in scope for ICANN and what is out of scope.  Consider doing a cross-reference document.

From the chat:

Trang Nguyen: As part of the WS1 work, the following language was put into the ICANN Bylaws, under section viii of the Core Values: "Subject to the limitations set forth in Section 27.2, within the scope of its Mission and other Core Values, respecting internationally recognized human rights as required by applicable law. This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission, or beyond obligations found in applicable law. This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations, or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties." Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): The By-Law says that no Objection will be filed based on the Human Rights Commitment until it is adopted by the Board.  I can't remember the exact language but please see revised ByLaws. Trang Nguyen: The work of WS2 is to develop a framework of interpretation for the Human Rights clause in the Core Values. Link to the draft Framework published for public comment is available at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/foi-hr-2017-05-05-en. b. Community Objections: Slide 6: -- Need to come up with a definition for how community is defined.  Or, do we want to ask how communities want to be recognized? -- How to address the issue of standing -- not determined until the objection is in full swing; seems that objections should be weeded out earlier.  Allow applicant to respond to the objection and bring to light that it is potentially unwarranted. -- Need to define what is a community and have more objective criteria. -- Issue of cost in this type of objection is an ongoing concern.

From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): We should consider making the requirement Jamie suggests applicable to ALL objections.  If it makes sense to apply to CO, it should also make sense to apply to the other 3.  To be clear, not advocating on the merits, but the scope. c. Independent Objector: Slide 8: -- Question whether the term "standing panel" is the right phrase.  Panel implies a group to whom things are brought.  -- Need coordination with Work Stream 2 with respect to the Independent Objector? -- There are still portions of the world that we have an obligation to look out for.  It was the fact that the IO was engaged full time as the rest of the world wasn't.  There is a question of resources and awareness.

From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can't come off mute due to background noise, but we absolutely need a conflicts of interest mechanism.  Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Having multiple IOs could potentially address the conflict of interest issue. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): W/r/t IO, the applicant should have an opportunity to have the conflict of interest issue addressed before having to submit a substantive response.  Susan Payne: I think the idea of the standing panel was to address conflicts, ie there are alternatives if one IO is conflicted Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Perhaps there's an initial process (sort of like a quick look, but needs to be substantive) that could be adopted. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Do we know if the IO filed and won any objections that couldn't have been won on any other ground?  That seems to be the question we need to answer before deciding if we still need an IO. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Won by any other person.  Sorry. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Anne the focus in WS1/2 on Irp has also set some new benchmark or expectations her as well 4. Applicant Freedom of Expression: Slide 10: -- No implementation guidance in 2012 AGB. -- Important to have more guidance. -- Not going to have perfect recommendations on this.

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Robin - could you talk about how this was mishandled in the 2012 round? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I was just about to ask the same question @Anne Susan Payne: what if any problems have been identified on this Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed was there an issue Susan Payne: I'd be really keen to understand some real examples because this all sounds very theoretical Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly @Susan Susan Payne: @Jamie - but no-one has blocked the term "GAY" have they?  I realise that there have been issues with the community sttaus but no-one has banned the term Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @ Susan .. no one has blocked it, but one government did express opposision in the comment period. BTW .. .GAY has not been approved yet either