Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 3 August. 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 meeting recording and chat transcript will soon be available at: https://community.icann.org/x/uwAhB The slides from the call are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily _______________________________________________________________________ Notes – New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG WT4 – 3 August 2017 2. SOI updates - No updates 3. Universal Acceptance (slide 10) - Assumed policy scope -- encourage adoption by removing barriers to usage, not in a marketing sense - Review of Principle B - WT4 and CC2 comments usually satisfied with UASG efforts, some suggestions to raise awareness of their effort - Different from 2007, IDN TLDs (ccTLDs and gTLDs) are already in the root - Possible language "Some new generic top-level domains should be international domain names (IDNs), although applicants should be made aware of univeral acceptance challenges in ASCII and IDN TLDs (https://uasg.tech<https://uasg.tech/>). - ACTION ITEM: Change "should" to "could" in this text. - Question - is everyone on the call happy with this language? (several green checks in support, no expressions of opposition) - Are there additional items we should add to the text? Other things we should be doing to foster UA? - Question: how much participation in this WT do we have from people with experience with IDN TLDs? - Rubens has worked on the launch of ASCII new gTLDs and related acceptance issues, as well as IDN SLDs. - Sarmad Hussain from ICANN org (on this call) has expertise in this topic. - Cheryl has participated in policy development related to IDN ccTLD Fast Track and other IDN-related initiatives. From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we also bring in experts and key staff on the topics Alan - Sometimes there is concern that we are talking about things without talking to people who actually experience them, although this may not apply to this group. - We already covered IDNs and Universal Acceptance on the last two calls - Suggestion on language of draft text on IDNs on slide 8 -- where it currently says "by force of agreement" -- change text to "by force of written agreement." (no opposition expressed) - ACTION ITEM: Change text on slide 8 from "by force of agreement" to "by force of written agreement." From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): IN the proposed language for IDN variants of already existing or applied for TLDs, I believe we should add "written" to the language about "by force of agreement". In other words, "by force of written agreement" would mean the commitment is in the Registry Agreement with ICANN. 4. Road ahead for WT4 - Timing of technical capability being required - Technical evaluation to be performed in aggregation - Financial evaluations to be performed in aggregation - Name collisions --- Subject to possible new feedback from technical community outreach - On which of these topics do members need more information? Which topics are members ready to discuss? - Outstanding questions pending answers from ICANN org. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: If there is an RSP Program, we should discuss the implementation of that Jeff Neuman: Evaluation criteria - Question - from the slides on name collision - "depends on ICANN org response. . ." - which response are we addressing? - Request to ICANN org on name collisions that were reported. - Comment on name collisions - it would be helpful to have better understanding of the proposed language for the name collision framework. - The proposed framework is very similar to the framework in 2012 with some clarifications. - Based on suggestion from the office of the CTO is to reach out to technical groups to see if they have additional input. - Language on slides from ICANN59 session on the exception to the controlled interruption period -- this appears to be a difference -- it would be helpful to understand the implications of this language. - One of the known collisions is a case where there was a request to stop a controlled interruption. This changed text is intended to address the problem that came up in this case. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: It does seem that exceptions to controlled interruption to be granted by ICANN.org in its discretion need some policy guidelines rather than being open-ended. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Futher to Alan's previous comment, I doubt I personally have the technical knowledge necessary to provide the policy guidelines for ICANN.org granting exceptions to controlled interruption. Would need help from technical community so that IS an answer to your question as to whether we need more information. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Futher to Alan's previous comment, I doubt I personally have the technical knowledge necessary to provide the policy guidelines for ICANN.org granting exceptions to controlled interruption. Would need help from technical community so that IS an answer to your question as to whether we need more information. New or further discussion needed - Name collisions in legacy TLDs - Name collisions 2-year readiness for both 2012 round gTLDs and subsequent procedures -- depends on ICANN org response on the 2012 round collisions - Root zone scaling -- Outreach to SSAC, RSSAC, and OCTO upcoming -- ICANN org responded to questions on improvements to reduce the likelihood of SLA failures --- WT members are encouraged to review this feedback, which may feed into conversations on a number of WT topics. Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976