My apologies and regrets for not being able to attend the meeting this morning. The Adobe Connect link resolved to a page that stated “resource not found.”

 

On the topic of name collision, I do not believe it is helpful to the next round to revisit permanently reserved names. The more pertinent question, already included in the questions for JAS, is whether there are any strings that were not applied for in the first round that could be deemed too high risk to delegate in subsequent rounds. My view is that the lone goal with respect to name collisions should be to inform potential applicants of all reserved gTLDs prior to significant allocation of resources to an application for a reserved gTLD in the next round. This goal does not require revisiting names that have already been permanently reserved based on commissioned reports and public comment.

 

The iniquity on each applicant for .home, .mail and .corp was not that it was not delegated the gTLD. There were many competing applications for the now permanently reserved names. Any individual applicant’s chances of delegation were quite low. The iniquity was that the applicants invested substantial resources in applications for gTLDs that it turned out were never available at all.

 

Best regards,

 

Nate

 

Nathaniel W. Edwards

Counsel

602.262.5367 office

602.748.2530 fax

nedwards@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2595

lrrc.com

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sub Team Members,

 

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 October.  These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording.  Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings.

 

Best regards,

Julie

 

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 October

 

Action Items:

1.       Update the JAS questions in the Google Doc with the suggested additions.  

2.       Avri and Jeff will draft a letter for GDD concerning contacting the JAS.

3.       Send the final version of the outreach questions, as well as the JAS questions, to the Sub Team WT4 list.  Send to the community and JAS after Hyderabad.

 

Discussion Notes:

 

1.  Update from WG activities

 

·         The next meeting is a face-to-face meeting in Hyderabad, Thursday, 03 November, 13:45-18:30.  See: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cxk/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-working-group-face-to-face-meeting and remote access at: https://participate.icann.org/hyd57-hall6.

·         The Working Group and Work Track Sub Teams are working on outreach questions.

·         The next call will be scheduled in the last week of November.  A notice will be sent.

 

2.  Actions from meeting #3 and Specific Outreach Questions (Continued):

 

Referencing the slides -- slide 5.  Also, see the questions at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/147Jn259tNHjFEcZyzPrCWyv8y7GmBVaVL_xVVZa9_G4/edit?ts=5811fb9f.  Specific questions for JAS Advisors on Application Quality Control and Name Collisions.

 

·         Should we ask more generally: “Under what set of circumstances could .corp, .home, and .mail be released as TLDs?  Under what, if any...”

·         Ask questions that would directly impact the outcome of the next round, not the current round.

·         The question could be added to the third bullet point under name collisions: "Are there circumstances where strings considered high risk could be released.  "Based on data from the first round, can the controlled interruption period be reduced in future rounds..."

·         Add: "What if any circumstances could be released under  BP3."  Add Text for controlled Interruptions.

·         From staff: Could provide these to GDD staff since they liaise with JAS.  I think they may have suggestions concerning the questions too.

·         We will write to GDD asking them for them to let us contact JAS directly, but wouldn't suggest having staff revise the questions.

·         Referencing the outreach questions (slide 7), for Hyderabad and also for community input.  Might need to work out to the ccNSO too.