Dear Sub Team Members, On the call today, WT members requested an editable version of text on the slides, so that they can more easily review the content, offer suggestions, and propose edits. This text has now been added to the very beginning of the WT4 working document (under the header FOR WT MEMBER REVIEW -- ITEMS DISCUSSED ON 19 JUNE CALL), available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Axd1hmt6-qSaCGxC9UbTqBM4gP7aVxySOH3fMZ1W.... If you are having trouble with this document or prefer to work with a Word version of the text, please get in touch. Kind regards, Emily From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Tuesday 20 June 2017 at 16:24 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 Sub Team Meeting 20 June Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 June. 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. Note also that the referenced slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 20 June Action Item: Create an editable text. 1. Full Work Group Update -- Next meeting is in ICANN59. See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49Q/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-pd... -- Geographic Name session -- Putting the different proposals into documents for review. -- Working with CBI to arrange GeoNames sessions at ICANN59 2. Tentative consensus discussions: -- Demonstrating technical capability only after evaluation -- Technical Evaluation to be performed as aggregated / consolidated as feasible -- Financial Evaluation to be performed in aggregation of a registry family -- Universal Acceptance -- IDNs Security and stability review -- IDNs 1-char TLDs -- IDN Variant TLDs -- Name collision framework for subsequent procedures 5. Topic still requiring more discussion: (time permitting) -- Name collisions in legacy and current gTLDs -- 2-year readiness in name collision framework Slide 6: Demonstrating technical capacity only after evaluation (revised after CC2). Slide 7: Technical Evaluation to be performed as aggregated/consolidated as feasible: Slide 8: Financial Evaluating to be performed in aggregation of a registry family. Slide 9: Universal Acceptance -- Great to know what questions people would want prior to any new language. -- Not saying anything very different. Slide 10: IDNs: Security and Stability Review -- Need to adjust language related to RFCs (e.g., required versus informational) -- LGRs should be singular Slide 11: IDNs: I-Char IDN TLDs (revised after WT4, SSAC, ICANN Org, and CC2 Comments) -- Not sure the role of this section is to comment on country or territory names here. -- Ideogragh or ideogram -- not sure these are the right terms. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Avir and Jeff re Strawperson on geo names - it is going to be tough when you ask the country whether the name is protected by national legal right or not. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): *@Avri - not Avir! Jeff Neuman: Thanks....been having some power issues at my home Jeff Neuman: But I am back Jeff Neuman: Strawbunnies hopped away avri doria: Anne, just one of the challenging subjects, I expect Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes this is an aspirational Agenda... To Be Continued if needs be.. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Avri - yes - but Strawperson very interesting for discussion! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Does previously approved "infrastructure" mean a previously approved back-end provider? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I just dont know what "infrastructure' means Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I agree Harmonized language will be useful/// Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes All tracks Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree about harmonized language. How does a new provider get approved Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and a glossary in our reports Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Are we suggesting that timing of consideration/evaluation of an application would depend on who the back-end provider is? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: That seems prejudicial to new entrants in the arena of back-end registry operator services if so. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thanks Ruben for clarifying it does not affect priority of evaluation. But even if it speeds things up in terms of evaluation, it might be prejudicial to new entrants because applicants won't choose new entrants.