Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 17 August. 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 document and 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 17 August Action: Match the notes/transcript/recording with slides 9.   Start with side 9 at next meeting. 1. Plenary: Topics that were discussed: -- Rounds -- Predictability Framework -- Geographic Names and the Top Level 2. Application Evaluation: Slide 5: Where we are: -- Concluded on some principles. -- Re: financial aggregation to be done by RO not to put an applicant over another applicant in the pool.  Question: What was the consensus in the order of applications? Response: Not in scope for Work Track 4.  Being discussed in other work tracks.   discuss how is should be done.  Could be subject to evaluation in Work Track 1. -- Need to note that is subject to consideration by the plenary.  Not only the plenary, -- Overhaul of the financial questions: Think about developing a strawpersons considering the CC2 comments.  -- Root scaling has to be considered. -- Asked ICANN staff for answers to the classification question.  Still need to provide questions and answers. Slide 6: Non-Scored Questions: -- Question: Are we asking whether an applicant can change the purpose of a TLD?  Is it within the scope of Work Track 4?  Or is it a question on merits?  Response: We can say what it shouldn't be.  The topic of the representation of applicants. It is captured under contractual compliance in Work Track 2 -- seems to make sense to forward it. RSP Program: -- Strawperson couldn't specify. -- How to streamline the process but not get in the way of innovation. Slide 8: Registry Services: -- Does such planned evaluation need to be evaluated? -- What if a registry wants to offer a service of a registry of famous marks?  Someone may want to mount an objection to that. -- What prevents someone from doing what you fear?  Adding this as a new registry service? -- Proposal strawman language that applications wouldn't be allowed to specify registry services.

From the chat room:

Steve Chan: @Anne, the order of evaluation is being discussed in WT1 Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Staff re notes - Cheryl just noted the addition of "subject to considerations of order of evaluation being addressed in Work Track 1" as fine. Julie Hedlund: @Anne: Noted in the chat as the notes are not comprehensive.  We have the recording for that. Steve Chan: There are some thoughts from GDD staff in the Program Implementation Review, starting on page 82 here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf Steve Chan: Regarding the Financial Evaluation and the possible benefit of alternative approaches Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes 18 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): it is of course in scope of other WT's though  so we could shift it from us Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): :-)  all yours as to why Steve :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yep  where it belongs IMO  WT2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): as I said above  (personal opinion of course) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Fob it off  YES please :-) Rubens Kuhl: I don't remember. I should, but I don't. Steve Chan: You can see in section 4.3.4.4 here about the Q18 integration into the RA: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735939/Section%204.3.4.pd... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): That can be a LT call then Anne  WT2 or 2/3  but not ours ;-) Steve Chan: And Objectiosn are indeed in WT3 :) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thanks Steve.  I agree re Work Track 2 being the best fit. Steve Chan: The feedback from GDD has re: changes to the technical evaluation, as well as the response about the CQs, have been added to the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/YT2AAw Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thx Steve  and we will need to focus on these in the WT in the near future Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): slide 7 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): 8 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): hmmm I have a delay in my AC chat turning up... Sorry Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Slide 9 Quoc Pham: is there a typo on point 4? GPML = DPML? Quoc Pham: I would also want to point out that if point 4 is supposed to be DPML, the DPML is a Dounuts product which is not a universal/generic product or service (e.g. offering IDNs), we should avoid pointing out Registry specific products perhaps? Rubens Kuhl: DPML is a registry-specific product. GPML is a general term for PMLs. Quoc Pham: ah ok Quoc Pham: sorry Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Time check 15 mins eft on this call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I tend to agree Anne In my personal capacity but  does such innovation *need* to be evaluated at application is the key  as Rubens is pointin out now Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): re straw-person on registry services - strongly disagree re limiting services described in application.