Please see below the notes/actions captured by staff from the meeting on 21 March and let us know if you have comments, changes, or questions.  Note that an MP3 is available at http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-21mar16-en.mp3 and a transcript will be provided.  

As noted during the call the next meeting will be Monday, 28 March at 1600 UTC for 90 minutes.  Please see the meeting notice that has been sent via separate email.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

a.  Notify/advise GNSO Council that there are community concerns about this PDP progressing too quickly (e.g., GAC, ALAC, CCT Review Team).

b.  Question re: Quick Look Mechanism — Staff confirmed that it was applied to all three of the most recent GNSO PDPs, including this one.  See: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-quick-look-mechanism-19feb16-en.pdf. 

Discussion Notes:  Go out initially to the SOs/ACs on the overarching issues, but not getting into each of the separate work items/sub groups.  Move forward on those after processing the overarching issues.  Note that this could result in more comment periods, but should provide more focused responses.  There were no stated objections to this approach during the call.

Clarifying Questions:

a. Alan Greeberg: Was there ever a reconciliation of the money taken from the reserve?  If there is a deficit does this need to be added to the applicant fees?  Answers: Jeff Neuman believes that ICANN staff feels that it is still in that process.  A presentation was given to the CCT Review Team.

Action Item: Get the presentation that was provided to the CCT Review Team in Marrakech and ask for more data if necessary/desired.  Per this action item see the materials from the Marrakech meeting at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58727546 and in particular the financials at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58727546&preview=/58727546/58729542/New%20gTLD%20Program%20-%20Financials%20160308.pdf. 

b. Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach: Clarification To Chairs: To what degree is this group supposed to provide "detailed" implementation guidelines rather than addresing a principle frameworks with suggestions for "things/issues" to change/implement. Example: Is job done by suggesting we need categories of strings with requirements fit for each categories ? Or are we supposed to suggested exact criteria for each category (GEOs/Brands/cultural/non for profit TLDs etc?

Answer: (Jeff Neuman) — Previously we provided high-level principles, but not implementation details.  Perhaps more guidance is needed, but it depends on how deeply we get into criteria.  Since 2007 the GNSO developed policy & implementation guidelines.  (Avri Doria) — There is a formal procedure for doing that implementation oversight work.  (Mary Wong) —  The Policy & Implementation Working Group recommended certain principles for policy making as well as a Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (among other recommendations) See the Final Report from that Working Group, containing all their recommendations as of June 2015: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf.

a.  Khaled: With whom will the registry be signed and what is the jurisdiction/controlling law? And what is the mechanism for the applicant to decide?

b. Rubens Kuhl: Can we invite ICANN Legal to join the PDP to help address these questions?

Action Item: Before beginning the discussion on Work Stream 3 we address any further clarifying questions on Work Streams 1 and 2.