Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 01 December at 03:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 17 – NCSG ACTION ITEM: Reference with “subject to the Predictability Framework” and revise to add an "extraordinary circumstances" provision to 3.5, as with 3.6. Row 19 – ICANN org Re: 3. Have we concluded that applications can be forced to close (or forced with withdraw)? Thought the Board could close a round and force a withdraw, but not sure. ACTION ITEM: Revise the recommendation to say that if there is a reason for withdrawal then all remaining applications for that string would be closed unless there is a reason not to do so. Topic 16: Application Submission Period<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT...> Row 10 – ICANN Org re: Provide min and max timeframe. ACTION ITEM: Revise according to the ICANN org comment on min and max timeframe, to perhaps 12-15 weeks. Topic 19: Application Queuing<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jS1m66MxbJRWhhQQTZBpyZnIuWm4ncpJFkiW...> Row 15 – ICANN Org re: Clarify affirmation of 2012 implementation. ACTION ITEM: Modify the affirmation with that it is the prioritization draw but that the logistical details of the draw can be decided by the IRT. Tie the Implementation Guidance to the affirmation. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: Topic 1: Continuing Subsequent Procedures<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Overview – Leadership Comments: Extremely wide / diverse support. No real need to address any of the comments during the call from Leadership perspective. Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 6 – GBOC re: Accept .brand applications on a rolling basis; Row 13 -- Minds + Machines Group Limited Leadership Comments: Noted. This has been discussed on several occasions and not adopted by the Working Group. Row 14 – IPC re: Should be possible to pause rounds if necessary; Row 15 -- ALAC Leadership Comments: Working Group to discuss. Where is the 30-day pause limitation (IPC)? Noted. This has been discussed on several occasions and not adopted by the Working Group. Discussion: -- If anyone from the IPC could take note it would be helpful to send something on the list. Row 17 – NCSG Leadership Comments: New Round is not likely to start until 2022/23. Any recommendations based on Covid 19 today is not likely to be the case for that time period. Discussion: -- Question: What should go into the recommendation? Is this policy or implementation? Answer: That the predictability would that future rounds should take into account world events. -- IPC comment: Seems that there is mention of an emergency procedure, but it’s not explicit. -- Predictability model has a number of procedures relating to emergencies. -- 3.5 governs predictability along with the Predictability Framework. -- Maybe just add an "extraordinary circumstances" provision to 3.5, like 3.6? -- Just build a bridge saying “subject to the Predictability Framework”? ACTION ITEM: Reference with “subject to the Predictability Framework” and revise to add an "extraordinary circumstances" provision to 3.5, as with 3.6. Row 19 – ICANN org Leadership Comments: 1. ICANN asks whether we have defined what it means to end a round - We have tried on several occasions, but no good definition exists to declare a round completely done. 2. We need to confirm that the wording meanings are the same. 3. Have we concluded that applications can be forced to close (or forced with withdraw)? Thought the Board could close a round and force a withdraw, but not sure. 4. Change delegation in "If all applications for a particular string have been withdrawn, meaning the string has not been delegated" to "meaning that no Registry Operator has signed a Registry Agreement for the string." 5. We do not view this recommendation as inconsistent with 4.6(d)(iv) of the bylaws on CCT-RT's ability to make recommendations for future rounds. In fact, it recognizes that changes can be made through the Predictability Process and if they are material changes, they will apply to the next round after the round in which the changes are recommended. Discussion: Re: 3. Have we concluded that applications can be forced to close (or forced with withdraw)? Thought the Board could close a round and force a withdraw, but not sure. -- Should we have a recommendation that these applications should be closed and a refund issued, or if the applicant can’t be identified, then the funds would go to identified programs (see relevant sections.) -- Worried about instituting an administrative withdrawal. What about if there were ongoing legal disputes? -- It’s not an absolute rule. Could say all remaining applications for that string would be closed unless there is a reason not to. ACTION ITEM: Revise the recommendation to say that if there is a reason for withdrawal then all remaining applications for that string would be closed unless there is a reason not to do so. Row 20 – Nameshop Leadership Comments: Need to make sure that the terms are self-explanatory as to when things are final. Maybe don't rely on specific terms, but say what is intended. When there is no further option to appeal or challenge. Topic 5: Application Submission Limits<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Rows 10 and 13 – NCSG re: Support limiting applications submitted Leadership Comments: Noted and previously discussed. This came in with their last set of comments and was not accepted by the Working Group. Noted. If this recommendation is supported by all of the groups listed above, then the NCSG is free to submit a minority report with its position. Topic 16: Application Submission Period<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT...> Row 10 – ICANN Org re: Provide min and max timeframe. Leadership Comments: Consider revisiting issue of providing a range as opposed to an exact week count. 12-15 weeks? ACTION ITEM: Revise according to ICANN org comment on min and max timeframe, to perhaps 12-15 weeks. Topic 19: Application Queuing<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jS1m66MxbJRWhhQQTZBpyZnIuWm4ncpJFkiW...> Row 14 -- Internet DotTrademark Organisation Limited re: Prioritize IDN variants. Leadership Comments: Refer to ePDP? Row 15 – ICANN Org re: Clarify affirmation of 2012 implementation. Leadership Comments: The Affirmation was on the prioritization Draw. If there are changes that still utilizes the Draw (eg., in person or not) or the law changes, then those should be discussed during the IRT and/or if after the Guidebook with the SPIRT. Might need to do an affirmation with modification, but logistics left to IRT. Boil down to what MUST be in there. There is Implementation Guidance in 19.4 -- maybe need to tie this IG to the affirmation. ACTION ITEM: Modify the affirmation with that it is the prioritization draw but that the logistical details of the draw can be decided by the IRT. Tie the Implementation Guidance to the affirmation.