Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 February. These high-level notes are designed to help WG 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/x/l7HDAw. Kind regards, Emily ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items: ACTION ITEM: If people have comments that they make on the call, it would be helpful if they could also insert a written note in the CC2 document reflecting that comment. ACTION ITEM: All WG members should read through text and suggest edits in the document. Notes: 2. SOIs - no updates 3. Work Track Updates WT 1 (Sara Bockey) - meeting tomorrow: will focus on systems, communications, and the AGB. If the WG sends questions back to the WT for clarification, the WT will address the questions on the WT call. WT2 (Michael Flemming) - Call this week will focus on Closed Generics and any questions about CC2 from the full group. WT3 (Karen Day) - Currently looking at string related issues. Next week’s meeting will focus on confusing similarity objections, sword tool, and community applications. WT4 (CLO) - Last week, guest presenter Don Hollander spoke about UA. 4. Community Comment 2 (CC2) first reading (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-...). - Page 1, no questions or concerns - Avri added a comment on pg 2 regarding accreditation, no concerns expressed EDIT: Spell out all acronyms in the text when used for the first time. - Question: are we required to use the term accreditation by the Charter or can we use an alternate term, such as certification? Answer: this is the term used in the Charter, but we may not be required to use it. We may want to keep the words as they were in the original document, but add a note describing alternate terminology or a footnote about use of terminology, in general. ACTION ITEM: If people have comments that they make on the call, it would be helpful if they could also insert a written note in the CC2 document reflecting that comment. - Page 3, comments are largely clarifications, no additional comments - Page 4, no additional comments - Page 5, no additional comments - Suggestion for clarification on sentence just before 1.1.1, add to the text after the word “operators” the words “acting as its own RSP.” EDIT: In text just before 1.1.1, add to the text after the word “operators” the words “acting as its own RSP.” - Page 5-6 comment from Greg Shatan -- include both benefits and risks or include neither. EDIT: Greg Shatan and Jeff Neuman will work together on this paragraph regarding benefits and risks in 1.1.1. - Page 6 - 1.1.6 – Comment: this question is unclear. Response: The purpose of the question is to say that we could take some findings and lessons learned from the other group. The question could be revised or removed. Edit: Remove question 1.1.6. From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): As someone who is currently going through the Material Subcontracting Arrangement Assignment process, the lesson I'm learning is that we really need an RSP accreditation/certification program. - 1.1.8 - Suggestion to change "continuous" to "periodic." Clarification - the purpose of the question is once approved, does there need to be a regular review. EDIT: In 1.1.8, change the word "continuous" to "periodic” and/or clarify further. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: If we are confused in what the question means, the community will be more confused. jeff neuman: Agree with Rubens, let's make sure we note that - 1.1.10 - Request for clarification of the language with respect to grandfathering. Answer: this refers to the grandfathering of entities that already serve as an RSP. EDIT: Clarify text of 1.1.10 with respect to grandfathering of entities that already serve as an RSP. - 1.2 comment on publicity and outreach - suggestion to add a question on this topic. EDIT: Add question on publicity and outreach in 1.2. - 1.2.1.2 - comment requesting clarification on terminology: least developed, developing, developed, underserved. If we are using UN terms, we should mention that. Otherwise we should define terms. EDIT: In 1.2.1.2, explain the origin of the terms used (least developed, developing, developed, underserved, etc). - 1.2.2 - request to clarify the language of this question. What other support mechanisms are being referenced? EDIT: In 1.2.2, clarify language around support mechanisms being referenced. - 1.2.3 - request for clarification on what is meant by success metric. Lack of participation has been cited as an issue. AMGlobal report indicated that even with a perfectly designed program, there may be reasons why prospective applicants may not apply. Question may require additional wordsmithing. EDIT: In 1.2.3, clarify language about success metrics. From the chat: Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): on the applicant support: couln't there be an open 1.2.4. question requesting any other suggestions for improving it? EDIT: Add open-ended question at 1.2.4 requesting any other suggestions for improving applicant support. - 1.3.1 Request to amplify and clarify that changes occured at two different times and the timing of the impact on applicants. Response: different applicants may have had impact at different points in time. Do changes made after the application has been submitted have a particularly negative effect? EDIT: In 1.3.1, clarify language regarding the timing of changes and impact at different points in time. From the chat: Trang Nguyen: Application changes are sometimes needed for applicants to address issues raised against their applications, for example to address GAC early warning. - 1.4 - There is a comment in the document from Greg Shatan on confusion on cost recovery concept and implementation of this concept (throughout the section) - 1.4 - Comment in the document from Donna Austin also speaks to this distinction - Comment: it is difficult to implement a cost recovery model. - 1.4.2 - Comment in the document regarding surplus. Is it true that there was significant surplus? If inaccurate, should be corrected. - Suggestion to change or remove the word " considerable." (no objections to this comment) EDIT: In 1.4.2, remove the word “considerable.” - 1.4.2 - Comment in the text -- lobbying may have been included in that third bucket which was a non-legal cost, but should be clarified if there were other contingencies. EDIT: In 1.4.2, clarify specific costs mentioned in relation to contingency. - 1.4.3 - Comment in the text - what is a strict vs. non-strict cost recovery fee? Reponse: People were concerned if the cost recovery fees were too low or too high. i.e. No other activities would be included to increase the price over some minimum. Suggestion to remove the work "strict." What are the implication of calculating just based on cost recovery vs. cost recovery along with other considerations, such as to prevent squatting and gaming. EDIT: Reword 1.4.3 to clarify the intention of this question. - 1.6.2 – Question in the document regarding application window- response: it was discussed that 3 months may be an appropriate application window in the first round but that a shorter window could be appropriate in the future. EDIT: Reword or remove 1.6.2. This should be a follow-up to an overarching question, not a repeat of a question on overarching issues. - 1.7.1 – Comment: unclear what we are talking about with respect to first come, first serve in this question. Response: this question is asking a hypothetical question as the issue of first come, first serve has not been settled. This is talking about queuing on applications for review (first come, first evaluated). Suggestion for language: "first submitted for order of processing." EDIT: Clarify text in 1.7.1 to explain the use of the term first come, first serve. From the chat: Laura Watkins (Nominet): order of receipt Alexander Schubert: Order of receipt leads to benefiting portfolio applicants who submit run of the mill applications! Laura Watkins (Nominet): Alexander - I meant as an alternative phrase to replace "1st come 1st served" jeff neuman: I believe we should eliminate question 1.7.3 EDIT: Delete question 1.7.3. - 1.8 - No objections to suggested edits -1.9.2 - No objections to moving this question to Applicant Support section. It can remain as an example in 1.9. EDIT: Move 1.9.2 to Applicant Support section of the document. In 1.9.2, change the words "in particular" to "for example." - We may need to schedule an additional call to continue going over CC2 questions. - IGF meeting 9:00-12:00 and 14:00-17:00 UTC Wed through Fri this week. This will be a potential conflict for some people. If we hold another meeting this week, we should try to avoid these times. ACTION ITEM: All WG members should read through text and suggest edits in the document. 5. ICANN58 Planning - F2F on first day of ICANN58- 8:30 to 11:45 – The group plans to use the CC2 questions as a basis for the conversation, explain context and clarify the questions. If there is time we can also get some answers and feedback on the questions. There should be equal distribution of time for each WT. - Wednesday (Day 5) from 17:00 to 18:30 - additional session, community facing and outreach focused. - New gTLD Program Review session will take place on Monday 13 March at 13.45. From the chat: Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): @jeff/@avri: on ICANN 58 I guess GAC Sec will approach you to invite you (and any interested WG members) to the GAC sessions on new gTLDs avri doria: yes Jorge, think we have received the invitation. avri doria: we == Jeff and I. since they are open meetings all members should look at participating. - We are trying to get through two readings so we can put out a clean set of questions by ICANN58. We won't start the clock on the public comment period until after ICANN58. Responses will not be due until the end of April. - It is still possible that the discussion at ICANN58 will result in further clarification and revision of the questions. 6. AOB - None.