Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 14 May 2018. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes will be provided separately. For reference see also the attached document. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Preamble/Introduction: WG Co-Chairs will suggest some language to make it clear that a consensus call was not held, and put it out to the list for review examples of how we got to a general type of agreement. 1.5.4: Section c. recommendations: 3. Seems to suggest that if you don’t meet the requirements of the ASP suggests that you would transition to a standard application, but that application could be a community one.  Need to use a term other than “standard application”. Question re: #7: i. Were Community Priority Evaluation fees considered in this discussion?  Would the Community Priority Evaluation Fees something that could be supported, because these aren’t small.  Answer: I think a direct response is that no, the community-based application connection was not discussed. It would probably need to be discussed after the Initial Report or as a public comment, since it was not already discussed?  While not specifically referred to, some members of the group may have assumed all were included. Since it was not discussed i think it is an important item to flag to ensure that a discussion does occur at some point. ii. “Attorney Fees” – Don’t see where that fits in here.  If it is to write the application, then that’s included in the application.  Otherwise it could significantly increase covered fees. iii. Also, what is included in ICANN annual maintenance fees.  Consider including a footnote. Section e. Questions: i. Add the following question: “Should geographic outreach include outreach to indigenous tribes on various continents?” ii. Break up the questions in the final bullet into sub-bullets. iii. Add the following question: “Did the ASP provide the right tools to potential program participants" should we add..."If not, what was missing?"" Section f. Deliberations: i. What are “gTLD purchasers”? The only purchaser is the final registrant. Who is referred to here? Update to “gTLD potential applicants” ii. Bottom of page 19: “likelihood of succeed” should be changed to “likelihood of succeeding”. 1.5.5: WG members should review and comment on the list if the preliminary outcomes and deliberations are not accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. Notes: 1. Roll Call/SOIs: No updates. 2. Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation -- Administrative Item:  Please limit your intervention on the specific items we are covering to 2 minutes and if a second intervention please try to keep it to 60-90 seconds. Section 1.5: Application Submission 1.5.4: Applicant Support -- Scope in this area for joint financing.  -- Not sure who are the “gTLD purchases” (page 17).  Not sure of that terminology and think we should use more conventional language. -- Quite reasonable that an applicant that doesn’t meet the requirements of the ASP should be given an opportunity to pay. -- Careful with the language – Seems to suggest that if you don’t meet the requirements of the ASP suggests that you would transition to a standard application, but that application could be a community one.  Need to use a term other than “standard application”. -- Question re: #5: Is there an ICANN definition of "Global South"; Does the term encompass underdeveloped regions or territories of rich countries?  Same question about “middle countries”, though we do define it ourselves.  I wonder if an indigenous tribe in Canada or US, or the "inner city" would be "Global South".  Answer: The way it was discussed in the WG, indigenous tribes were an example but not expressly noted as "Global South". Question re: #7: -- Were Community Priority Evaluation fees considered in this discussion?  Would the Community Priority Evaluation Fees something that could be supported, because these aren’t small.  Answer: I think a direct response is that no, the community-based application connection was not discussed. It would probably need to be discussed after the Initial Report or as a public comment, since it was not already discussed?  While not specifically referred to, some members of the group may have assumed all were included. Since it was not discussed i think it is an important item to flag to ensure that a discussion does occur at some point.  Also, what is included in ICANN annual maintenance fees.  Consider including a footnote.  From the chat: from Justine Chew to All Participants: Thanks @CLO. @Christa, perhaps just add a reference pointing to the source for "ICANN annual maintenance fees". Tx.

From the chat:

-- from Justine Chew to All Participants: @Greg, agree with you on attorney fees. But I am also thinking we may need to be careful to deal with unintended thoughts of "Why only attorney fees, and not other applicable professional fees?" -- from Martin Sutton to All Participants: Perhaps "reasonable and relevant fees" could capture this? -- “Attorney Fees” – Don’t see where that fits in here.  If it is to write the application, then that’s included in the application.  Otherwise it could significantly increase covered fees. -- ICANN has to be protected in territorial disputes at the local level.  [No suggestion for a textual change.] -- Section f. Deliberations: What are “gTLD purchasers”? The only purchaser is the final registrant. Who is referred to here? 1.5.5: Terms & Conditions -- Caveat: Don’t tie ICANN down to restrictive conditions – jurisdiction of incorporation of a registrant.  In 2012 a certain number of registries deliberately registered in tax havens. -- WG homework:   WG members should review and comment on the list if the preliminary outcomes and deliberations are not accurately captured and written in an understandable manner 3. Next Meeting: 21 May, 15:00 UTC.