Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 25 September. 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. See the referenced documents: Drafting Team Discussion – Different TLD Types (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw and Working Document:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...); Community Comment 1 is available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59645660 Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. Co-Chair Update: -- One nomination for Cheryl Langdon-Orr.  The call for volunteers has ended.  If there are no objections that WG will add Cheryl as a third Co-Chair for approval by the GNSO Council on the consent agenda.  In about 6 weeks when Avri steps down there will be two Co-Chairs. -- Consensus to name Cheryl as the third Co-Chair pending approval by the GNSO Council. 2. Work Track Updates: Work Track 1: Christa Taylor -- Next meeting, continue conversation from 19 September meeting on the Registry Service Provider Accreditation Program. Work Track 2: Michael Flemming -- Continuing discussion on closed generics.  Invited individuals -- Kathy Kleiman and Michele Neylon  -- to take part in the discussion.  Endeavor to finalize it.  1500 UTC on 28 September. Work Track 3: Karen Day -- Meeting on 26 September at 1500 UTC on string similiarity.  Proposal from a group of registries for dealing with the problems that arose in the previous round. Work Track 4: Rubens Kuhl -- Last call discussed financial evaluation.  At the meeting on Thursday, 28 September at 2000 UTC we will discuss name collisions and registry services. Work Track 5: Jeff Neuman -- Have a nominee from the ccNSO.  Waiting for nominations from the GAC and the ALAC.  Received three nominations for the GNSO. -- Concerning the three GNSO candidates for one slot, we need to check to see if they are okay with having their names released.  Then the names would be listed and the Leadership would go through the selection process and make a recommendation for the full WG to see if there are any objections. -- ALAC completed a consensus call on selecting a leader and will notify the PDP WG after the candidates have been notified.  Will likely have some terms and conditions. -- GAC assured that they were working on it.

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION:  @Jeff - Who are the nomiinees from GNSO?  QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT- Avri just said we would know the names of the nominees.  That way members of this group can provide input to Leadership on the choice.  COMMENT Rubens Kuhl: I don't think we divide WG members between SOs and ACs, since there is no requirement to be from a SO or AC to joing a GNSO PDP WG. Karen Day: I thik Greg is reccomending that only GNSO members of this group select Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Seems a good point to me there @Rubens Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): GNSO Council? Rubens Kuhl: Maxim, the GNSO Council punted this choice to the WG leadership. Greg Shatan: Not GNSO Council. They don't get involved in picking Subgroup leadership. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): The Council suggested the LT to do that as Rubens  stated Heather Forrest: Given that the WT5 leaders each represent an SO/AC, then I think the GNSO should be deciding its leader. The GNSO did not have input into the other SO/AC leader nominations. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): He types faster than I do it seems ;-) Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Dropping for another (hopefully short) meeting. Back soon. Heather Forrest: No problem, Jeff! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Greg, representation needs to be somewhat equal ... for GAC level it is going to be GNSO Council Greg Shatan: Maxim, it's not Council's job. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I thought GNSO said they will not agree to decide the chair of WT5. 3. Drafting Team Discussion continued – Different TLD Types: (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw and Working Document:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...) -- Where we ended: We discussed a number of different categories that existed in the 2012 round and then some new ones that came up after the AGB came out and some that in theory could be categories. -- At this point we are just identifying potential categories, then define attributes of these categories.  -- Once we define attributes then the work kicks out to the Work Track to see how those categories fit into the work they are doing. -- Example, if Brand should be a category once we agree we kick it out to the specific work tracks that discussion the applications, such as Work Track for in the case of Brand. -- We started discussing whether we should create a category for applicant support and added it to tab 5.  -- Clearly differentiate what we are trying to identify in that category. Not-for-Profit: -- Not sure if not-for-profit synonymous with being in the public interest -- it may be a criteria for funding. -- Creating a separate category for not-for-profit didn't make sense.  Might be used as a criteria, which is a different question. -- Trying to create a model -- if there is a category can we define it.  If we define it what would be the significance. -- Once we have these categories, do we treat them differently? -- The issue we face for policy is that the applicant support program was not that successful in the 2012 round.  Are there policy issues that need to be more fully considered?  We should go through the exercise, but we don't know the outcome yet. -- Applications can fall into more than one category. -- If you have an application that falls under more then one category then we assume we would do what we did in the 2012 round and ask the applicant to pick. Action: Take out Not-for-Profit as a category but take note if we want to put it back in.

From the chat:

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): not for profit is just the form Rubens Kuhl: There are not-for-profit and there are charitable organizations...  could we be mixing the two concepts ? Vanda Scartezini: teh community did not work last time. even catching all the documentation entered into regular auction... Phil Buckingham: I agree Ken we need to differentiate - so we then  would  have different financial evaluation questions perhaps Susan Payne: agree, some not for profits are very wealthy.  ICANN for example Vanda Scartezini: I also agree with NGO group. Donna Austin, Neustar: good point Susan Vanda Scartezini: there will be difficult to deffend only being NGO Alan. agree Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Alan we cannot limit Applicant Support to non-profit organizations. Alexander Schubert: The keyword might be "public benefit"! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): do we intend to make special categories for LTD or private companies? Alexander Schubert: The keyword might be "public benefit"! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): do we intend to make special categories for LTD or private companies? Hadia Elminiawi: +1 Alan cannot limit support to not for profit organizations Heather Forrest: Seems to me that the answer to whether to create new categories depends on what hyou are using the categorisation for.... Vanda Scartezini: MAxim, I beleive we shall restrict the number of categories Jeff Neuman: @Heather - There is definately a chicken / egg problem kavouss arasteh:  If we take that path we may end up with numerous additional categories which could complicate the process Martin Sutton: @Jeff. Agree, I think the non-profit element is a sub component of the applicant, rather than a categorisation of the registry. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Vanda, that was what I meant... we do not need to do so Vanda Scartezini: ok then, Maxim, support this Heather Forrest: Specific question: What will categories be used for?? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): There  is clearly still a lot to discuss in this exercise, but it is a good one to pursue IMO Gg Levine (NABP): Would an applicant have to be identified as a member of a designated category to be considered eligible for financial support? Martin Sutton: @Heather. dotBrands could have benefited from categorisation in 2012 round, instead, there was a lot of pain during the post-application phase, but eventually recognised as a distinct model through spec 13. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): It's not about being a non-profit.  It's about needing Applicant Support. Vanda Scartezini: I beleive so Rubens, and may be what alla re looking at when trying to define categories Christa Taylor: +1 Anne Heather Forrest: @Martin - it makes sense where a categor is created in order to serve a clear purpose. For brands, clearly the purpose was efficiency in evluation and contracting. That I can see clearly. I think we need clear reasons/purpose like that for any other categories as well Donna Austin, Neustar: The criteria for applicant support should be needs based and not tied to specific organisations. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Is there a case for "case by case" in the matter of appropriate for Applicant Support program? Rubens Kuhl: It's on the list for now, last line of page 1. kavouss arasteh:  We should avoid creating new categories under which some of the existing categories covered Highly Regulated and Sensitive TLDs: -- Discussed on the last call, and thought the two needed to be separate. -- Separate them into two categories for this exercise.

From the chat:

Rubens Kuhl: Some Geo TLDs are government entities (like .nyc or .rio) and some are not (like .berlin). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): +1 Rubens Donna Austin, Neustar: Regardless of category, all applications will likely undergo the same baseline process. Donna Austin, Neustar: .nyc is not a geoTLD as defined in the AGB Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): The reason we need a separate category is because this effort failed in the 2012 round. Donna Austin, Neustar: I was responding to a comment by Rubens Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): We need to develop policies to help those who need Applicant Support to succeed. That is why the category should be separate. Rubens Kuhl: Donna, .nyc is a GeoTLD according to both ICANN and NYC Mayor's Office: Rubens Kuhl: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/ier/f3T5ufeSpeThAJezaxezuDtE/... Rubens Kuhl: "Geographic Names Geographic Name - PassThe Geographic Names Panel has determined that yourapplication falls within the criteria fora geographic name contained inthe Applicant Guidebook Highly Regulated and Sensitive TLDs: -- Discussed on the last call, and thought the two needed to be separate. -- Separate them into two categories for this exercise.

From the chat:

Rubens Kuhl: Some Geo TLDs are government entities (like .nyc or .rio) and some are not (like .berlin). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): +1 Rubens Donna Austin, Neustar: Regardless of category, all applications will likely undergo the same baseline process. Donna Austin, Neustar: .nyc is not a geoTLD as defined in the AGB Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): The reason we need a separate category is because this effort failed in the 2012 round. Donna Austin, Neustar: I was responding to a comment by Rubens Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): We need to develop policies to help those who need Applicant Support to succeed. That is why the category should be separate. Rubens Kuhl: Donna, .nyc is a GeoTLD according to both ICANN and NYC Mayor's Office: Rubens Kuhl: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/ier/f3T5ufeSpeThAJezaxezuDtE/... Rubens Kuhl: "Geographic Names Geographic Name - PassThe Geographic Names Panel has determined that yourapplication falls within the criteria fora geographic name contained inthe Applicant Guidebook Section 2.2.1.4, and the documentation of support or non-objection provided has met all relevant criteriain Section 2.2.1.4.3 of the Applicant Guidebook" Donna Austin, Neustar: @Rubens, I get that, but it is not a geo in terms of the AGB. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): like poor oil industry communty brand Rubens Kuhl: Donna, tell that to ICANN and to the .nyc operator ... ;-) Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Hi!  I think this conversation started while I had dropped for another meeting. Can someone fill me in as to why we're discussing categories?  Whether to have them?  What that determination drives? Thanks! Jamie Baxter | dotgay: in the 2012 round weren't applicants allowed to pick both geo and community? Krishna Seeburn - Kris: agreed things may have to be clear at the application time and meeting the needed requirements Rubens Kuhl: @Jamie, that's true, and there some examples. OSAKA and one or two of the Barcelona TLDs. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): OK, thanks. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): We should perhaps consider different specifications for Applicant Support applicants - e.g. okay to have a fewer number of registrars - make their operations simpler.  We need to develop policies to encourage the success of those needing Applicant Support in the public interest. Rubens Kuhl: .OSAKA was decided between two applicants on a Community Priority Evaluation, there were two applications with non-objection from the government. One was community and one was not. avri doria: but Geo was an emergent  'category' while community was a defined category. perhaps that is the reason for overlap. avri doria: but perhaps geo and community are not both categories but one of them is an attribute that can be applied to multiple categories. kavouss arasteh:  Yes ,highly regulated is totally different than sensitive category kavouss arasteh: different from Rubens Kuhl: Avri, we could define categories as mutually exclusive and attributes as non-exclusive to move the discussions along. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Avri, geo was a category because of additional requirements. community was a category because of different requirements. Exclusive Use Registries and closed generics: Hold for a longer discussion Open TLD with minor domain charter registration challenges: Does not seem materially different than Open registries Governmental Organization Applicants: Applicant Support Applications: Talk about this to determine if any differentiations have to be made in policy. Are there any other potential categories?

From the chat:

Jamie Baxter | dotgay: i actually thought there were only standard and community TLDs as options in the 2012 round, however geo was a box that required checking when completing an application and as Donna pointed out, it required additional  requirements Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Would it be because of contractual restrictions (e.g., with ICANN)? avri doria: Jamie, that is somewhat what i mean by the difference between categories and attributes that can be applied to any category. Next exercise:  Look at the next two columns: Attributes for specific purpose?  A set of specific requirements for the applicant? Example: Brand TLDs: Attributes: -- Often closed registration policies. -- Likely minimal need for registrar services. -- Registrations likely do not drive income. -- Possibly lower bars for technical/financial capabilities. -- Likely less (or no) need for registrant protections. Requirements for Applicants: As defined in applying for Specification 13. 4. Any other business -- Summary Documents from Staff: -- shared with the leadership team.  See:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0... -- Purpose: Recognition that there are so many topics that it is how to understand where the status is for any given topic. -- Also could be for other people in the community who might be interested in following. -- Captures deliberation, problem statements, CC2 comment integration. -- Want to add the dependencies between topics.