Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 08 August.  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.  The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 08 August 2016 1. Work Track (Sub Team) Planning – initial meetings in August Action Items:  Invites have been sent out.  The schedule is being finalized. 2. CC1/Overarching Issues Preliminary Findings (https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu...)  a. Updates on CC1 comments:  ALAC asked for an extension to mid-August.  IPC indicated they need a few more days. BC said it will be forthcoming. Action Items: 1) GNSO Council Liaison, Paul McGrady, will remind Councilors of the need for participation from their representatives on the PDP WG calls. 2) Staff will update the Google document based on this discussion and it will be listed as a "preliminary draft". (DONE – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu...) 3) PDP WG members should feel free to comment directly in the Google Doc. b. Draft Findings and Recommendations: 1) Additional new gTLDs in the future – Anticipated outcome(s): No changes to current text. 2) Categorization or differentiation of gTLDs – Anticipated outcome(s): Add a bullet that there is agreement that the WG should create, in the overarching issues process, the set of candidate categories to discuss in the groups -- such as the AGB plus de facto ones. Notes: · Decide fairly soon on a draft set of categories. · Different categories could also tie in to application fees. · RySG Comments: Accepting original two categories and the two that were added. No discussion in the RySG comments on how to satisfy GAC comments about types of strings.  · Consider doing away with "community" as a category in the future due to its arbitrariness.  · How to address de facto categories based on GAC advice (such as "closed generic").  Could be a legal issue (work track 2) as well as for "regulated" and "highly regulated".  Guidance to applicants on allowing or not. · Does every different attribute result in a different category? 3) Future new gTLDs assessed in "rounds" Anticipated outcome(s): Suggested additional bullets: The WG agreed that there should be an ongoing process that is clearly defined, with the understanding that there may be one or two rounds.  The WG further agreed that following these preliminary rounds the process will go to a steady state of first come, first served. 4) Predictability should be maintained or enhanced without sacrificing flexibility – Anticipated outcome(s): No changes to current text. 5) Community engagement in new gTLD application processes -- Anticipated outcome(s): No changes to current text. Notes: Suggestion (Paul McGrady/IPC): Only those who participated in the PDP could suggest a change.  Question (Donna Austin, RySG): How to encourage people who do have an interest in the program to get engaged early? 6) Limiting applications in total and/or per entity during an application window -- Anticipated outcome(s): No changes to current text.