Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 29 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 slides. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: 1.7.1: a. Section g -- Add: internal dependencies of Work Track 5 Geographic Names and Work Track 3. b. Top of page 5: Check the date -- 08 November 2016?   Note also that this resolution has been contested.  Add this as a question in section e seeking feedback as to what if anything can or should be done.  Also mention the work that has been done to communicate the reasoning behind the resolution from the ICANN Board as to why this resolution was taken. c. Add as a footnote: Add special use domain names at https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain.... d. Change 1.7.1.2 Geographic Names" to "Geographic Names at the Top Level" 1.7.2: a. Section c: Add reference to PIRR.  Also this reference: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf b. Section e: i. Add: A single registrant is defined as a top-level name in which all domains are registered to a particular entity.  For those that license out their domain should this recommendation apply to them? ii. Add: In the third question, ask something about affiliates of publicly traded companies (exempt from certain types of registrant protections). c. Section f: Page 14:  In the sentence, "Whether the EBERO Service "insurance" should be provided to all RSP clients is a complex issue and merits more discussion."  Suggest using a different word, such as "protection".  However, "insurance" was the word used in the actual deliberations. 1.7.3: Section e: -- Bullet 3: It would be helpful to identify the referenced potential conflict that the WT identified. -- With respect to the definition of closed generic -- make sure that is referenced in the deliberations. Notes: 1. Roll Call/SOIs: No updates. 2. Review of the Initial Report (continued): Section 1.7 (Reserved Names; Registrant Protections; Closed Generics; String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) -- see:  https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB * 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. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org) in advance of the meeting. 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 17.1: Reserved Names (page 5) -- Two types of reserved names -- top level and second level. -- Item g in reserved names -- other activities or dependencies: "none" would be inaccurate.  Mention Work Track 5 and the objections work in Work Track 3. -- Intention was more about external dependencies, so that's why it is not included.  Could consider whether to include internal cross-references. -- Add dependencies to section g: Work Track 5 Geographic Names and Work track 3, as internal references. -- Top of page 5: Check the date -- should be 08 November 2016?  Note also that this resolution has been contested.  Add this as a question in section e seeking feedback as to what if anything can or should be done.  Also mention the work that has been done to communicate the reasoning behind the resolution from the ICANN Board as to why this resolution was taken. -- Add special use domain names at https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain... . -- Release of names only through ICANN acredited registrars  -- check text. -- Make sure nobody applies for a string that his still be resolved from the 2012 round -- not sure if that is a reserved string.  That was captured, but make sure it is cross-referenced (to section 1.5). -- Section e, first bullet, first question allows feedback on the specific example of geographic names.  Perhaps if you have a city top-level domain perhaps you may be able to reserve more than that. -- Change 1.7.1.2 Geographic Names" to "Geographic Names at the Top Level" 1.7.2 Registrant Protections Section c: -- 2nd bullet: spec 13 does allow spec 13 registries to have third party exemption. -- 3rd bullet: helpful to flag whether or not the WT considered whether the exemption should apply to affiliates?  May need to address how a single registrant TLD is formed.  Include a question the point on this point: A single registrant is defined as a top-level name in which all domains are registered to a particular entity.  For those that license out their domain should this recommendation apply to them? -- 4th bullet: Question: where did that come from?  Can we include the background? Answer: It came from the post-mortem report.  One of the comments was that it was difficult to do background checks and screening in certain parts of the world.  Such as South Korea's restriction on providing certain types of information. -- Privacy law developments since 2012 may make background checks a lot more complex to conduct and less meaningful (potentially). Section e: -- In the third question, ask something about affiliates of publicly traded companies (exempt from certain types of registrant protections). Section f: Page 14:  In the sentence, "Whether the EBERO Service "insurance" should be provided to all RSP clients is a complex issue and merits more discussion."  Suggest using a different word, such as "protection".  However, "insurance" was the word used in the actual deliberations.  Could include a clarifying footnote. 1.7.3 Closed Generics -- With respect to definitions: Was there a definition of closed generics from the new gTLD Program Committee?  did explore that in the deliberations.  Make sure that is included in the deliberations text. Section e: -- Bullet 3: It would be helpful to identify the referenced potential conflict that the WT identified.  3. AOB: Timeline -- Intention is to release an initial report prior to ICANN62. -- Need to consider the timing of the public comment period and want to get as much feedback as possible. -- Will come out with an email on the timeline and planning for ICANN62.