Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 20 February 1500 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-02-20+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Call for proposals on how to address closed generics to be discussed in one of the remote PDP ICANN67 sessions. Deadline is 29 February 2020. Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52... 2.7.3 Closed Generics (page 33) -- This is an opportunity to treat this as a unique policy setting process. -- We should explore what can be done going forward rather than looking at what was done. -- The definition of the term “generic” would be the definition that is in the agreement itself in Spec 11. -- The question is: Is there any situation where you would support a closed generic? -- Suggestion: “A closed generic could be considered for approval by the ICANN board if there is a compelling reason presented in the application that indicates it would NOT be in the public interest to have the gTLD open.” -- We don’t have the evidence that there is a severe problem because we’ve never allowed it in the first place. -- If we say there can be no closed generics, but we do acknowledge that registries should be able to be creative and innovative. -- List out the problems that people face and see if we can overcome those specific problems. -- Suggest: "If you restrict access to your gTLD there will be an expectation that you might be forced to revert to an open registry - UNLESS you can prove that the restrictions are serving the Public Interest." -- Question: What is the status quo if we do nothing? The WG has different views on that. Is it the AGB? Or is it implementation? Answer: It’s more productive at this point to see if there is a solution. -- Question: What is the impact on previous applicants who opened their TLDs as a result of the last round? -- It would also be good if folks could articulate the harm in closed generics because I'm really sure I have a good understanding on that either. -- We need to say that we believe the default is: 1) the AGB and they are allowed; or 2) the implementation and they are not allowed; or 3) that it is out of our scope to interpret the Board resolution and the Board has to say. -- Look at the list of cons in the Initial Report as the identified problem. -- What about putting into the AGB: "In the 2012 round the board denied to contract closed generic registries on the basis of GAC advice (no public benefit). There is an expectation that in absence of compelling proof of Public Interest any closed generic might be denied contracting again." -- Can’t send thousands of applications to the Board, so restrict to not-for-profits. The problem with coming up with a rule is that we can’t even come up with a good example. ACTION ITEM: Call for proposals on how to address closed generics to be discussed in one of the remote PDP ICANN67 sessions. Deadline is 29 February 2020.