Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 13 May 2019. 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/2019-05-13+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Please also see the referenced documents at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXK.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Staff to incorporate suggested edits to the Policy Goals section of 2.2.3 Applications assessed in rounds. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Review of Summary Documents: 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to Accomplish: Discussion: -- Add to the Policy Goals what the rounds provide for the non-contracted parties re: predictable periods for participation from the larger community. -- On the last policy goal: Questions 1) what we mean by “regular and recurring”; 2) review teams -- reference to “operational feasible” but no reference to required reviews. Clarify that it is subject to something other than operational feasibility. Answer: “regular and recurring” is the terminology used because there are a bunch a questions that could narrow down that policy goal and clarify what we mean. On the CCT-RT, that also is a question that we need to talk about as a group -- whether that review stops everything else from going on, or in conjunction with a subsequent round. -- If you run review concurrently, when do you incorporate the changes resulting from the review recommendations? -- Might depend on the CCT-RT recommendations -- if there is a major policy issue then maybe the round halts, but there needs to be a communication period so that applicants can adjust their applications. -- Could say that if the CCT-RT want to stop something it needs to specifically recommend that, otherwise there would rounds conducted at regular intervals. -- Should always be an option for a review team make a recommendation that things should be put on hold and demonstrate that this is a serious enough problem that needs to be solved before the start of the next application window. -- Additional policy goals: 1) reflect reviews and results 2) adequate time periods for comments and objections from non-applicants in the community. -- Add: “Ongoing rounds should not stop reviews taking place and these reviews can concur concurrently but the results of reviews would take effect when the next subsequent round begins.” -- We can't say "ongoing rounds should not stop reviews" - we have no authority to say that. We can say we recommend that rounds continue unless and until new policy is developed - but ONLY if that is a consensus of the WG. It seems fairly important - and should be included in the limited number of questions for public comment. As Jamie has pointed out, it could be pretty confusing if you prepare and application and then policy changes.
 -- Re: the policy goal, It's not just subject to being "operationally feasible". It should be "subject to any needed further policy development" -- Add: “Facilitate public comments and critiques by non-applicants in the community.” -- On FCFS, most were against it. Public comment summary 2.2.3.c.1: Discussion: -- Intervals -- thoughts? Don’t use an example of a specific year. Say, “a particular date certain.” Correct this in the final report. -- Or say, “9 months after X percent of applications have been delegated.” The subject of communications should be discussed when we talk about communication periods. -- Criteria being delegation rather than initial evaluation: If you have a date certain with a qualifier the problem is that you take away from predictability. -- Should avoid saying a particular percent of applications should be delegated -- if too many fail we might not meet the threshold. Also, delegation could be a year after. -- QUESTION: How would the new appeal mechanisms affect the "end" of the Evaluation and Objection periods? QUESTION -- You will have a fairly complex pipeline so you can close the windows, but you can’t close the process that leads to contracts, delegation, and launching of domains. -- The % passed Initial Evaluation could be a reasonable way forward. Given the earlier discussions, there could also be specific and major reasons to halt the process at times (although should be exceptional)
. -- Do need to look at delegation because that is the completion of the application process. But not looking at closure, but when we can start the next application window. Could have multiple rounds open at the same time. -- Let’s say 75% of the applications have been evaluated, then announce that the next round will open on X date. If you were to do that you would have to set rules that you can’t apply for a string applied for under the previous/ongoing round. -- You could look at it in terms of limiting factors to initiating a subsequent round -- what would allow those to be cleared, such as operational readiness of ICANN Org -- might require outreach to ICANN Org, specific reviews, readiness of the community, etc. Identify the limiting factors and what would allow clearance of them. From the perspective of GDD, would think they would need a sense of certainty of what is needed and to know when to allocate resources. -- Could be based on that the applicant has paid all the fees. -- Trying to get a balance of predictability for applicants and readiness for everyone else. 3. AOB: Presentation by Jeff Neuman at GDD Summit. -- Will include any feedback in our discussion, and the session was recorded. -- See: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/jJkqOiXMlpT-Fvd_iSX10H6Ig3hfZT7ItWxFwh... Session recordings here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gdd-summit-session-recordings-2019-05-...