Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 23 May. 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. Please also note the link to the Community Comment 1 Google Doc for review and comment at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh8ugZAomD2AGNymmVRgKGP9TA2KQ7BkQbrRAEvs....   Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 23 May 2016 1. Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw) #19 Liaison for Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs): Staff is facilitating a search for a volunteer. #22 Drafting Team to Develop Constituency Comment 1: Google Doc created for PDP WG review (see link above). #24 Pull data on who applied, how many applied, and how many for at least the top 10 applicants (from discussion on application limits, pros and cons) – ongoing 2. CC1 Discussion (Working Draft here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh8ugZAomD2AGNymmVRgKGP9TA2KQ7BkQbrRAEvs...) Action Item: PDP WG members review and provide comments. Discussion Notes: Introduction Susan Payne: In the "other efforts" section of the GAC's letter, consider adding their particular WG efforts related to New gTLDs in their particular outreach letter. General Comments Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Offer to review the document with respect to interpretation by non-English speakers. Alan Greenberg: This is a huge amount of work and I think it could be difficult to analyze the answers. Martin Sutton: Think about what likely responses will be received from the questions.  For example, on limits, note that we have not placed limits on the previous rounds.  If we should contemplate future limits how would you envision imposing them? Avri Doria: Agree.  Should look at conditioning the questions. Question 1: Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future? Jeff Newman: Suggestion is to restate the question.  The burden should be that circumstances need to have changed; burden is on the side against the current policy.  Jeff will make additional comments in the draft to change the tone. Avri Doria: Is it reasonable to ask both questions? Alan Greenberg: What does it mean to make Internet names more diverse? Question 4: Predictability and flexibility.  How should the two be balanced? Alan Greenberg: Avoid absolutes -- Example: "every imaginable situation".  Importance to the broader community and not just applicants. Kristina Rosette: Focus on trust in the process; none of the questions address trust in the outcome.  Paul McGrady: Instead of "imaginable" we could say, "foreseeable".  Also ask is there a concern that extremely flexibility will put predictability at risk. Question 5: How can community engagement be improved in the processes? Kristina Rosette: Any examples of what might be a "special post PDP policy consideraton method"?  Add "and, if yes, what do you propose"?  Read literally the special post PDP policy consideration method question only asks for a "Yes" or "No" answer.  Avri Doria: I don't have a suggestion as to what it might be. Alan Greenberg: "If the Board is faced with questions" -- not sure how I would answer.  It depends on the nature of the issue. Jorge Cancio: Not sure of the link between the overall questoin 5 and the subquestions. Martin Sutton: "Can a standard be established..." Change to "Should a standard be established" and add a request for examples. Paul McGrady: Add a second question: "If the Board is faced with an implementation issue that is contrary to the policy should the policy be sent back to the GNSO to address?" Amr Elsadr: Agree with Alan. There are existing GNSO mechanisms to make post PDP policy considerations. The question (as I understand it) is asking whether further mechanisms are necessary. For this question to be answered, the respondent would need to understand the GNSO mechanisms, and point out why they are insufficient, and how further mechanisms would add value. Open Question: Jorge Cancio:  As to the last question: wouldn't it be advisable to inform SO/AC/C that there are other phases foreseen where a number of topics are planned to be tackled?  Perhaps a reference to the introduction could be included. 3. Draft Work Plan Discussion Continued Action Item: PDP WG members review and continue discussion. Discussion Notes: Slide 3 -- Key Questions/Assumptions for Work Plan Design: Jeff Newman: "Are there operations that shouldn't be part of this subsequent procedures policy discussions?" Steve Chan: There are rough estimates for every subject.  It is possible that not every subject will result in policy recommendations.  Some may just require implementation guidance and some may not require recommendations.  There are various outcomes for each subject. 4.  Any Other Business: GDD Summit Update Action Item: None.