Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 02 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 or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes will be provided separately. The referenced document also linked and excerpts from the chat room are included for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. Work Track Updates: -- Work Track 3 and Work Track 4 meet this week. -- No calls next week because of the GDD Summit. -- Follow up the week after with a full Working Group Call. 2. Second Reading of the CCT-RT Comment: See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7... High Level Feedback: See the redline in the document. Comment: Minor comment regarding the word "insight" into the report about procedural elements. Insight into the report to assumptions or conclusions? Incorporates procedural elements into the reports? Change to "detail"? Yes. Make that change. Recommendation 10: (See the document): -- New wording. The question was on the small number of brands and a large number of domains. New language. -- Registration of domain names? Other? -- 3 names have been registered by .brand owners. Wondering why a small number of brand owners are registering. -- Is this in the context of domain of domain name risk registration? -- Section says that the CCT-RT got a sample size from the Trademark Clearing House and got a sample. Found that there were not as defensive registrations that they thought they would find. Without defining costs the WG might want to consider how to reduce the costs for those who are the 4% could be reduced in the trademark TLDs. -- I am not sure why they think this is a real problem, what do they mean by significant costs? No sure why they think that is a problem. We can seek clarification as to why they think this is a problem. They seem to jump to a conclusion. -- I don't know where the redline came from. No all TLDs are relevant to any particular brand. -- It seems that the recommendation seemed to say that there were a small number of brands registering a large number of domains. The redline language asked why they had this analysis. Overall issue of reducing defensive registration doesn't seem related. Seems to be odd phrasing. Issue across the board. ACTION ITEM: Take out the red language. Agree with what they are doing. It seems that they were taking some of the statements made before the round, but didn't do a thorough job of analysis. Ask what they are recommending and what costs they are referring to. Work off line and send to the full WG.

From the chat:

Emily Barabas: Using these data, we determined: (1) whether each of the trademarks in our data wasregistered by the trademark holder in least one legacy gTLD; (2) whether the same string wasregistered by the trademark holder in at least one new gTLD and (3) for those strings thatwere registered by the trademark holder in at least one new gTLD, the number of new gTLDsin which the trademark holder had registered the string. We found that 54% of the stringsthat were registered in a legacy gTLD were also registered in at least one a new gTLD. We alsofound that, of these strings, 3 was the median number of registrations in new gTLDs. That is,half of the trademarks that were analyzed were registered in 3 or fewer new gTLDs.121 We alsofound that three-quarter of these strings were registered in 7 or fewer new gTLDs and that90% of these strings were registered in 17 or fewer new gTLDs.122 At the same time, a smallnumber of trademarked strings were registered in a large number of TLDs: 4% of trademarkswere registered in at least 100 Emily Barabas: new gTLDs, and one was registered in 406 new gTLDs. Extrapolating the sample across all marks, we would expect that trademark holders wouldhave made approximately 80,000 total registrations of their trademarks in new gTLDs as ofSeptember 2016, which represents .3% of all registrations within new gTLDs123. We concludefrom this analysis that, although the direct cost of the New gTLD Program for most trademarkholders related to defensive registrations appears to be lower than some had feared priorto the inception of the program, a small fraction of trademark holders are likely incurringsignificant costs. Recommendation 14: It would be helpful if the CCT-RT would reference its Bylaws. Do the changes reflect the request? [To Anne Aikman-Scalese?]: -- We don't know what 1.1a says. The question is whether this fits into 1.1a. -- Strike this out and keep it as section 1.1. Recommendation 33: Changes are okay. Recommendation 34: Add to the high-level overview? May keep it hear or may add to the high-level overview. Recommendation 35: Eliminated most and included in high-level overview. Recommendation 38: Not sure if we should be asking the CCT-RT what it thinks policy should be. Uncomfortable with the second part of the comment. Their point is when PICs are made there should be some reasoning for why they are made. "If not, please provide additional details and clarity." -- Not sure why we say that the wording suggests that the PICs should be early enough for GAC advice. Applicants should be allowed to submit PICs to meat GAC advice. This recommendation assumes that PICs should be available in time to be commented on. --- The timing seems to be related to recommendations 39, which relates to when PICs are related. -- Generally in agreement. 38 only speaks about stating the goals. Seems non-responsive to 38 and should be pulled to 39. The WG is considering a process to modify applications at the time of consideration at the time of application. Reword the recommendation as to PICs. Don't ask them their view on their policy. Ask whether there should be whether commitments could be modified at the time of application or at GAC advice or at time of application. Adding a sentence to Redc 39. -- We will listen to this part of the recording and make sure it is captured. -- Dislike the term "voluntary". They are perhaps applicant specific. -- Make it different from every other agreement that isn't a registry agreement. Once they are forced them by ICANN it is different. Once you sign up for it, it is mandatory. Recommendation 43: Added a sentence for clarification to the last paragraph. Seems to be asking CCT-RT for policy advice. Seems to be a decision we should be making. Recommendation 46: No Comments.