Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 08 September. 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. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 08 September 2016 1.  Leadership and updates of the Sub Teams Discussion Notes: · Work Track 1: Sara Bockey: Beginning work on work track topics.  · Work Track 2: Michael Flemming: Looking at Work Track 1 approach.  Need SOIs updated.  Looking at the Work Plan and prioritization.  Looking at topics.  Lively topics. · Work Track 3: Jian Zhang: TBD. · Work Track 4: Cheryl Langdon Orr -- Similar track -- looking at timeline, universal acceptance issues, etc.  Reordering of prioritization. 2.  Call times/rotation Discussion Notes: · Can't accommodate everyone. · Can't find times that are perfect for everyone. · Recordings/readings -- do recordings and at least two readings. Action Item: Look again at attendance for times and consider whether to move the times. 3.  Document Views Action Item: Make documents more readable (font size) and suitable for printing. 4. Continued Discussion on Community Comment 1 Discussion Notes: 1.c: Are ongoing mechanisms for the introduction of additional new gTLDs necessary to achieving sufficient diversity (e.g., choice and trust) in terms of domain extensions? Please explain. 1c.R1: · Donna Austin: Note an unreasonable question.  Should try to do that. · Alan Greenberg: Hard to do this without seeing the conclusion of the PDP. · Avri Doria: We need further clarification and where should it be done.  Should we talk about it in this group?  Does this fit into the Work Track?  Is it intertwined?  Draft what we want in terms of diversity.  GAC has made some suggestions.  Helpful if anyone from the GAC or ALAC would like propose some thoughts or take this on. · Tom Dale, GAC Secretariat: Happy to help. · Donna Austin: Shouldn't read the GAC response in isolation.  Might be different interpretations of this question. · Avri Doria:  Look at them as a group and answer them all. Ic.R2: · Avri Doria: This becomes an input into why we need a continuing mechanism. · Donna Austin: One of the potential mechanism for having more diversity is the subsequent round.  An ongoing mechanism is important.  There are some benefits (from the RySG position). · Jeff Neuman:  Interlinked with Work Track 1 particularly communication.  Also applicant outreach.  Should help with diversity.  Announcing a date certain would help. · Avri Doria: As we build a work plan we might be able to provide an approximate date. · Alan Greenberg:  There is no question about demand, it is not a diversity issue, but maybe a trust issue. · Paul McGrady: Notion of second registration - make sure at the end of the day that we have an adequate program to allow diversity to happen and not to be wrapped up in the second level marketplace. · Paul McGrady: Diversity needs to be defined in a way that includes new uses other than just more sales of second levels.  Referring to the fact that in 2012 round there wasn't a differentiation between .brand model and others.  Could develop a more streamlined model in the subsequent procedures. · Kristina Rosette: Disagreed with Alan's contention.  Geographic diversity in primary location does allow for broader diversity. · Avri Doria: Diversity --- how it relates to other kinds of diversity.  Can be more geographical.  Need to explore this in Work Track 1. · Jian Zhang: Add language on diversity.  If there are more internationalized TLDs people might think more -- language and culture could be taken together. · Avri Doria: Diversity in script and language will not be dealt with in one track -- for example Track 4.  Diversity needs to be defined in a way that includes new uses other than just more sales of second levels.. 1d.R1:  · Is it too early in the review cycle of the previous round to determine the full range of benefits of the 2012 round of the new gTLDs?  Should that impact the decision to introduce additional new gTLDs and/or the timing of ongoing mechanisms for new gTLDs? · None of the groups that commented said that the policy shouldn't be changed, the policy of an ongoing mechanism to accept new gTLDs -- we shouldn't stop anything because we can realize all the benefits. · Diversity needs to be defined in a way that includes new uses other than just more sales of second levels. 1d.R2:  Avri Doria:  Summary -- Shouldn't unnecessarily delay. Id.R3: · Avri Doria:  Summary  -- Need more information.  Still in the round. · Kavouss Arasteh: What time frame is too early? · Greg Shatan: We are still in mid-stream.  We are trying to redesign an airplane in mid-air.  Many have not fully opened for business.  We do need need to consider the fact that we are looking at a moving target. · Jeff Neuman: After .biz was launched it took 4-5 years to see usage.  We can't say in 2 years we will know better.  It may take a number of years, but hard to define. · Michael Flemming: Need to look at delegation and process, while there are still a few left.  So we have to highly consider "benefits" in the relative aspect of how categorized TLDs use them. Looking at the application process and where we are at in that to start measuring benefit cannot be done equally across the spectrum. 1.e: What additional considerations should be taken into account before deciding on ongoing mechanisms for new gTLDs (e.g., to cancel onoing mechansims for new gTLDs via policy changes? 1e.R1, 2, 3: · Get on with it.  Make sure we have covered existing problems and emerging problems. · Jeff Neuman: Caution against spending too much time on the hypothetical.  We have experience to see what could happen with different mechanisms.  Needs to be a balance. · Jian Zhang: Chinese market: hard to reach universal acceptance on fast or slow.  In China many companies don't think it is too early; the feel they didn't act quickly enough in the first round.  Whether we should have fast track for no controversial debate. · Jeff Neuman: Highlight all cases we did not anticipate (and Greg Shatan). · Kavouss Arasteh: Be careful about fastrack, may not be fast. 1.f: Any other issues related to this overarching subject? 1f.R1, 2, 3:  No comments on the responses.