Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 26 September 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/2019-09-26+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Objections: Should there be some sort of early warning for governments? See: carried out in accordance with the Bylaws and GAC’s internal procedures: “Does the presumption that a “string will not proceed” limit ICANN’s ability to facilitate a solution that both accepts GAC Advice but also allows for the delegation of a string if the underlying concerns that gave rise to the objection were addressed? Does that presumption unfairly prejudice other legitimate interests?” ACTION ITEM 1: Put on the list for comment: Rather than a specific time period, the WG could consider some principle or period (e.g., concurrent with the application comment period). Independent Objector: Should all funding for the IO come from ICANN? ACTION ITEM 2: Co-Leads will send potential examples for review/comment on extraordinary circumstances. Keep limitation that the IO can only file Limited Public Interest and Community Objections? -- Re: ALAC Comments: consider lifting the 2-ground limit on the IO’s ability to file objections. ACTION ITEM 3: WG to reconsider. Should multiple IOs be appointed? How should they divide their work? ACTION ITEM 4: Put this as a question out to the WG. What is your view of the proposal to allow those filing a Community Objection to specify Public Interest Commitments (PICs) they want to apply to the string, and if the objector prevails, these PICs become mandatory for any applicant that wins the contention set. - and - What is your view of the proposal to allow those filing a Community Objection to specify Public Interest Commitments (PICs) they want to apply to the string, and if the objector prevails, these PICs become mandatory for any applicant that wins the contention set. -- Community applicants weren’t allowed to make modifications to their applications. For subsequent procedures, it seems that the WG is leaning to allowing amendments as long as the are published for public comment. ACTION ITEM 5: Try to capture as a high-level agreement. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No update provided. 2. Review of summary documents: a. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-KN..., continue discussion, start on page 8 Should there be some sort of early warning for governments? See: carried out in accordance with the Bylaws and GAC’s internal procedures: “Does the presumption that a “string will not proceed” limit ICANN’s ability to facilitate a solution that both accepts GAC Advice but also allows for the delegation of a string if the underlying concerns that gave rise to the objection were addressed? Does that presumption unfairly prejudice other legitimate interests?” ACTION: Put on the list for comment: Rather than a specific time period, the WG could consider some principle or period (e.g., concurrent with the application comment period). Independent Objector: Question: Should all funding for the IO come from ICANN? : -- Beyond the scope of the independent objector. --- Seems like the majority of groups support funding of the independent objector. -- Should there be a limit to the number of objections? Majority of comments said, “no”. -- Per the AGB in section 1.1.2.4: The GAC Early Warning is a notice only. It is not a formal objection, nor does it directly lead to a process that can result in rejection of the application. -- If an Independent Objector files an objection, how is it determined? In the 2012 round the IO had more time to file. There was nothing formal in the guidebook. ACTION: Co-Leads will send potential examples for review/comment on extraordinary circumstances. Keep limitation that the IO can only file Limited Public Interest and Community Objections? -- ALAC: consider lifting the 2- ground limit on the IO’s ability to file objections. ACTION ITEM: WG to reconsider. Should multiple IOs be appointed? How should they divide their work? ACTION ITEM: Put this as a question out to the WG. -- Support for an alternative where there are conflicts. Should the same entity be allowed to apply for a TLD as community and also file a Community Objection for the same string? -- Objection to a community evaluation means it just goes into the pool. It doesn’t die. What can be done to lower the fees and make them more predictable while at the same time ensuring that the evaluations are both fair and comprehensive? -- Question: Consolidation of "common" objections to reduce resolution cost
 
Should non-profits be able to to defend themselves at "no cost"?
 Answer: Program should be self funding. -- "No cost" doesn't exist, because someone still has to pay the DRSPs.
Only if DRSPs to do it on a pro-bono basis.
 What is your view of the proposal to allow those filing a Community Objection to specify Public Interest Commitments (PICs) they want to apply to the string, and if the objector prevails, these PICs become mandatory for any applicant that wins the contention set. -- Doesn’t have an impact on the CPE, but applicant has to be in queue to be considered. - and - What is your view of the proposal to allow those filing a Community Objection to specify Public Interest Commitments (PICs) they want to apply to the string, and if the objector prevails, these PICs become mandatory for any applicant that wins the contention set. -- Community applicants weren’t allowed to make modifications to their applications. For subsequent procedures, it seems that the WG is leaning to allowing amendments as long as the are published for public comment. ACTION ITEM: Try to capture as a high-level agreement.