2016-10-24 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP

The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group is scheduled to take place on Monday, 24 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

**NOTE: This is an optional session and will be used as a planning meeting to prepare for the face-to-face session at ICANN57.

13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 21:00 London, 22:00 CEST

Below, please find the proposed agenda

This meeting will be devoted to planning for the WG’s face-to-face session at ICANN57 and is therefore considered optional by the WG’s co-chairs.

Mp3

Dial outs: Amr Elsadr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Kavouss Arasteh, Harold Arcos,

Apologies: Roger Carney, Amr Elsadr

On audio only: Gg Levine

Notes/Actions:

Proposed ICANN57 Agenda – Draft, but subject to revision.

1. Welcome and introductions

2. Current Status (Overarching issues/CC1)

3. Work Track based discussions

1. Overarching issues/CC1:

Work Track 3 -- rounds vs. first-come, first-served process. Everything else we had public discussion in Helsinki. Don't need to go over the overall topics again. Can stick to a status update, but won't go down any of the issues.
Ask liaisons to CCT-RT, RPMs, to provide a brief update. Add as a new number 3 in the agenda.
Work Track based discussions. Asked each WT to provide some teaser questions for community input.

2. Work Track (WT) based discussions

WT1: [reading from the draft agenda]

Question 1: Help spur the conversation on the Applicant Support Program. Still looking for input. Question 2: Update based on input from Donna Austin. Question 2 should read: “From RSP Accreditation to Third-Party Certifier – What is the most effective method to meet the needs of RSPs, Registries and Registrars?”
Also include applicants as this is one of the problems we're trying to solve and consider how they might be affected. Don't include if there isn't a specific concern.

WT2: [reading from the draft agenda]

Question: Do we need more reserved names re the IANA transition? Such as PTI?
Question 2, WT2: Since it is different between RNWG and what was the result in the AGB - especially for geographical names - there is a need to see those two documents in connection.
Question: on our last call we were talking about top level and second level, for this question I think need to be clear what level we are talking about.
We also have 2 characters, single character IDNs, etc. Also have IGOs. Red Cross, IOC, etc.
Questions re: COI / LOC - we would appreciate feedback from applicant's experiences/ problems.
CWG-UCTN is aiming to wrap up an Interim Report (aka Initial Report) around the end of this year. A progress report of sorts is being prepared for ICANN57 discussions.

WT3: 1) Rounds vs. Continuous (first come, first served). Impact on string contention. 2) Do we need an Independent Objector in future?

WT4: [reading from the draft agenda]

Currently in consultations with JAS and other Stakeholder Groups.
Change Question #1 -- not application submission process, but the application evaluation process.

General question: In the unlikely circumstance that we don't have a very talkative audience does anyone have some backup questions?

If you are going to ask an open-ended question such as #1: you should create some rules about participating in order to manage the discussion, i.e., present you idea and why the change should be made - we will compile all the suggestions for discussion by the group.
Registry agreement categories -- in the overall issues, have more discussion in Hyderabad? Handle in the appropriate track (WT2)? Yes.