September 2014 - Gnso-newgtld-dg

New gTLD Program Reviews and Assessments
by Tobias Sattler Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Did we have that already? http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/reviews-assessments-draft-work-… Tobias

2 1

FW: Latest report on gTLDs from ICANN staff
by Ron Andruff Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Dear all, This report (attached) from staff will hopefully add some value to the reality of this DG's timeline considerations. In short: "As of this writing, 404 new gTLDs have been delegated. A total of 1,168 applicants have been invited to contracting. Of those applications in string contention sets, 49% remain subject to contention resolution procedures, which are forecast to be completed by the third quarter of 2016. ICANN anticipates contracting to be completed by the end of 2016, and pre-delegation testing by early 2017, before completing all the new delegations by mid-2017." Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com <http://www.lifedotsport.com>

3 2

- 6 Oct Meeting Time Poll
by Steve Chan Sept. 19, 2014

Sept. 19, 2014

Dear DG Members, I hope this email finds you well. At your earliest convenience, please complete the Doodle Poll to determine the time of this group¹s next meeting: http://doodle.com/yd4dbb4hpat4vggr Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

1 0

- Issue Collection Template
by Steve Chan Sept. 13, 2014

Sept. 13, 2014

Dear WG Members, For those that were able to attend the call on 8 Sept or listen to the MP3, you will have heard me mention a template that is intended to assist in collecting issues. Attached, please find that template. I would ask that this template be completed for each individual issue, even for those that have already been shared with the email list or on the Wiki. It is my view that this template will be beneficial in understanding the scope of the issue and the path for resolution, be it a Policy Development Process, guidance to the GDD team, or other. Note, this path for resolution is distinct and separate from creating a solution to the issue, which I would consider beyond the scope of what is to be accomplished by this Discussion Group. A couple of other important elements that the template is attempting to capture is the interdependency with other issues and the priority of the issues. Upon completing the templates, please reply and share to the list. I will then post them on the Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/Issue+Templates) in an effort to consolidate the contributions in one central location. I will likely create subpages for each individual issue so that if there are multiple contributions for the same issue, they will be grouped and eventually combined into a single document for the issue, with group agreement that the issue is captured properly. Please try to submit your contributions by 22 September 2014. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

5 6

- Reminder: Submit Issues & Nominations for Group Chair(s)
by Steve Chan Sept. 12, 2014

Sept. 12, 2014

Dear DG Members, This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf) Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC. Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. >From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

13 13

First thoughts on 'next round'
by Avri Doria Sept. 12, 2014

Sept. 12, 2014

Hi, I thought I was in this group, but somehow, I wasn't. I am now, so just catching up. > any subsequent round should be more predictable, timely and accountable. This is certainly a good hope. The first principle of the round we are in was predictability. We see how ell that went. That is the first of many principles I think this round missed on. Accountability at ICANN is a permanent quest. And timely should come with time, and experience. And a few more guidelines. Also now that the garden has been seeded with a thousand possible blooms, it is time to work on specific areas of the garden that may need further development and care. Focusing more on type, might help in terms of timeliness. I question the degree to which we need future rounds like this one for undifferentiated standard applications. It may be time to consider putting those on a rolling first come first served model. Given the skills people developed for digital archery, perhaps these are mini rounds that last a day, sort of like the groupings that were done in this round. I am sure a lots of details would need to be worked out. Especially if there are separate tracks for different sorts of application. If we do any rounds, a problem we need to fix is the ability for those who do compete for names to actually negotiate to change their string. This was something that I believe was in the intent of the GNSO recommendations but that the staff vetoed in its implementation, indicating it would be too hard. In the GNSO PDP we had many discussions about 3 applications for bear, where in the end one went for something like .grizzly, one went for .ursus and one went for .teddy. We would also need to allow another thing I think many of us argued for, but which was rejected by staff such as appeals on name contention and on the determination of confusion. I think that the experience in the current round showed us that this is an area where substantial rework of the processes is required. As I said, I do not really see call for another major round like this round, but rather micro rounds that approach a first come first serve model. I do however, see call for two remedial rounds: 1. I believe we need a remedial for applicants from developing economies. We not only need to make these minimal to no cost, but we need to make sure that outreach is significant and then that aid and other ongoing assistance is available for enabling these to become viable registries. I see this as part of ICANN's commitment to globalization. I believe there is strong support for this in ALAC and GAC. This might also include considerations such as assisting with the creation of regional RSPs in development areas. As the monies from auctions have not yet been allocated, this is one use for those funds. The work JAS did might be helpful, but that is only a step in the direction of the remediation that is required. This is a program that could start planning even before the current round ends given its degree of specialization and its long outreach and education lead time. As I understood it, there had been a very extensive proposal for global outreach before he last round started, but it was cancelled for reason only the staff know. Perhaps it can be dug out of mothballs and reused as part of a remedial plan for developing economies. 2. I believe that we need a round for communities only. We need to remediate the mess made out of community applications in this round. The GNSO created a program that was supposed to nurture and protect community applications. Instead we build a system that attacked them as frauds and put them through an extra special punitive ordeal. This needs to be remediated. Such a round could be similar to the Supported gTLD round which occurred before the current round. I also think that now that we know what the categories of gTLD are, we may want to fine tune the processes so that special variants in the process apply to these categories. Two sizes fit all was a workable model before we understood the variations between types of gTLD. Now we have enough information to be able to create some special considerations and perhaps even some specialized streams of application. The one thing I think we must avoid doing is running the same processes we are currently muddling through. This time, we need to specify the requirements of the program in much greater detail to make sure that the right thing is done in implementation. And whatever we do, we need to take advantage of the Implementation Team approach that is included in the current PDP model so that this runaway mess is less likely to occur again. avri

1 0

Attendance and MP3 New gTLDs meeting - Monday 11 August 2014
by Terri Agnew Sept. 9, 2014

Sept. 9, 2014

Dear All, Apologies in the delay. Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group call held on Monday 11 August 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-20140811-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Thomas Rickert - NomCom GNSO Council Dan Rodgers - RrSG Katim Touray - Individual Brett Fausett - RySG Alan Greenberg - ALAC Martin Sutton - BC Susan Payne - IPC Craig Schwartz - Applicant Jennifer Wolfe - Non Commerical Dietmar Lenden - RySG Ron Andruff - BC Ching Chiao - RySG Stuart Fuller -RrSG Rubens Kuhl - RySG Markus Germann - RrSG Stephanie Duchesneau - RySG Iliya Bazlyankov - RrSG Avri Doria - NCSG Jon Nevett - RySG JC Vignes - NTAG Stephane van Gelder - BC Lucie Loos - Individual Tom Lowenhaupt - ALAC Sam Lanfranco - NPOC Tobias Sattler - RrSG Michelle Sara King - SOI Mavis Hsieh – SOI Trang Nguyen – SOI Michael Berkens -SOI Michael Palage -SOI Apologies: Oli Hope - RrSG Mason Cole - RySG Philip Corwin - BC Michele Neylon - RrSG ICANN staff: Amy Bivins Mary Wong Christine Willett Steve Chan Lars Hoffmann Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/OrXhAg> https://community.icann.org/x/OrXhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 11 August 2014: Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group on the 11th August 2014 Thomas Rickert:Hello everyone! Dan Rodgers:Hello :) Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Hi all Bret Fausett, Interim Chair (Uniregistry, RySG, Council):We'll get started in just a minute. Terri Agnew:Ron Andruff has joined Terri Agnew:Lucie Loos has joined audio Terri Agnew:Stephanie Van Gelder and Tom Lowenhaupt has joined Mary Wong:To create or update an SOI: https://community.icann.org/x/cYLg Mary Wong:ICANN Expeected Standards or Behavior (you'll see this every time you log onto a call/meeting): http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-10jan08.… stephane van gelder:That's Stéphane, without an "i", thanks very much! Terri Agnew:Thank you, sorry about the error Terri Agnew:Michael Berkens has joined Ching Chiao (DotAsia):Steve -- are you saying that this WG will still follow the GNSO WG guidline, given it is a Discussion Group ? Terri Agnew:Sam Lanfranco has joined Terri Agnew:as a reminder, when joining Adobe Connect please sign in with your first and last name for roll call purpose Mary Wong:@Ching, not every word or section necessarily, but as a guide in terms of norms, esp in terms of participation and responsibilities of being a member. Mary Wong:For instance, this group doesn't have a formal Charter, but it might want to reach out at an early stage to other SO/ACs (which is recommended by the Guidelines) and creating a Work Plan. Terri Agnew:Tobias Sattler has joined Tobias Sattler:Hi there, sorry for being late on this call. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Working wihtin a WIKI is good start Ching Chiao (DotAsia):agree on the WIKI / Google Drive suggeestion, meanwhile would caution on the accessibility issue (i.e. Google Drive may be blocked by certain countries from time to time) Steve Chan:All, there is a Wiki space already created. I will review the user permissions to make sure members are allowed to contribute content Steve Chan:Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/Discussion+Group+%28DG%29+-+New+… Terri Agnew:Michael Palage has joined Tom Lowenhaupt:I'll text it in Avri Doria:I do not see any way in which a AGB based next round can occur without prior GNSO recommendatons and Board approval. Tom Lowenhaupt:I wanted to emphasize Avri's point about the titleof the group... "subsequent application proceedures" not rounds. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:yes Tobias Sattler:Yes Susan Payne:yes Sam Lanfranco:yes Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:this time looks good Rubens Kuhl:Australia-based people complained about the time, so we could try accomodate them better... Jon Nevett:gotta be the weekend then Rubens Kuhl:My newborn will object to the weekend idea, Jon... ;-) Tobias Sattler:Regarding a LA meeting, please don't schedule it at 7 am in morning if possible. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:+1 Tobias Alan Greenberg:I think that whatever words we use may set mind-sets in this DG, but exactly how any further deployment unrolls is not under the control of the titles we use. Tobias Sattler:Thank you Ching Chiao (DotAsia):thanks Bret! Susan Payne:thanks, bye Sam Lanfranco:bye! Rubens Kuhl:Thanks @All, bye! Tobias Sattler:bye Dan Rodgers:Thanks, bye Markus Germann:bye Lucie Loos:thanks bye Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Thanks Breet and all - speak in a month

2 3

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Reminder: Submit Issues & Nominations for Group Chair(s)
by Will Ellis Sept. 8, 2014

Sept. 8, 2014

Hi Steve I am a new joiner to this group. I often get asked when will there be a round 2 of new gTLDs. I appreciate it will be too early to answer that question yet, but it would be helpful to understand the milestones this group needs to undertake in order to have a clearer picture on the timeline to round 2. Any assistance you can offer in this area would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards Will Will Ellis gTLD lead Nominet UK e will.ellis(a)nominet.org.uk<mailto:jo.golley@nominet.org.uk> t 01865 332211 m 07880 009899 [http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/NomLogoEmailSignature.jpg]<http://www.nominet.org.uk/> Nominet UK is a private limited company, registered in England and Wales. Registration number 3203859. Registered office: Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford Science Park, Oxford, OX4 4DQ.

4 3

Issues
by Rubens Kuhl Sept. 6, 2014

Sept. 6, 2014

It's likely I won't be able to join the next call, so if possible I would like to receive links to recordings and transcripts. I'll contribute some issues I recall in the 2012 round: 1. Lack of clear guidance to objection and CPE panelists led to inconsistent determinations 2. Lack of fee negotiations between ICANN and ICC led to unpredictable and very high fees to community and limited public interest objections 3. Lack of objection consolidation rules led to inconsistent determinations 4. Asking applicants to post letters of credit instead of additional amount to application fee led to troublesome and time-spending banking issues 5. AGB changes during process, including but not limited to vertical integration rules and RAA 2013 requirement, led to invalidation of proposed business plans 6. Lack of adherence to timelines and deadlines led to unpredictability 7. Lack of registry service provider figure led to additional costs to applicants and ICANN for evaluation 8. Lack of standing to registrants and independent objector regarding string confusion objections led to registries proposing possibly confusing strings 9. Excessive gaming protection and late rule definitions on joint applicant support led to possibly zero supported registries 10. Lack of queuing criteria led to delay 11. Lack of name collisions informing to community led to launch delays (that could be avoided by informing CAs and activating controlled interruption at Reveal Day) 12. Lack of rules to resolve indirect contention sets is still leading to delay 13. Lack of objectivity in AGB that have both historical information, rationales, process rules and instruments. AGB should be shorter reflecting only rules and procedures, referring to other documents to provide reasonings. 14. Lack of clear guidance to string similarity evaluation panels led to delays, to inconsistent determinations and to false negatives 15. Lack of model letter of credit led to multiple rounds of clarifying questions 16. Lack of detailed technical and financial questions led to multiple rounds of clarifying questions 17. Lack of clarifying questions procedures led to on-the-fly rules creation 18. Lack of change process procedures led to on-the-fly rules creation 19. Lack of guidance regarding change process relation to objections and CPE led to inconsistent determinations 20. Lack of redress mechanisms led to on-the-fly adapting of already inadequate accountability mechanisms 21. Lack of signed application agreements led to issues in jurisdictions requiring such agreements in order to do international money transfers 22. Lack of signed auction agreements at application time led to delays to start auctioning of contention sets 23. Lack of non-interactive option to submit application led to creation of complex, cumbersome and fail-prone application submission system 24. Imposing of models that only make sense to generic TLDs preventing innovation in applications of the DNS system I guess the progress of the group might remind of some other issues we faced along the process... Rubens

1 0

Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan Sept. 5, 2014

Sept. 5, 2014

Dear DG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the call scheduled for 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC. Proposed Agenda Discussion Group: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures 8 September 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Discussion of Work Plan and Timelines 3. Discussion on Issues Categorization 4. Next steps / confirm next meeting Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

2 1