March 2015 - Gnso-newgtld-dg

Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
by Avri Doria April 1, 2015

April 1, 2015

Hi, Some of the questions/comments I have received passed on without attribution. I asked people to send them in directly if they wished. But just so the points aren't missed. > /IG F/ > > Was community contention resolution efficient? What improvements could > be made to improve efficiency for all parties? Impacts on efficiency > included: CPE could only begin once all contention set applications > had cleared initial and/or extended evaluation (this was later > changed). CO was extremely expensive and in Euros. CPE took up to six > months. Nearly all community applications resulted in some form of > Ombudsman/DIDP/RfR/CEP/IRP action. > > > /IG H / > > What alternative processes – e.g. qualitative assessments – apart from > or in tandem with a points or scoring system for assessing the > existence of a community and the community relationship with applicant > could yield more fulsome and accurate results? > > Could community experts, e.g. sociologists, anthropologists, > economists, etc. be engaged in the development and implementation of > this recommendation? > > Were the goals & intent of the community priority process clearly > communicated to prospective applicants? Could clearer communication > result in better quality applications (i.e. non-election by parties > likely to fail and increased election by parties likely to prevail). > > /IG P / > > Are these the correct criterion for assessing the existence of a > community? > > Are they based on research? > > Could they have been peer-reviewed by a panel of academic and > community experts? > > What other approaches for verifying community could exist? > > and > > GENERAL THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND > > 1. Put a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single group > (group and not company, because we have seen Afilias and M & M using > subsidiaries or other signposts... > > This because the slate applications create war machines where the > economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient to use all degrees > of possibles claims just to filibustering competitors; > > > > 2. Create for community based applications‎ some simple rules as was > made for geo names. The clarity and simplicity of the rules for geo > names, discourage the vultures (not all of them) to apply for geo > names when the appropriate legal entities applied. The unclarity of > the rules for the other non-geo communities pushed many gTLD to defy > community based similar strings. In most of the case they were right > in doing so. > > For instance for sector where exist associations recognized at > regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers, etc.) this give a > legitimacy as a community, even if such associations don't exist in > all continents. > > For "political" and "civil liberties" associations the criteria of > geographic coverage need to be lifted and adapted to existing > situation. Asking. Gay to be supported in countries where still > homosexuality is a crime is an evident nonsense. > > > > 3. Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for developing > countries and poorer regions of the world ‎. > > > > Any application that is expression or get support from LDC and > underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive and a priority. If > this will not happen, even the next round will be characterized by a > predominance of the western applicants. Of course the support have to > be expressed by real and existing bodies, not from mirror entities of > multinationals or local offices of Western companies…. > > > > 4. Clear rules against filibustering > > Norms need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant position. > Those that make opposition without solid ground and multiple > opposition to any competitor and that loose the claims need to be > penalized. For instance imposing a growing deposits of sums in case of > multiple oppositions that will be lost in case of defeat. > > At the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only to those > that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers under contract. For these > latter, at a marginal cost, they could blackmail everybody oppose them. > > > > 5. Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute > > Because of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to have > disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based organization (such as > .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN needs to set aside a fund or a group of > experts to assists the weaker subjects when they have to oppose this > kind of adversary. A sort of asymmetric treatment need be established: > lesser fees, no deposit, and other measure to ensure equality of > chances also to the poorer and farer from Californians beaches… > > > > 6. Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN > > Having accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy could > apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a longlasting effects on the > democratic process within ICANN. How to prevent that the Big 3 or 5 > take over the whole gNSO constituency (achieving a practical > possibility of veto of any decisions of ICANN they dislike or that > could hamper their interests ? > > > > > > SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION ON CPE > > ‎A. The attribution of the points is very much questionable and too > much left to the discretion of the evaluators; > > B. The selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be made > taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask the EIU to judge > about community is like asking a carnivore to judge about the best > vegetarian dish. > > If the scope is to evaluate ‎communities, then ICANN has to ask to > association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN bodies in charge of > humanitarian issues, because they can understand the representativity > of the applicants, its relations with the territorial entities, and so on; > > C. the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total nonsense. > There is no reason to have such a high score to be recognized as a > community. The natural suspect is that the bar has been put so high to > boycott the community applicants and to keep them out of the door. > > D. The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning communities > need to be established in partnership with the community TLDs. Their > interest cannot be represented by RySG that is mainly populated by > people that pursue a totally different scope: to make money out of it > > E. The impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey areas > where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility to verify who > (among the supporting organizations) has been called and who was not. > There was no way to communicate changes of names (the responsible > people change within democratically elected bodies) of the person to > contact within the supporting organizations. ICANN has to create a > special task force that could act as go between the future EIU and the > applicants > > F. Has to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH letter of > support (as it seems from the guidelines) or if it can go only > checking some samplers… > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

3 3

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan April 1, 2015

April 1, 2015

Dear DG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for Monday¹s call. I am re-distributing the latest versions of the issues/recommendations matrix and the executive summary. While it was proposed by Jeff on the 16 March call that there be a 31 March deadline for comment on these two documents, it would be helpful if input is received prior to the call on Monday, so as to allow for discussion during the call. In addition, in support of item three on the agenda, I am providing a draft timeline document that illustrates one path forward to the completion of this group¹s work, a possible issue report request, and initiation of possible PDP(s). Proposed Agenda New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Monday 30 March at 15:00 UTC 1. Roll Call / Updates to SOIs 2. Agreement on Final Deliverables > * Last Call for comments for Executive Summary and Matrix > * Discussion about Charter 3. Project Timing 4. 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

4 4

**with updated affiliation/ Attendance and MP3 New gTLDs meeting - Monday 30 March 2015
by Terri Agnew March 30, 2015

March 30, 2015

**with updated affiliation Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group call held on Monday 30 March 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-30mar15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>m<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>ar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Bret Fausett - RySG Stephanie Duchesneau - RySG Jeff Neuman-RySG Tijani Ben Jemaa - ALAC Dietmer Lenden - RySG Christa Taylor - Individual Avri Doria - NCSG Philip Sheppard - BRG Stuart Fuller - RrSG Donna Austin - RrSG Christopher Niemi- no soi Alan Greenberg - ALAC Susan Payne - IPC Phil Buckingham - Individual Jean-François Vanden Eynde - RrSG Cecilia Smith - no SOI Ken Hansen - no SOI Michael Palage - RySG Alain Artero - no SOI Apologies: Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Tony Holmes - ISPCP ICANN staff: Marika Konings Glen de Saint Gery Amy Bivins Steve Chan Lars Hoffmann Yolanda Jimenez 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/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/OrXhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 30 March 2015: Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds on 30 March 2015 Stuart Fuller:Hi Terri, Hi all Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Is anyone else having trouble dialing in? Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Good morning everyone. Jeff, please let me know when you are in the conference. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):still trying Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Hi SF Jeff Neuman (Valideus):i am getting in Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:One minute Terri. We were disconnected. By disconnected, I mean that I tried to take us off mute and pushed the wrong button. Terri Agnew:ok Jeff Neuman (Valideus):i am in Terri Agnew:Michael Palage has joined Terri Agnew:Phil Buckingham has joined Phil Buckingham:Apologises for my lateness Alan Greenberg:Jeff, all true, but if Bret (for instance) left this meeting with the intent to FORMALLY introduce this as a motion in May, then it would have to be voted in June. If just sent for information, then perfect. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):who is rushing this? Alan Greenberg:Agree with Avri - that is what I was suggesting (or trying to) Philip Sheppard BRG:Or just say a non-exclusive list of issues Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@Philip - That was the plan Philip Sheppard BRG:In big letters at the top Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Can we ask for a session at the BA meeting Jeff Neuman (Valideus):At a reasonable (Non 7am meeting time) Philip Sheppard BRG:A F2F Buenos Aires meeting would attract wide interest - its a good idea Avri Doria:and there is a chance we wont be done and will have actual work to still do. Susan Payne - Valideus:+ 1 Jeff, I have never been able to make any of the DG meetings because of conflict with GAC sessions on future round issiu Susan Payne - Valideus:issues (fat fingers!) Susan Payne - Valideus:The audio from Avri and now Philip is appalling, I don't know if others are encountering this too? So distorted as to be almost imposasible to hear what you are saying. Philip Sheppard BRG:Thanks agree with Bret Philip Sheppard BRG:Understood Jeff n - thanks Philip Sheppard BRG:Of course the GNSO policy had gaps (mea culpa) Jeff Neuman (Valideus):yeah...thanks Philip :) Phil Buckingham:thanks Jeff for clarification Philip Sheppard BRG:Good objective Steve Jeff Neuman (Valideus):My own opinion in looking back at the policies is that the GNSO did a pretty good job on principles Jeff Neuman (Valideus):But the execution did not necessarily meet the policy objectives Philip Sheppard BRG:+1 Alain Artero:thank you Philip Sheppard BRG:Bye thanks all

1 0

Attendance and MP3 New gTLDs meeting - Monday 30 March 2015
by Terri Agnew March 30, 2015

March 30, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group call held on Monday 30 March 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-30mar15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>m<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>ar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Bret Fausett - RySG Stephanie Duchesneau - RySG Jeff Neuman-RySG Tijani Ben Jemaa - ALAC Dietmer Lenden - RySG Christa Taylor - Individual Avri Doria - NCSG Philip Sheppard - Individual Stuart Fuller - RrSG Donna Austin - RrSG Christopher Niemi- no soi Alan Greenberg - ALAC Susan Payne - IPC Phil Buckingham - Individual Jean-François Vanden Eynde - RrSG Cecilia Smith - no SOI Ken Hansen - no SOI Michael Palage - RySG Alain Artero - no SOI Apologies: Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Tony Holmes - ISPCP ICANN staff: Marika Konings Glen de Saint Gery Amy Bivins Steve Chan Lars Hoffmann Yolanda Jimenez 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/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/OrXhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 30 March 2015: Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds on 30 March 2015 Stuart Fuller:Hi Terri, Hi all Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Is anyone else having trouble dialing in? Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Good morning everyone. Jeff, please let me know when you are in the conference. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):still trying Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Hi SF Jeff Neuman (Valideus):i am getting in Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:One minute Terri. We were disconnected. By disconnected, I mean that I tried to take us off mute and pushed the wrong button. Terri Agnew:ok Jeff Neuman (Valideus):i am in Terri Agnew:Michael Palage has joined Terri Agnew:Phil Buckingham has joined Phil Buckingham:Apologises for my lateness Alan Greenberg:Jeff, all true, but if Bret (for instance) left this meeting with the intent to FORMALLY introduce this as a motion in May, then it would have to be voted in June. If just sent for information, then perfect. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):who is rushing this? Alan Greenberg:Agree with Avri - that is what I was suggesting (or trying to) Philip Sheppard BRG:Or just say a non-exclusive list of issues Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@Philip - That was the plan Philip Sheppard BRG:In big letters at the top Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Can we ask for a session at the BA meeting Jeff Neuman (Valideus):At a reasonable (Non 7am meeting time) Philip Sheppard BRG:A F2F Buenos Aires meeting would attract wide interest - its a good idea Avri Doria:and there is a chance we wont be done and will have actual work to still do. Susan Payne - Valideus:+ 1 Jeff, I have never been able to make any of the DG meetings because of conflict with GAC sessions on future round issiu Susan Payne - Valideus:issues (fat fingers!) Susan Payne - Valideus:The audio from Avri and now Philip is appalling, I don't know if others are encountering this too? So distorted as to be almost imposasible to hear what you are saying. Philip Sheppard BRG:Thanks agree with Bret Philip Sheppard BRG:Understood Jeff n - thanks Philip Sheppard BRG:Of course the GNSO policy had gaps (mea culpa) Jeff Neuman (Valideus):yeah...thanks Philip :) Phil Buckingham:thanks Jeff for clarification Philip Sheppard BRG:Good objective Steve Jeff Neuman (Valideus):My own opinion in looking back at the policies is that the GNSO did a pretty good job on principles Jeff Neuman (Valideus):But the execution did not necessarily meet the policy objectives Philip Sheppard BRG:+1 Alain Artero:thank you Philip Sheppard BRG:Bye thanks all

1 0

- Issues / Recommendations Matrix and Executive Summary
by Steve Chan March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear DG Members, As discussed on today¹s group call, staff is circulating the updated Issues / Recommendations matrix that was last edited by Jeff Neuman, along with his short explanation regarding the proposed groupings he included in the document (see below). I have also included his updated Executive Summary. As noted by Jeff on the call, the co-chairs request feedback by 30 Mar 2015 and preferably before, so as to be able to include for discussion during the DG call on 30 Mar 2015 at 14:00 UTC. Note, I have incorporated Philip Shepard¹s proposed changes into tab 2 of the attached Excel sheet. "I refer to the Matrix that has Policies A-G, 1-20 and IG A through IG-R. With respect to the Potential New topics I refer to Excel row number in that 2nd tab) Group 1: Overall Process / Support / Outreach : A, C, 1, 9, 10 (concept), 12 (Concept), 13, IG A, IG B, IG C, IG D, IG E, IG I, IG M, IG N, IG O, IG Q, New Row 3) Group 2: Legal / Regulatory: 5, 10 (substance), 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, IG J, IG K, IG L, New Row 2, New Row 4, New Row 5, New Row 6 Group 3: Contentions / Objections & Disputes: G, 2, 3, 6, 12, 20, IG F, IG H, IG P, IG R Group 4: Internationalized Domain Names: B, 18 Group 5: Technical and Operations: D, E, F, 4, 7, 8, New Row 7 (Name Collision)" 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

9 16

Attendance and MP3 New gTLDs meeting - Monday 16 March 2015
by Terri Agnew March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group call held on Monday 16 March 2015 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16mar15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>m<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>ar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Bret Fausett - RySG Stephanie Duchesneau - RySG Jeff Neuman-RySG Tijani Ben Jemaa - ALAC Dietmer Lenden - RySG Christa Taylor - Individual Rubens Kuhl- RySG Katim S. Touray - Individual Lucie Loos - Individual Avri Doria - NCSG Philip Sheppard - Individual Stuart Fuller - RrSG Jonathan Frost - RySG Sonigitu Ekpe - NCUC Donna Austin - RrSG Jon Nevett - RySG Sam Lanfranco - NPOC Arnaud Wittersheim - RrSG Kristina Rosette - RySG Evan Leibovitch - ALAC Tom Lowenhaupt - ALAC Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Christopher Niemi- no soi Cecilia Smith - no soi Apologies: Alan Greenberg - ALAC Steven Coates - BC (no SOI) Susan Payne - IPC Phil Buckingham - ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings 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/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/OrXhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 16 March 2015: Terri Agnew: Dear all, Welcome to the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds on 16 March 2015 Sonigitu Ekpe:Good day all! Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Hello everyone Christopher Niemi:YEs Avri Doria:Apologies for not having submitted. just catching up today before the meeting. have concerns withthe commuity related material. Terri Agnew:Welcome Arnaud Wittersheim, Christa Taylor and Kristina Rosette Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Thanks Avri. When do you think we will be able to get comments/ Avri Doria:will aim for getting it done this week. several of us from the commuity applicants are looking at it as well. Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Thanks Avri Doria:now it Avri Doria:is Rubens Kuhl:I think there is one point for limited rounds, whether they are limited to communities, developing countries, brands etc. Evan Leibovitch:yes Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Jeff makes a good point. I am sure I will see all of you on the other side of the GNSO resolution, when we create the policy development group, so we will get to the substance very soon. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:+1 Bret and Jeff Evan Leibovitch:there will be ALAC participation as well, from both inside and outside of the PDP Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Good to hear, Evan. Thanks. Avri Doria:good idea about having staff on a call. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Thanks Evan, i would hope most of it is within the PDPs Terri Agnew:Welcome Tom Lowenhaupt Steve Chan:No problem Philip Evan Leibovitch:outside, in case there are implementation issues that a pdp might consider out of scope. Avri Doria:with a 1000+ applicants to analyse, it should be possible to carve out several tracks and the attributes of thes tracks. Terri Agnew:Welcome Kiran Malancharuvil Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks Terri. Sorry for being late. Jon Nevett:Agree with Jeff that there were policies decided by staff that need to be reviewed for next round Philip Sheppard BRG:Sorry hand is not lowering ! Avri Doria:it looks lowered Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:+1 Jon and Jeff Stuart Fuller:Ditto Avri Doria:me too, may issue where policy was created by staff. Avri Doria:.. many ... Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Can we get someone to commit to sending the drafts to each of the constituencies and ALAC? Donna Austin, ARI:What a decisions by the NGPC made in response to GAC advice considered to be? Policy or implementation. Evan Leibovitch:The ALAC had big problems with the community evaluation process. Is that considered policy or implementation? Avri Doria:Both policy and implementation, i beleive. Jon Nevett:ALAC isn't alone! Avri Doria:The policy was not speicifc enough (as most of the policies at that time) and the implemtnation made policy. Evan Leibovitch:Thanks. That sounds accurate. Steve Chan:Sure thing Mary Wong:Some of the questions you're asking led in part to the GNSO Council chartering the Policy & Implementation Working Group, for whose Initial Report the public comment period closes tomorrow :) Should that WG's recommendations be adopted - including a set of Working Principles and a few additional processes for the GNSO as a whole to provide input into implementation work - hopefully they will also assist this group and the potential eventual PDP that results. Avri Doria:good point MAry Philip Sheppard BRG:+1 Jon Nevett:please resend matrix with Jeff's comments Cecilia Smith:How do we provide comments on these items? Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar):+1 have not seen the matrix on list Cecilia Smith:Thanks Sam Lanfranco:Thanks Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Thanks Jeff!! Philip Sheppard BRG:Thanks all Christa Taylor:Great works. Thanks. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Thanks Jeff Evan Leibovitch:bye Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:bye Kristina Rosette - Amazon:Thanks. Christopher Niemi:Thanks. Arnaud Wittersheim:Thanks all

1 0

- Proposed Agenda for 16 March 2015 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

Dear DG Members, Proposed Agenda New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Monday 16 March 2015 at 15:00 UTC 1. Roll Call / Updates to SOIs 2. Discussion of circulated materials > * ICANN Board Resolution Annex A > * GDD Staff Input > * Updates to Executive Summary > * Updates to Recommendations / Issues matrix 3. Next Steps 4. 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

5 4

Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
by Jeff Neuman March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

All, I spent the morning going through the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix of issues drafted by Steve. The Matrix maps the issues to the original policy recommendations and what we called back then Implementation Guidelines. My revisions in the Executive Summary are redlined. My changes to the Matrix are highlighted. The biggest thing on the Matrix that I did was separate the policy recommendations that were made from the implementation of those policies. In most cases, the policies are still relevant and satisfactory (though the implementation of those may need improvement or total revamping). For example, the policy from the GNSO was that "Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name". I still believe the policy is relevant and may or may not need altering. However, how that is implemented I believe certainly could use a bunch of work. The previous draft merged both the policy and implementation. On the Executive Summary I added some language in the background to put more context around the process and to make sure there is no revisionist history going on. Yes, the AGB was intended to "implement" the policies, but it is hard to argue that the AGB did not create new policies (as well as implementation). I hope this helps. I am reviewing the staff input as well and will have some comments on that. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

2 1

- Materials for Review / Call Schedule
by Steve Chan March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Dear DG Members, I have consolidated the suggested materials for review underneath the header ³For DG Review To be Discussed 16 March 2015 (and on the email list)² on the Wiki, available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49356545 In addition, here is the proposed upcoming call schedule. Note that on today¹s call, I mentioned that the 16 March call would be at a different UTC time, but I have since been informed by the GNSO Secretariat that the 30 March call will be the first meeting with the updated start time. Those in locales where the time has already changed by the 16 March meeting should pay pay careful attention to the start time. 16 March 2015 15:00 UTC 30 March 2015 14:00 UTC 13 April 2015 14:00 UTC 27 April 2015 14:00 UTC 11 May 2015 14:00 UTC 25 May 2015 14:00 UTC Best, Steve 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

Updated Attendance and MP3 New gTLDs meeting - Monday 02 March 2015
by Nathalie Peregrine March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

*With updated attendance* From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org<mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 2, 2015 at 6:19 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-secs] Attendance and MP3 New gTLDs meeting - Monday 02 March 2015 Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group call held on Monday 02 March 2015 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-02mar15-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec>http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>m<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>ar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Brett Fausett - RySG Stephanie Duchesneau - RySG Jeff Neuman-RySG Christopher Niemi- no soi Michele Neylon-RrSG Tijani Ben Jemaa - ALAC Liz Williams - RySG Dietmer Lenden – RySG Will Ellis – RrSG Christa Taylor – Individual Susan Payne – IPC Steven Coates – BC (no SOI) Christopher Niemi, Carlos Raul Gutierrez – GNSO Councilor Rubens Kuhl- RySG Evan Leibovitch – ALAC Apologies: none ICANN staff: Steve Chan Lars Hoffmann Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/OrXhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 02 March 2015: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, Welcome to the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds on 02 March 2015 Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Let's give this two more minutes for people to join and then we will begin. Carlos Raul:good morning Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC):Hi there Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC):I need a dial out Nathalie Peregrine:Please send me your number Tojani Nathalie Peregrine:Tijai Nathalie Peregrine:Michele Neylon has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:Rubens Kuhl has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:Please mute your AC mics when not talking by clicking on the microphone icon at the top of the AC room LizW:the charter will presuppose that there is no question that there will be the fourth round of new tld applications? Rubens Kuhl:Actually I'm only in Adobe and have no mic capabilities, but otherwise I've joined. No updates to my SOI. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I would be happy to help out Michele Neylon:+1 to Jeff Susan Payne - Valideus:Volunteer basis is good LizW:I think it would be really useful to map out the parallel processes that are taking place which ought not hold up the PDP process...that is likely to take a century (not!) anyway LizW:i can volunteer too...we don't need elections I think... LizW:fine for me... Stephanie Duchesneau:fully support Jeff and Liz LizW:I wonder if it's not useful to separate out "best practice implementation" suggestions from questions about policy (for example, competition, trademark protection, consumer safeguards?) Michele Neylon:did the audio die? Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Is there any guidance from the Policy/Implementation group that we can use here to determine what needs to be in a PdP? Nathalie Peregrine:@ Michele, do you need a dial out? My audio is fine LizW:just a thought...from Bret's conversation...let's also identify things which are fixed from previous policy discussions. It may be possible to identify a very small number of really serious policy issues which need examination. LizW:not second round...fourth round...remember 2000 and 2004 and 2012 Michele Neylon:Nathalie - no it came back Nathalie Peregrine:ok LizW:I was on the P & I Working Group...much of the issues are implementation and I think we need to foucs on policy and contracting issues (for example, IDN issues, international jurisdiction, protection of escrow arrangements) LizW:someone really clever can work on some schematics about the intersections of policy/implementation Nathalie Peregrine:Arnaud Wittersheim has joined the call Susan Payne - Valideus:Not sure if I am understanding you correctly Liz, but i think if there were serious failures which were implementation as opposed to policy then these should also be a priority LizW:yes agree Rubens Kuhl:It's very likely that staff also reckons some serious failures, but they probably can't say it out loud... and we don't have to make them to, if the issues are fixed, we don't have to expose them for it, only for those that are not fixed. Michele Neylon:GDD portal is down as per https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-01-en Michele Neylon:FYI it's only an initial report Michele Neylon:so it's nowhere near being adapted Michele Neylon:re: policy + implementation .. Rubens Kuhl:We can use all the output of the policy and implementation group we want to. We are not (yet) mandated to, but for now it's WG discretion to use those. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I understand..which is why I just asked for us to be given some guidance into their discussions Michele Neylon:Rubens - it's only draft / interim so possibly useful but it may be tootally useless Jeff Neuman (Valideus):There are certain clear areas of implementation (things ike Letters of Credit, digital archery, etc.) Rubens Kuhl:First change to AGB would be for it to be really procedural, instead of trying to justify decisions, which would be the role of papers and reports. Michele Neylon:the application guidebook was opened to multiple comment periods Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Just to be clear, I think a redlined version of the guidebook isn't our job. That will be something that the PDP process may wish to look at. We are just framing the issues. LizW:Jeff has just reminded me of a really important issue around separation of registry registrar arrangmeents. there is no doubt that this issue could do with another go through given the changes to the competitive landscape. LizW:so the redline should be a "let's get this absolutely perfect" thing. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I dont think we should talk about "redlining" at this point. Sends wrong message. Lets call it a review for issue sportting for future work Jeff Neuman (Valideus):sorry issue spotting Jeff Neuman (Valideus):not sporting LizW:agree Jeff..how should we pull out really relevant good things and things which didn't work so well? Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Do we know when the AoC review will begin and how that will feed in to all of this? LizW:And will any GNSO review have an impact? LizW:And will any GNSO review have an impact? LizW:just a dopey thought...shouldn't we ask the RySG for its ideal scenario? they are the main customers? Rubens Kuhl:Some people might see current registries, either g's or cc's, as incumbent operators, while main customers would be the organisations that are not yet registries. Susan Payne - Valideus:I don't think the RySG are the main customers. Some existing ROs may apply in future. Other applicants may not be existing ROs. There is something quite uiuncomforttable about having present incumbents make the rules for their future competitors Michele Neylon:I don't agree with any request to the RySG only Michele Neylon:they are NOT the only impacted parties Susan Payne - Valideus:apols for the spelling! Michele Neylon:and suggesting they are is crazy LizW:@susan..it certainly helps to frame issues... LizW:@michele...that is why I suggested a review of the arrangements between registries and registrars is helpful...not crazy... Rubens Kuhl:It's not only about current registries, or current registrars... Michele Neylon:No you suggested asking the RySG Michele Neylon:which is not the same thing Michele Neylon:Rubens - agreed Michele Neylon:What about the companies that didn't complete their applications in this round? LizW:so -- just ask everyone for input...which is what I was suggesting in my question... Michele Neylon:or the companies that never applied? Stephanie Duchesneau:short of just asking the registries what they would want as an output, i think it would be very useful to look back through NTAG correspondence through this process, to see problem areas that affected applicants across the board in this round, and make sure that those issues are at least being considered LizW:I wonder how we deal with Michele's point about "those that didn't complete" their applications...the best outcome is more applicants not fewer but I am sure interested in hearing what put people off applying? Michele Neylon:why did they pull out? Michele Neylon:was it because the "asks" / "demands" were unreasonable Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Agreed Michele, but the community needs to prioritize and decide which ones are more important Rubens Kuhl:Michele, some dropped out due to unreasonable demands, others due to uncertainty (rules keep changing), others due to scaremonging that made them apply, others due to "free puppy" effect... but it's an interesting research to be done, indeed. Michele Neylon:Jeff - I don't disagree Nathalie Peregrine:Evan Leibovitch has joined the call Jeff Neuman (Valideus):i do think that the accountability and IANA groups have brought in a lot of new people Jeff Neuman (Valideus):the fact that the "old" people believe they need to participate in everything is a problem for them Jeff Neuman (Valideus)::) Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I am one of them Evan Leibovitch:Is it in scope whether a next round might be soley a remedial one. I know that concept might not be popular in this group but it is important elsewhere. Rubens Kuhl:Evan, what lines would be drawn to such a remedial round ? Regions, brands ? Evan Leibovitch:at very least revisiting the community vetting process Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Evan ... nothing is out of scope initially LizW:@steve and what are you concerned about from a staff point of view? Knowing that is very valuable. Rubens Kuhl:The community vetting process as in community objections, CPEs or Applicant Support ? LizW:Outreach is a different process all together. LizW:@evan what does catch up mean? The isuses that you've raised a legitimate implementation issues which should definately be raised. Were there policy issues too? LizW:a "solely devoted to "this" is really really difficult and I would recommend against it because it a) chills innovation b) is very subjective c) can be perceived as failures...read back to the 2004 round... Evan Leibovitch:As I said, I did not expec that PoV to be popular here ;-) Rubens Kuhl:The thing is: can a remedial round occur sooner than a full round ? If it this, than it's of value... but I believe it's not, so it doesn't generate a better outcome for the wronged ones. LizW:just set a time that works for you and jeff... i will fit in on UTC time. Carlos Raul:thank you Michele Neylon:ciao all

1 0