- Gnso-newgtld-dg - lists.icann.org

- 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

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

March 2, 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 – GAC (Observer) 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

- Draft Materials For Consideration
by Steve Chan March 1, 2015

March 1, 2015

Dear DG Members, Staff has prepared some materials for the DG to consider that will hopefully further the work of the group. Attached, please find the following documents: * A Gantt chart to illustrate a work plan that allows this group to deliver its outputs to the GNSO Council prior to ICANN53 in Buenos Aires. * An executive summary document that provides a limited amount of the history on the original PDP, the current state of the New gTLD program, and a description of the proposed deliverables to be developed by this group. * Staff has taken the liberty of preparing a first draft of a matrix to assign the issues identified by this group to their logical place, if one exists, within the original GNSO recommendations. Where an issue may not relate to any existing policy recommendation, it can be found on the second tab, which highlights areas for potential new policy work. This document is staff¹s attempt at structuring the deliberations of the DG to date and putting them into a constructive format to analyze how the issues should be tackled (e.g., new policy, update to existing policy language, implementation guidance, etc.). Hopefully the DG finds this document useful, but it is of course up to the group to determine if this document is worthy of acting as a starting basis or if deliberations should start from a clean slate. > * In the matrix, staff has noted where it believes the areas described in the > Board Resolution from 17 November 2014 > (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-a-17nov14-en.… > f) fall into the existing recommendations (or is beyond the scope of those > recommendations), but has not incorporated any of the opinions found in that > document. > * Staff has also not incorporated the input received from GDD staff. I look forward to discussing these materials on our call on Monday 02 March at 15:00 UTC. 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

3 4

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan Feb. 27, 2015

Feb. 27, 2015

Dear DG Members, Proposed Agenda New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Monday 2 March 2015 at 15:00 UTC 1. Roll Call / Updates to SOIs 2. Recap of DG efforts to date 3. Discussion of circulated materials > * Gantt chart > * Executive summary > * Recommendationsissues matrix 4. Next Steps and Call for Volunteers 5. Confirm meeting schedule 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

Any Recent Activity
by Jeff Neuman Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

All, I notice it has been more than a month or so since any recent activity. There was an update given at ICANN in Singapore and I thought there was a report that was supposed to come out. What is the current state of affairs on this and the action plan moving forward. Happy to help out if I can. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude 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> M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

3 4

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Any Recent Activity
by Steve Chan Feb. 18, 2015

Feb. 18, 2015

Jeff, Sorry for the belated response. Confirming your message was received and noting that your offer to help is appreciated. Currently, Bret and I are working on an updated work plan and preparing some draft documents per the email staff sent 28 January, set for distribution prior to the next meeting. I need to confirm with Bret, but I believe we are targeting Monday, 2 March at 15:00 UTC for our next meeting, with meetings following every two weeks thereafter. If any DG members have an objection to that proposed recurring schedule, please feel free to voice your opinion on the email list. Best, Steve From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 2:40 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Any Recent Activity Sorry to be sending another message, but as I have not seen any replies, I am just testing this to see if it works. If it does, can Steve or Brett provide a status and next steps. Again, happy to help out. 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 From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 5:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Any Recent Activity All, I notice it has been more than a month or so since any recent activity. There was an update given at ICANN in Singapore and I thought there was a report that was supposed to come out. What is the current state of affairs on this and the action plan moving forward. Happy to help out if I can. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA| Com Laude 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> M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

3 3

- Staff input to GNSO Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures and DG Status Update
by Steve Chan Jan. 28, 2015

Jan. 28, 2015

Dear DG Members, Please see the message below from GDD staff, along with the attached supporting document. As was discussed at ICANN 51 in Los Angeles, GDD staff is providing input to the work of the DG. Also, please find a link to Annex A from a Board resolution from 17 November 2014, which was already shared, but may warrant additional review: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-a-17nov14-en.p df I would also like to take this opportunity to discuss the status of the DG as there has not been a meeting since the face to face session in Los Angeles. Staff is currently preparing some materials for the group to review and comment on, which includes the following drafts: 1. A document to summarize the work of this group, which will include background, where we started, and where we intend to conclude. 2. A matrix with all of the original GNSO 2007 recommendations with the DG¹s issues associated with the most appropriate recommendation. Further, the issues will either fall under a category of policy update/clarification or implementation advice. Where an issue does not appear to map to a recommendation, it may be an indication that new policy work may be warranted. 3. A charter-like document that will provide additional information regarding each high level issue, such as a detailed description of the issue, the scope of the issue (e.g., parties affected, quantification of impact, etc.), relative importance and complexity, and proposed questions or considerations that may be used for a potential PDP effort. Staff will develop skeletons/examples of 2 and 3 to ensure that adequate feedback from the DG is obtained before a more finalized and comprehensive draft is prepared. This set of materials is expected to be shared shortly after the ICANN 52 meeting for discussion amongst the group. Please note that the chair of this group has consulted with staff to decline having a face to face session in Singapore. However, the group will resume DG meetings in earnest shortly after ICANN 52 and hopefully make progress on the email list discussing the input from GDD staff, as well as the proposed approach described above. Best, Steve From: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 3:40 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Subject: Staff input to GNSO Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Dear Steve, As mentioned during the GNSO sessions during ICANN 51 in Los Angeles, GDD staff is following the work of the Discussion Group and has offered to provide input at any point where it is helpful to the group¹s process. Since that time, a group of staff members with experience in execution of the current application round has met to review the list of issues identified by the DG to date, and to identify any considerations that may contribute to the group¹s discussions. The attached document includes an initial set of inputs to the group. The notes included here are organized based on the mind map <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/2014-December/000129.html> prepared during the initial discussions of the DG. As described in the document, the objective of this input is to offer questions and considerations based on staff experiences with the issues identified to date by the group. The feedback presented is meant to raise questions for the DG¹s consideration, rather than suggesting outcomes. With these contributions, staff¹s aim is to ensure that experience from the current round is reflected in areas where the group may be considering proceeding with policy work. We hope this is a useful contribution and would be happy to discuss or provide any additional information as desired. Best regards, Karen - Karen Lentz Director, Operations & Policy Research ICANN 12025 E. Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 +1 310 301 5836 office +1 310 895 3637 mobile karen.lentz(a)icann.org

1 0