- Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 - lists.icann.org

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Julie Bisland July 25, 2017

July 25, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7c2woeup9d/<https://participate.icann.org/p7c2woeup9d/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e2259dfccc4b8e68…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/WXHwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Bisland ------------------------------- Adobe Connect Chat transcript for 25 July 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue on Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 20:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… vanda scartezini:hi all, I am in the airport so will keep myself as listen only to avoid any noise interference Julie Bisland:thank you, Vanda :) vanda scartezini:cheryl nice to hear you again today... kisses Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hugs n kisses Vanda avri doria:better to wait for jeff Julie Hedlund:Jeff is trying to join but having Adobe Connect issues Jeff Neuman:Hello all. New computer.....adobe doesnt like it apparently Jeff Neuman:sorry for my tardiness Jeff Neuman:This overlaps with the discussion from yesterday Jeff Neuman:I think the main point for us to consider here is HOW LONG should the period be Jeff Neuman:to receive applications Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:3 month is fine vanda scartezini:from here the msot relevant is advance infromation - last time was basically none in the south hemisphere. Jim Prendergast:I would caution against the use of the term "pent up demand" as to date the only evidence of such is annecdotal at best and I have seen nothing to suggest it is widespread. Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:+1 Jim Jim Prendergast:3 months is fine by me Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jim, while it may be anecdotal, given it's more than 5 years since the 2012 application round, can we agree that there is or will be demand for new gTLDs? vanda scartezini:from the survey I did last year in this LAC region the answer is Yes Donna, we did not have good chance to enter last round Jim Prendergast:there will be people who appply for sure. But we have no idea how many. Number like 25k application are thrown around with no factual bassis behind those numbers. It's like 2012 all over again where we just dont know how many there will be. Jim Prendergast:apologies but Adobe is really acting up so im switching to audio only Donna Austin, Neustar:I'll refrain from using the term 'pent up' demand for just 'demand' Jeff Neuman:my adobe is acting up as well, so I am joining audio bridge Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:Prioritization draw is ok Rubens Kuhl:Katrin, I just hope that the ticket is included in the application fee... having to pay separately for it was a mess. Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:+1 Rubens - and also the flight+hotel ;-) Rubens Kuhl:Make Digital Archery Great Again Donna Austin, Neustar:Is that a comment from the GAC or the UK GAC representative? Jeff Neuman:UK GAC Rep Kurt Pritz:@Rubens - there were legal reasons for paying separately for the draw Rubens Kuhl:@Kurt - I believe it needs to go to a separe pot, but looking forward ICANN could collect it at application time. Jeff Neuman:Didnt we get feedback from ICANN on whether they are able to do a lottery again Rubens Kuhl:I think that is a decision to be made in the TLD Types discussion... Phil Buckingham:one assumes that the lottery would be done again in California ? Sara Bockey:@Jeff, yes, I recall something from staff... mainly that we're not supposed to call it a lottery (legal reasons) They may be able to do something similiar if I recall correctly Kurt Pritz:To get the terminology straight: (1) the prioitization draw was a "raffle" and (2) ICANN did not conduct a lottery Rubens Kuhl:We could win priority numbers using buzzword bingo @ ICANN Public Forum. I want all my cards with "Swenglish". Rubens Kuhl:Even if possible to use, it could be either easy or cumbersome. Jeff Neuman:less prescriptive mean digital archery again :) Donna Austin, Neustar:@Steve, that seems to be a rather important consideration. Phil Buckingham:so will there be a prioritisation this time. So will IDNs still get priority this time ? Kurt Pritz:Maybe this group could ask ICANN for formal advice on the draw issue and whether it can be legally repeated - with a one month or so delivery. That way, we would know our options. Rubens Kuhl:IDNs have quit a larger challenge to overcome than time-to-market. Their priority didn't bring them much return. Rubens Kuhl:(quite a) Donna Austin, Neustar:Agreed Rubens Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:+1 Ruben Steve Chan 2:I would note, the comments I made earlier wouldn't preclude the WG from saying the mechanism SHOULD be a priotitization draw, in the form of a raffle, similar to the 2012 round. That makes it very clear what the WG wants, but at least allows for some level of adjustment if the mechanism is not legally feasibile. Trang Nguyen:If we get 25,000 applications, we will need a way to batch the applications for processing. Kurt Pritz:@ Steve: if a draw is not legally feasible, we don't want to spend time discussing it. We should be able to understand if the law has changed since the last round. Jeff Neuman:not mine Donna Austin, Neustar:@Trang, what do you mean by 'batch'? Do you mean by similar type of application or just in batches of 100 or 200 Jeff Neuman:I do not believe there have been any changes to the lottery laws of california in over 30 years Rubens Kuhl:25,000 applications could be 25,000 applicants to 1 TLD each or 25 applicants of 1,000 TLDs. Those two scenarios would need very different resources. Jeff Neuman:Different cases, bot not statutory Phil Buckingham:Correct Donna. Rubens Kuhl:"Please put me first" ( ) "Please put me last" ( ) Julie Bisland:I'm sorry, i cant find that line beeping. but its gone :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):sorry that was my next ICANN. call dial out, I am muted but the beeps on call waiting came through... I have it held now Julie Bisland:oh, thank you, Cheryl. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):took a while for my stop message to filter to Audio ;-) Trang Nguyen:@Donna, some considerations if we get 25,000 applications include whether the application comment should be extended to allow the community more time to review the large number of applications and provide comment, whether the objection submission window should be extended, evaluation of applications would be extended, or whether the 25,000 applications would be batched in some form into smaller groups for processing. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):makes sense Trangie Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Trang, that's helpful context. Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 08 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC Jeff Neuman:thanks all! Rubens Kuhl:Thanks all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye Phil Buckingham:thanks Christa & Sara

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 25 July 2017
by Julie Hedlund July 25, 2017

July 25, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 25 July. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Please note that for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below and the PDFs of the sections from the Google Document are attached. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: 1. Review of RySG Letter re RSP Program -- This was a letter we received from the Registry Service Provider Discussion Group (RSP Discussion Group) -- 09 July 2017 -- Last year there was a discussion on communication with ICANN and some technical issues -- really on trying to make the process of changing a backend provider or signing contracts smooth. This subgroup was established to deal with those issues and also on dealing with ICANN staff on technical issues and criteria for backend service providers, among other things. -- Reached out to PDP WG Chairs: They have their own work tracks and they will try to provide input by the end of September on the RSP Program, particularly in WT1. -- This is a positive development in that the registries are working on this issue and that they want to contribute. -- PDP WG Chairs will send a letter back thanking them and saying that we are looking forward to receiving their input. 2. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions a. Application Submission Period 1.6.1 One of the overarching questions in CC1 focused on whether applications should be accepted during defined windows of time (also known as "rounds"). If the WG determines that a system of rounds is the right approach, is 3 months an appropriate length of time to accept applications? What considerations should be taken into account when determining the length of the application window? Slide 3 – Summary -- Continuous would be treated as FCFS and disadvantage some (GAC). -- Need to consider impact on staff -- time to evaluate apps (BC) -- More data needed prior to any rounds or FCFS to determine benefit or harm caused to Internet by further gTLD expansion (ALAC). Slide 4 – Excerpts -- Support for rounds with sufficient advance notice: Jannic Skou/Nominet/BRG/GAC UK. -- Process should occur regularly to provide predictability: Jannik skou/BRG/BC. -- Support for a continuous application system: Demys/RySG. 1.6.2 -- If we have a few next "rounds" followed by a continuous application process, how should the application submission period be handled in the lead-up rounds? Slide 5/6 -- Excerpts -- Less concern with rounds or continuous process and more concern re: potential harm to Internet users by proliferation of gTLDs (ALAC). -- Support for priority to first applications: Jannik Skou. -- Support for establishing a predicatable timeline: BRG/RySG. -- Process should reflect end-goal of continuous application window: RySG/Afilias/BRG. 1.6.3 -- Do you think the length of the submission period will impact Applicant Support and what factors do you think should be considered in determining an appropriate length of time? Slide 7 & 8 -- Excerpts -- Application Support is a separate issue: Afilias. -- Submission period must be predictable: Nominet/Jannik Skou/ALAC. -- Education and awareness is key: BRG/RySG/Jannik Skou. Discussion: Question: The main point for us to consider is how long should the period be. Are we discussing rounds here -- or just an initial round followed by some other process? Response: There is general agreement with most of the community that the next application window should be in the form of a round. So, separate the discussion that the next window would be a round and then decide what to do after that. The first discussion is whether to do rounds or FCFS, but seems agreed that the next window will be rounds. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I think the main point for us to consider here is HOW LONG should the period be Jeff Neuman: to receive applications Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON: 3 month is fine vanda scartezini: from here the msot relevant is advance infromation - last time was basically none in the south hemisphere. Jim Prendergast: I would caution against the use of the term "pent up demand" as to date the only evidence of such is annecdotal at best and I have seen nothing to suggest it is widespread. Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON: +1 Jim Jim Prendergast: 3 months is fine by me Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jim, while it may be anecdotal, given it's more than 5 years since the 2012 application round, can we agree that there is or will be demand for new gTLDs? vanda scartezini: from the survey I did last year in this LAC region the answer is Yes Donna, we did not have good chance to enter last round Jim Prendergast: there will be people who appply for sure. But we have no idea how many. Number like 25k application are thrown around with no factual bassis behind those numbers. It's like 2012 all over again where we just dont know how many there will be. b. Application Queuing 1.7.1 -- Do you agree that a process similar to the prioritization draw should be used in the future? If rounds are not used, would this method still be appropriate? Would a prioritization draw, or similar method, work for a continuous application period or would it be better to base processing/evaluation on order of receipt? Slide 9/10/11/12 – Excerpts and Themes Excerpts: -- In support of the prioritization draw: Nominet/GAC/RySG/Jannik Skou. -- John Poole opposes prioritization draw. -- Nominet and RySG emphasized the importance of predictability. Themes: -- Prioritization aspects in developing recommendations but without limiting the implementation to a draw (for instance, the legal environment won't allow for a repeated 'lottery' type of license. -- Prioritization draws: focused on the order applications are managed not the timing. -- Mechanism will rely on randomization. -- Laws of California. -- Mechanism will be operationally optimized. 1.7.2 -- Should certain subgroups of applicants/application types be prioritized over others? Slide 13/14/15 -- Excerpts -- In support of prioritization of specific application types: Jannik Skou/Nominet/ALAC/Demys/GAC UK. -- Afilias and RySG and John Poole do not favor prioritization of specific application types. -- BRG suggested grouping applications by common characteristics. Discussion: -- Question: When we use "prioritization draw" does that include preference for IDNs? Response: That will come up in the discussion of the mechanism. -- Note that we did some informal outreach to the ICANN Legal Team as to whether a raffle could be conducted for subsequent procedures. The answer was "it depends" since they would have to do some research. The language should allow some flexibility to accommodate the current legal environment. -- There were a number of comments from Nominet and others that really want predictability. Even if we dont' prescribe the mechanism, whatever it is should be announced prior to the opening up of the first window of the next round. -- Some people are saying we may have thousands of applications -- if we do is it better to prioritize some over others, or not? One may depend on the other. Not sure if priority should play in going forward. -- In 2012 I think there was an option for the applicant not to participate in the draw, so they would go after. One of the things we should think about is if we want an option for an applicant to opt out. -- Some of the things brought up during Work Track calls were assigning numbers during the application process -- other issues from what we are discussing here. Didn't say that a raffle couldn't be done, but that circumstances may have changes. >From the chat: Kurt Pritz: @Rubens - there were legal reasons for paying separately for the draw Rubens Kuhl: @Kurt - I believe it needs to go to a separe pot, but looking forward ICANN could collect it at application time. Jeff Neuman: Didnt we get feedback from ICANN on whether they are able to do a lottery again Rubens Kuhl: I think that is a decision to be made in the TLD Types discussion... Phil Buckingham: one assumes that the lottery would be done again in California ? Sara Bockey: @Jeff, yes, I recall something from staff... mainly that we're not supposed to call it a lottery (legal reasons) They may be able to do something similiar if I recall correctly. Kurt Pritz: To get the terminology straight: (1) the prioitization draw was a "raffle" and (2) ICANN did not conduct a lottery Rubens Kuhl: We could win priority numbers using buzzword bingo @ ICANN Public Forum. I want all my cards with "Swenglish". Rubens Kuhl: Even if possible to use, it could be either easy or cumbersome. Jeff Neuman: less prescriptive mean digital archery again :) Donna Austin, Neustar: @Steve, that seems to be a rather important consideration. Phil Buckingham: so will there be a prioritisation this time. So will IDNs still get priority this time ? Kurt Pritz: Maybe this group could ask ICANN for formal advice on the draw issue and whether it can be legally repeated - with a one month or so delivery. That way, we would know our options. Rubens Kuhl: IDNs have quit a larger challenge to overcome than time-to-market. Their priority didn't bring them much return. Rubens Kuhl: (quite a) Donna Austin, Neustar: Agreed Rubens Steve Chan 2: I would note, the comments I made earlier wouldn't preclude the WG from saying the mechanism SHOULD be a priotitization draw, in the form of a raffle, similar to the 2012 round. That makes it very clear what the WG wants, but at least allows for some level of adjustment if the mechanism is not legally feasibile. Trang Nguyen: If we get 25,000 applications, we will need a way to batch the applications for processing. Kurt Pritz: @ Steve: if a draw is not legally feasible, we don't want to spend time discussing it. We should be able to understand if the law has changed since the last round. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Trang, what do you mean by 'batch'? Do you mean by similar type of application or just in batches of 100 or 200 Jeff Neuman: I do not believe there have been any changes to the lottery laws of california in over 30 years Rubens Kuhl: 25,000 applications could be 25,000 applicants to 1 TLD each or 25 applicants of 1,000 TLDs. Those two scenarios would need very different resources. Jeff Neuman: Different cases, but not statutory Trang Nguyen: @Donna, some considerations if we get 25,000 applications include whether the application comment should be extended to allow the community more time to review the large number of applications and provide comment, whether the objection submission window should be extended, evaluation of applications would be extended, or whether the 25,000 applications would be batched in some form into smaller groups for processing.

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for 25 July 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey July 21, 2017

July 21, 2017

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of RySG Letter re RSP Program 4. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions * Application Submission Period * Application Queuing 5. AOB The CC2 responses we will be covering may be review in the google document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS…. sara bockey policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

1 0

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p5sffuypt3q/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1ac87b02e9bd1147 de0e9f48df70165362dd3aaef16709dc4c1621aa6a9addbb> https://participate.icann.org/p5sffuypt3q/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/UnHwAw> https://community.icann.org/x/UnHwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 11 July 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue on Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_U nHwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ UnHwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=UaYhaxlTjVTIJEamAyTGIcXy8hNDACWL3iMmMByBie 8&s=U0siPd4qhYJAEwWyR2X0w8NA1LY_eTHFbkcat-281vk&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=UaYhaxlTjVTIJEamAyTGIcXy8hNDACWL3iMmMByBie8&s=U0 siPd4qhYJAEwWyR2X0w8NA1LY_eTHFbkcat-281vk&e= John Laprise:Morning Terri Emily Barabas:This document is unsynced. Please feel free to zoom and scroll as needed. Christa Taylor:Link to document for reference: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads heets_d_1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz-5FH-5FlPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw_edit-23gid-3D656864 408 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread sheets_d_1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz-5FH-5FlPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw_edit-23gid-3D65686 4408&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIg mkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=UaYhaxlTjVTIJEamAyTGIcXy8hNDACWL3iMmMByBie8& s=6m38T7Ig9bpXM0jOj0P46aiaoei3M537DUC5Cf-JzME&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=UaYhaxlTjVTIJEamAyTGIcXy8hNDACWL3iMmMByBie8&s=6m 38T7Ig9bpXM0jOj0P46aiaoei3M537DUC5Cf-JzME&e= Emily Barabas:@Christa, some comments received referenced a topic in general but did not respond to a specific CC2 question. These are included at the top on the page. Jeff Neuman:I think a searchable Guidebook on the ICANN Website makes sense Jim Prendergast:further to my answer - I dont understand how the organization and presentation of the AGB is a policy issue for this group to deliberate or decide. Jeff Neuman:The BRG comments make a lot of sense Jeff Neuman:@Jim - We understand your comment, but it is a question we have in the charter Jim Prendergast:ok Jeff Neuman:so, do you agree with any of the comments or the positions taken Jim Prendergast:I need to review them more thoroughly Jeff Neuman:The Afilias position is worth noting, but could that be solved by having the single document be the "authoritative source" and the other simplifying docs contain the appropriate disclaimers Jeff Neuman:Is anyone from the ALAC on the call? John Laprise:here John Laprise:not alac but at large Jeff Neuman:I am wondering how to address the ALAC comment John Laprise:(incoming naralo alac rep) Jim Prendergast:question - how can those who are just seeing these for the first time submit feedback after the calls? Emily Barabas:one moment, checking document permissions Jeff Neuman:Our role as a working group will be to address all of the comments received and whether and how we are taking those into account Emily Barabas:@steve, confirmed Emily Barabas:all can comment in the google documents Julie Hedlund:See: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads heets_d_1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz-5FH-5FlPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw_edit-23gid-3D144205 9046 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread sheets_d_1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz-5FH-5FlPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw_edit-23gid-3D14420 59046&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=UaYhaxlTjVTIJEamAyTGIcXy8hNDACWL3iMmMByBie8 &s=1G1tenEB-8BR2jkgklzYYMyxHk5Kvi_p41MUXPapPoA&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=UaYhaxlTjVTIJEamAyTGIcXy8hNDACWL3iMmMByBie8&s=1G 1tenEB-8BR2jkgklzYYMyxHk5Kvi_p41MUXPapPoA&e= Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late! Phil Buckingham:sorry I am late to the call. Jeff Neuman:We can create the "Filling gTLD applications for Dummies" (assuming we can get the trademark rights for that :) Jeff Neuman:+1 on a good table of contents and an index Jeff Neuman:And rather than PDFs, it should be searchable text Jim Prendergast:I like the searchable component and keep in mind that it needs to multilingual as well Ashley Roberts:Agree with it being searchable Kurt Pritz:Wasn't it INTA that led the charge in changing the Guidebook after the application window was opened? Kurt Pritz:So it is good that they are against change now Jeff Neuman:I think you are confusing INTA with the National Advertising Assication Jeff Neuman:(Or whatever they were called) Kurt Pritz:I think it was all IP Greg Shatan:Association of National Advertisers Jim Prendergast:"another bit at the apple" Greg Shatan:Not an IP organization, Kurt. Ashley Roberts:I agree with the INTA comment. It seems to me fairly uncontroversial that we should have predictability with regard to the AGB, prior to the next application round commencing. Jeff Neuman:I think the points raised by the GAC needs discussion Jeff Neuman:BUt that is also a topic in WT 3 Steve Chan:It seems that there might be a fair amount of overlap between this question and the overarching issues on predictability/community engagement. If that's the case, we should take care to avoid duplicative or conflicting outcomes. Greg Shatan:Still awake.... avri doria:yes, awake Kurt Pritz:I think all of these issues were addresssed in the original Guidebook. The Guidebook was changed Phil Buckingham:Agreed Jim . Finalised full stop. Jeff Neuman:Totally agree on the refund issue Steve Chan:@Jeff, I'll plug the work of the drafting team on predictability/community engagement again, in this case. I believe the goal is to establish a framework for addressing changes that might be needed in a predictable way. Kurt Pritz:Looking at the last line of the last RySG comment - it is almost word-for-word the same as the existing policy Jim Prendergast:agree with the agreement(s) being finalized ahead of time as well. Phil Buckingham: Comments noted for WT2 re the RA . Good suggestion to make the RA available beforehand . Ashley Roberts:Thanks Jeff Terri Agnew:We can hear you Sara Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. avri doria:bye, thanks Ashley Roberts:Thanks everyone

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 11 July 2017
by Julie Hedlund July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 11 July. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Please note that for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below and the PDFs of the sections from the Google Document are attached. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS… a. Application Guide Book (see attached PDF) Question 1.10.1 -- Do you think it makes sense to partition the AGB into different audience-driven sections or by type of application? Feedback to CC2 (NOTE: The notes below may paraphrase the comments. See the attached PDFs for the detailed comments.] -- Comment from NCSG in general that having an effort directed to developing countries and translations could help. -- Both suggestions make perfect sense. -- INTA: partitioning could aid in making material accessible, but caution that different types of SGBs could lead to inconsistencies; supportive of partitioning into different audience-driven sections. -- GAC: suggests that there be a critical assessment of whether the AGB should be used as a central document in future, or whether simpler and clearer information can be provided. -- Nominet: No -- partitioning would increase the risk of confusion and creates uncertainty. -- BC: Supports partitioning. -- Jim Prendergast: Seems like an implementation issue, not policy. -- BRG: Support partitioning -- 1) write a new AGB to remove duplication and create a step-by-step guide; 2) improve customization of documentation; 3) define acronyms on first you and provide glossary; 4) partition section to specific type of applicant. -- John Poole: AGB needs to be rewritten. -- Afilias: AGB must be a single, consistent set of procedures and rules applied uniformly across all applications... -- RySG: Single AGB but should make specific note when variation exists among application types -- if no variation is noted, then all applications must follow the same process or standards in that section. -- ALAC: Not need to fragment the AGB as it may create confusion. Discussion: -- Suggestion: Agree to an extent with comments on having the AGB focus on just how to do an application, which could be a separate module; need to have the other context, such as contention objection process. Think there is not a huge amount wrong with the current AGB, but pull out into a concise module how to complete and submit an application. Also, have an index on how to look up topics, such as geo names. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I think a searchable Guidebook on the ICANN Website makes sense Jim Prendergast: further to my answer - I dont understand how the organization and presentation of the AGB is a policy issue for this group to deliberate or decide. Jeff Neuman: The BRG comments make a lot of sense Jeff Neuman: @Jim - We understand your comment, but it is a question we have in the charter Jim Prendergast: ok Jeff Neuman: so, do you agree with any of the comments or the positions taken Jim Prendergast: I need to review them more thoroughly Jeff Neuman: The Afilias position is worth noting, but could that be solved by having the single document be the "authoritative source" and the other simplifying docs contain the appropriate disclaimers Jeff Neuman: We can create the "Filling gTLD applications for Dummies" (assuming we can get the trademark rights for that :) Jeff Neuman: +1 on a good table of contents and an index Jeff Neuman: And rather than PDFs, it should be searchable text Jim Prendergast: I like the searchable component and keep in mind that it needs to multilingual as well Ashley Roberts: Agree with it being searchable b. Clarity of Application Process Question 1.3.1: How should changes to the AGB and/or the new gTLD Program be handled in subsequent application windows? Feedback to CC2 (NOTE: The notes below may paraphrase the comments. See the attached PDFs for the detailed comments.] -- INTA: urges that improvements to the AGB be mae to ensure that "all applicants for a new gTLD registry...be evaluated against transparent and predictable concideration, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation of the process"... AGB is the proper vehicle for implementation of the GNSO New gTLD policy recommendations; and the AGB must be clear and unambiguous, not subject to change at community whim. -- GAC: Supports any reasonable measures that streamline application procedures...[See details in the attached PDF] -- Nominet: Confirms that the 'moving of goal posts' during the application period was unhelpful; hope that the AGB and all associated processes and policieis are firmed up well ahead of the application period opening... -- BC: Next round we should expect the AGB to be finalized before the application period opens. -- Jim Prendergast: If changes are made after applications are submitted there needs to be some sort of mechanism that allows impacted applicants the chance to either receive a full refund or be tracked into parallel process that deals with their issues directly without impacting the rest of the program; also issues with .mail, .corp. and .home were not addressed prior to the opening of the application window caused many issues... -- BRG: [See lengthy comment in attached PDF] -- John Poole: Ideally no more application windows since the last was such a disaster; if there is another 'window' the AGB should be 'trashed' -- ICANN needs to start over and do it right this time. -- Afilias: Imperative that ICANN finalize the AGB prior to starting this Program -- to ensure fairness and predictability. -- RySG: Where process and procedural changes are further required after the new AGB or its replacement is published, those changes should be clearly document in a medium that is easily accessed by all applicants, and ICANN should make every effort to communicate these changes directly to applicants... -- ALAC: See response to 1.1.1 -- such operational issues are of little concern to the general public. -- Valideus: The need for major changes to the AGB/application processes once a given application window has opened should be minimized or ideally eradicated, since it causes severe disruption to business planning and budgeting... -- RySG: Letter received outside of CC2 on Application Change Request Process -- A formalized procedure for making changes to a new gTLD application, based on what worked during the 2012 Round, should be developed and made widely available to applicants prior to future application procedures. On the Registry Agreement: a final or near-final version of the baseline Registry Agreement should be published and made available to new gTLD applicants in advance of any future application procedures. Discussion: -- GAC comment intersects with WT3 work. Brings up the issue of GAC advice. We are talking here about changes to the AGB itself and do not see necessarily the need for as much flexibility as the GAC comment is implying. Dealing with GAC advice is for discussions in WT3. -- Why the name collisions issue wasn't address depends on which side of the fence you fall on; but we do need a predictable process for how to deal with problems that come up after the application window has opened. -- Goal is that the AGB needs to be finalized, full stop. -- John Poole's comment: The comment that the AGB should be scrapped and start over again -- sounds like adding another two years to the process. Not sure we'll do it better next time by doing it different. -- Agree -- no reason to trash the whole thing, but listening to the bulk of the comments there are editorial and organizational challenges to make the information we do have more useable and audience specific. A more surgical approach makes sense. Maybe get professional help. -- Process question: How do we envision coming to any policy recommendation? At what stage would we start to make preliminary recomendations? Answer: Good question. This is our second reading of a lot of these issues. We will incorporate comments into the second reading and to see what the common thread is. Take the strong trends and put them into policy recommendations. Get a strawperson recommendation from the leadership team. >From the chat: Kurt Pritz: Wasn't it INTA that led the charge in changing the Guidebook after the application window was opened? Kurt Pritz: So it is good that they are against change now Jeff Neuman: I think you are confusing INTA with the National Advertising Assication Jeff Neuman: (Or whatever they were called) Kurt Pritz: I think it was all IP Greg Shatan: Association of National Advertisers Jim Prendergast: "another bit at the apple" Greg Shatan: Not an IP organization, Kurt. Ashley Roberts: I agree with the INTA comment. It seems to me fairly uncontroversial that we should have predictability with regard to the AGB, prior to the next application round commencing. Jeff Neuman: I think the points raised by the GAC needs discussion Jeff Neuman: BUt that is also a topic in WT 3 Steve Chan: It seems that there might be a fair amount of overlap between this question and the overarching issues on predictability/community engagement. If that's the case, we should take care to avoid duplicative or conflicting outcomes. Kurt Pritz: I think all of these issues were addresssed in the original Guidebook. The Guidebook was changed Phil Buckingham: Agreed Jim . Finalised full stop. Jeff Neuman: Totally agree on the refund issue Steve Chan: @Jeff, I'll plug the work of the drafting team on predictability/community engagement again, in this case. I believe the goal is to establish a framework for addressing changes that might be needed in a predictable way. Kurt Pritz: Looking at the last line of the last RySG comment - it is almost word-for-word the same as the existing policy. Jim Prendergast: agree with the agreement(s) being finalized ahead of time as well. Phil Buckingham: Comments noted for WT2 re the RA . Good suggestion to make the RA available beforehand .

1 0

Agenda - WT1, July 11, 2017 @1500 UTC
by Sara Bockey July 10, 2017

July 10, 2017

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, July 11 2017 at 15:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions * Application Guide Book * Clarity of Application Process * Application Submission Period (if time permits) 4. AOB The CC2 responses we will be covering may be review in the google document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS…. Chat soon, Sara sara bockey policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Sub Pro PDP WG Johannesburg session
by ashley.roberts＠valideus.com June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Sub Pro PDP WG Johannesburg session
by Sara Bockey June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

Hi Ashley, Apologies for the delay in responding. I believe we will be discussing Applicant Support and the potential RSP program. Best, Sara From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ashley Roberts <ashley.roberts(a)valideus.com> Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 11:42 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Sub Pro PDP WG Johannesburg session Dear Christa and Sara, I understand that the format for the Sub Pro PDP WG session in Johannesburg will involve focussing on a few key topics from each of the individual Work Tracks. Has it been decided which WT1 topics we will be discussing? Thanks, Ashley Ashley Roberts Senior Manager | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: ashley.roberts(a)valideus.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@valideus.com> T: +44 20 7421 8299 D: +44 20 7421 8264 F: +44 87 0011 8187 www.valideus.com<http://www.valideus.com/> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Valideus. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 987 7551 49. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.

1 0

Sub Pro PDP WG Johannesburg session
by Ashley Roberts June 22, 2017

June 22, 2017

Dear Christa and Sara, I understand that the format for the Sub Pro PDP WG session in Johannesburg will involve focussing on a few key topics from each of the individual Work Tracks. Has it been decided which WT1 topics we will be discussing? Thanks, Ashley Ashley Roberts Senior Manager | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: ashley.roberts(a)valideus.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@valideus.com> T: +44 20 7421 8299 D: +44 20 7421 8264 F: +44 87 0011 8187 www.valideus.com<http://www.valideus.com/> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Valideus. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 987 7551 49. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 13 June 2017
by Julie Hedlund June 13, 2017

June 13, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 June. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Please note that for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: 1. Topic review and progress on systems, communications, and applications fees: See the Google Document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS… Question: How can the systems used to support the New gTLD Program, such as TAS, Centralized Zone Data Service, Portal, etc., be made more robust, user friendly, and better integrated? -- Lobbying for multiple issues or logins; integrated to one. -- Different levels of access. Communication: Examine access to and content within knowledge base as well as communication methods between ICANN and the community. -- It might be a future state that what they use in the past is not necessarily what they will use in the future. That is likely an implementation element, as opposed to policy. -- Note sure what communications we are talking about here. Suggest that we are talking about communication more broadly -- communication about the program. -- Subscription opt-in communications: The intent was the communication between ICANN and the applicant. -- Adequate and timely outreach to developing countries -- what is the connection? Answer: On is applicant support and the other is to opt in. -- Any new gTLD should be cost neutral in ICANN's budget. That might be a better way of thinking about it than cost recovery. We have no idea how many applications we'll get in the next round. We don't know what the capacity issue is. -- Like the term "cost neutral" and further refine between the time of the launch and the time in which applicants sign an agreement. Application Fees: Evaluate accuracy of cost estimates and/or review the methodology to develop the cost model, while still adhering to the principle of cost recovery. Examine how payment processing can be improved. -- Suggestion: For clarity it would be helpful if we took those two first sentences apart and put the sub-point under them. There was leeway in determining historical costs. -- It is quite clear that the comments we have received are all over the map. Not sure how to include them since they are all over the map. It is not clear that the fees will cover the cost to ICANN and I think we need to address that. There also is the cost of ramping up. I think you need to look at what put this program in place. -- Not sure it is within our scope what registries pay ICANN. Don't see us deciding what smaller or larger registries should pay. Seems beyond the scope. -- How to create a policy around the access funds? Application Fees: Feedback from the community -- Question re: each applicant posting a deposit of $1,000,000 in order to qualify to bid to operate a new gTLD? Answer: These are some of the highlights on the different angles we hadn't heard yet. This comment is quite original and we haven't discussion it yet. -- Jumping to slide 14 -- Application fees 14.4 - Use of Excess Funds -- CCWG on Auction Proceeds is going to look at the proceeds from contention sets. -- We need to look at the cost of the overall program. Also will have to address the problem of what if things are underfunded? Look at what we do if the program is underfunded -- where would we get the money from? >From the chat: Michael Flemming: What are all the portals or systems that could centralized? Michael Flemming: Sorry that goes back to the previous topic. Steve Chan: @Michael, the WG can develop recommendations around systems or communications. it can also develop implementation guidace as well. or, as you said, some specifics can be determined during implementation. Michael Flemming: Thank you, Steve. Michael Flemming: So we will leave these at recommendations and allow it to be decided in implementation. Well understood, thank you! Jeff Neuman: Adequate outreach can also mean language support as well? Jeff Neuman: Those who want to file objections or public comments may need to be communicated with as well Jeff Neuman: could that be a distinction Donna Austin, Neustar: I think we need more clarity around what this is supposed to address Jeff Neuman: In other words the "knowledge base" was not only for applicants, but for the whole community of participants Jeff Neuman: We should update this with the tie from the discussions earlier in the full group on the model Jeff Neuman: (FCFS vs. Rounds) Jeff Neuman: @Donna - Agree. It is amount of fees vs process to make payments Donna Austin, Neustar: right Jeff Neuman: Point a relates to the latter Christa Taylor: Its annotated Christa Taylor: #annotated Michael Flemming: Legal contingency as in projected legal costs for litigation? Jeff Neuman: The $185,000 was based on 3 elements and assuming only 500 applications. (i) cost of evaluation/processing of applications, (ii) Historical costs and (iii) legal contingency fees. Do we have agreement these are the same types of fees we should be paying for going forward Jeff Neuman: In other words, is that the formula we should apply moving forward? Should we still reimburse "historical costs"? What does that mean? Jeff Neuman: Deposit of $1 Million was only in the case of an auction. Michael Flemming: As long as that is clear. Jeff Neuman: I am not sure where this comment came from though Michael Flemming: Thank you. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Christa, so this is just a sample of the comments submitted? Christa Taylor: yes it does not cover all of them but items that we may have not considered or discussed to date. The link has all of the responses Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Surely the Historical costs were cost recovered with the over subscription compared to the assumed 500 of applicant last round Jeff Neuman: It sounds like some want to add a 4th element (and that is a floor) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I believe it needs to include eval and legal contingency but the rest... hmmm Jeff Neuman: eg., if the elements of (i) though (iii) is too low, then make the price the floor. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree with cost neutral yes Michael Flemming: yes Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree on that it should be time bound. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Fair point Jeff I can support that Michael Flemming: My question is whether or not historical costs included unexpected delays in the program. I am for time bound costs as Jeff suggests, but I don't think there is a garuntee that a cost neutral would allow for unexpected delays. Michael Flemming: Registry level fees should pay for compliance. Sarah L: It seems like there is an established mechanism within ICANN for dealing with excess funds but I am not sure there are mechanisms in place for dealing with scenarios or projects that are under-funded. Like Alan I would rather see a transparent active and robust compliance department and ensure there is funding in place for that. Donna Austin, Neustar: My compartmentalisation is consistent with Jeff's Alan Greenberg: I am still not sure how we reconcile the two opposite positions of 1) ultimately a TLD should not be more expensive than a 2nd level name; and 2) you are buying a core part of the Internet, a finite resource, and this should not be be cheap. Jeff Neuman: Sarah brings up a good comment that we have not addressed....which is what if the program is underfunded? Jeff Neuman: lets make sure we do not lose that question Donna Austin, Neustar: I don't believe the first dot point is within the purview of this group either. Michael Flemming: Jeff, Sarah does bring up an important question, but we did consider that didn't we? That was our entire base for considering cost-recovery in the first place, no? Steve Chan: @Jeff, there is a question in CC2 about excess or deficient funding Steve Chan: 1.4.5 - Should the WG seek to establish more clarity in how the excess or deficiency of funds are utilized/recovered? If so, do you have any suggestions for establishing that clarity? Jeff Neuman: @Steve - thanks...but I just want to make sure we as a group discuss it too Jeff Neuman: I haven’t read all the comments yet, but I am curious to see if anyone addressed the concept of underfunding. My guess is most people assumed overfunding Jeff Neuman: But I could be wrong Michael Flemming: I think as Jeff suggested, that there is a tendency that 1) That either the program was overfunded so fees should be lower or 2) In the event that expenses did not occur that, then those should be refunded. The problem here is that the consideration of refunding of fees in the current round have come to late in the game. I think what would satisfy many people is that if the floor was set at a similar price/model to what we have now with a promise for return of fees not occured once a contract is signed. Michael Flemming: Tendency in how people are responding. Michael Flemming: How do most registries feel about excess funds being used for community outreach rather than being returned in some way to the registry? Sarah L: ICANN could channel funds into increasing trust of the industry Donna Austin, Neustar: @Sarah L: that's a nice idea but how do you do that and what would the metrics be? Michael Flemming: If registries are happy to allow excess funds to be used in some way other than being returned to them, I feel that it would be important to perhaps have a separate PDP for determining excess funds? Or is this a necessity to have something in writing before we finish our PDP? Sarah L: @Donna I must admit I hadnt thought of it in that level of detail - iI agree there are alot of divergent opinons on this Michael Flemming: Thats a good question Donna, but I think that those fees are different to those paid in auction. Michael Flemming: I mean auction fees vs excess applicant fees. Michael Flemming: The principle behind them, I mean. Edmon: one thing useful to bring up is that the outreach and funds supporting applicants and as donna said for universal acceptance, etc. should not be confused or punted completely to the auction proceeds fund Jeff Neuman: ICANN Bake Sale ;)

1 0