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

ICANN62: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Nathalie Peregrine June 6, 2018

June 6, 2018

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings’ team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN62 Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> Step 1 – Create a profile and your personalized ICANN62 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. 1. Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. 2. Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. * For Outlook calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/81449-moving-your-schedu…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> * For Google calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/1313-moving-your-schedul…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> and on the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ>) will provide audio streaming only Adobe Connect room microphones will not be enabled. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN62” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Panama to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://FB60497E-61D8-4FE9-BF9C-EB238191E416/gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 09 January 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter April 5, 2018

April 5, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC Chat of the call are attached to this email. The AC recording and Mp3 are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 09 January 2018 at 03:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track1-09jan18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1l2j2tbun2/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** 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/Sx1yB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle -------------------------------

4 3

FW: [Gnso-next-gen-rds-lead] FW: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft
by Terri Agnew April 2, 2018

April 2, 2018

FYI From: Brian Winterfeldt <Brian(a)Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Brian@Winterfeldt.law> > Date: Monday, April 2, 2018 at 15:07 To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> " <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> > Cc: "internet(a)winterfeldt.law <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> " <internet(a)winterfeldt.law <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> > Subject: RE: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft Dear ICANN Community Leadership Colleagues: I write to follow up on my prior communication below to provide you with a formal invitation from the IPC and the BC to participate in a community-wide discussion regarding the proposed accreditation and access model for non-public WHOIS data, which was first circulated to the community during ICANN 61. The discussion will take place via ICANN-supported remote participation and/or audio bridge this Friday April 6, 2018 from 1400-1600 UTC. Please find the formal invitation attached with the pertinent participation details. Please distribute the invitation to your respective stakeholders and encourage broad distribution to encourage as much participation as possible in the discussion. Of course, please continue to channel written comments on the accreditation model proposal to <mailto:3amcomments@gmail.com> 3amcomments(a)gmail.com, with a copy to <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law. Thank you very much for your assistance and engagement with respect to this ongoing effort. Best regards, Brian _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> [winterfeldt.law] Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> brian(a)winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422 From: Brian Winterfeldt Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:24 PM To: <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org Cc: <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law Subject: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft Importance: High Dear ICANN Community Leadership Colleagues: As a follow-up to my statement on behalf of the IPC during Public Forum II at ICANN 61 in Puerto Rico with Steve DelBianco (from the BC), I am writing to again request your stakeholders' input and collaboration on the proposed Accreditation Model for access to non-public WHOIS data (Version 1.3). Our sincere hope is that this model will be implemented alongside the ICANN-developed Proposed Interim Model for GDPR Compliance. The Accreditation Model can be found here: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ipconstituency.org_ assets_docs_WHOIS-2520Access-2520Accreditation-2520Process-25201.3-255b1-255 d.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhp AMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ &s=ZVAEQxooXzT86rLVPfHTxmzU0WSDnjHfiAcifwTNcmk&e=> http://www.ipconstituency.org/assets/docs/WHOIS%20Access%20Accreditation%20P rocess%201.3[1].pdf[ipconstituency.org]. We welcome any questions or feedback on the proposed Accreditation Model, put forward as a strawman to facilitate broader community-wide efforts to develop an accreditation system proposal. We had hoped to convene a community-wide call swiftly after ICANN 61, but the absence of Adobe Connect has made facilitating community discussion and input difficult. However, with the stop-gap solutions being put into place, we hope to convene a call to discuss Accreditation Model development within the next week or so. Developing an Accreditation Model for access to non-public WHOIS data is a critical yet-to-be-developed element of the interim GDPR compliance model, and as Goran noted in his letter to DPAs, the community has achieved consensus that something must be finalized and implemented to assure the appropriate functioning of a gated/tiered/layered access WHOIS system. Again, we hope that the Accreditation Model proposal we are sharing can act as a starting point for the community to make quick progress in this respect. Please send any input on this matter to <mailto:3amcomments@gmail.com> 3amcomments(a)gmail.com as soon as possible, with a copy to <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law. This will help us make sure all the input provided is received and appropriately captured. Again, we hope to convene a community call to facilitate continued discussion on this issue next week, so we would love to receive your feedback ideally before the community session! Thank you for your input and timely engagement in this vital aspect of our ongoing work around GDPR and WHOIS! Best regards, Brian _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> [winterfeldt.law] Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> brian(a)winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Vanda Scartezini March 26, 2018

March 26, 2018

Though I understand points raised by Greg, we could also use the opportunity to make an open survey with open issues to the community to not postponed too much those decisions. Another alternative could be finalizing points that demands no relevant changes, for instance: I do believe that related to “TLDs=city names” we did not have problems with the Application Book as it is. So why not open sliced Applications Books for each area we have no more questions?. To do so we need to make it public as a different reports and get feedback from the community. At least we would show some real progress and may be contribute to the ICANN’s budget. My 2c Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k(a)gmail.com> Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 at 04:12 To: "<Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org>, "Christopher. Wilkinson" <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Working Group Status and Next Steps makes logical sense….. Kris On Mar 26, 2018, at 10:53, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Sensible thoughts Regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Samstag, 24. März 2018 05:33 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... Just my 2 cents, Greg On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission first. The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular region, and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the Objection. Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to the commencement of any substantive proceedings. It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years regarding this arena. It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without getting the geo names issues resolved first. Maybe no one wants another Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the varying interests are far apart? I would favor a new Objection process to resolve this. At that point, the community may be able to accept some of the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide). I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the Objection, its application fee will be refunded. Just to be clear, the process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the same. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image001.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM To: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange; Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>;gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Thanks Christopher. I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. 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<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 Kris Seeburn seeburn.k(a)gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> · www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" [cid:image001.gif@01D3C4E6.C1484EE0]

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch March 25, 2018

March 25, 2018

Sensible thoughts Regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Samstag, 24. März 2018 05:33 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... Just my 2 cents, Greg On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission first. The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular region, and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the Objection. Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to the commencement of any substantive proceedings. It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years regarding this arena. It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without getting the geo names issues resolved first. Maybe no one wants another Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the varying interests are far apart? I would favor a new Objection process to resolve this. At that point, the community may be able to accept some of the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide). I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the Objection, its application fee will be refunded. Just to be clear, the process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the same. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D3C4DF.E16D63B0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM To: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange; Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Thanks Christopher. I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. 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<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Rubens Kuhl March 25, 2018

March 25, 2018

Christopher, The work track 1-4 co-chairs have been noticing the possible inter-relationships throughout the process, and those have been addressed. Even for WT5, the overlap consisting of additional reserved names and some names requiring letters of support/non-objection was also always envisioned... something like a geo objection was not, but that is something that can be harmonised and integrated with the objection process, if's that what WT5 ends up suggesting. That can be even done by WT5 by taking what has already been proposed, like number of panelists and fees bearing, and then defining standing and principles specifically to that process. Even the possibility of adding more contractual requirements, if decided by WT5, can be dealt by with Geo PICs, something that was also foreseen... so I may be optimistic here, but I couldn't think of anything WT5 could come up with that wouldn't be easily integrated into the SubPro output.That doesn't prevent people's imagination to go beyond and actually find something that would be harder to harmonise... but considering the low likelihood, we can deal with it, if it happens, but only if it happens, instead of planning for something that likely won't happen. Rubens > On 25 Mar 2018, at 14:29, lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu wrote: > > Good afternoon: > > I have considerable empathy with the concerns expressed by Greg here below > I suggest that the current plan underestimates the inter-relationships between the Work Tracks, notably but not exclusively with WT5. > > Regards > > CW > > >> On 24 Mar 2018, at 05:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? >> >> An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. >> >> Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) >> >> Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... >> >> Just my 2 cents, >> >> Greg >> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: >> It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission first. The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular region, and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the Objection. Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to the commencement of any substantive proceedings. >> >> >> >> It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years regarding this arena. It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without getting the geo names issues resolved first. Maybe no one wants another Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the varying interests are far apart? I would favor a new Objection process to resolve this. At that point, the community may be able to accept some of the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide). >> >> >> >> I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the Objection, its application fee will be refunded. Just to be clear, the process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the same. >> >> >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese >> >> Of Counsel >> >> 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office >> >> 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax >> >> AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >> _____________________________ >> >> <image002.png> >> >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP >> >> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 >> >> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> >> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> >> >> >> >> >> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman >> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM >> To: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange; Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> >> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps >> >> >> >> Thanks Christopher. >> >> >> >> I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. >> >> >> >> To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. >> >> >> >> If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. >> >> >> >> In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. >> >> 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 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> >> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> >> @Jintlaw >> >> >> >> From: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> >> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps >> >> >> >> Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: >> >> >> >> Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. >> >> >> >> In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. >> >> >> >> Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Christopher Wilkinson >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, >> >> >> >> You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. >> >> >> >> Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. >> >> >> >> ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. >> >> >> >> This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. >> >> >> >> As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year >> >> >> >> This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. >> >> >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr >> >> Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> >> >> >> >> >> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4>

1 0

Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Jeff Neuman March 23, 2018

March 23, 2018

Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Jeff Neuman March 23, 2018

March 23, 2018

Thanks Christopher. I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. 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: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

1 0

PLEASE READ - NEW SESSION INFORMATION ICANN61
by Terri Agnew March 14, 2018

March 14, 2018

Dear all, Due to security difficulties, (see Goran's blog <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo g_issues-2Dwith-2Dadobe-2Dconnect-2Dat-2Dicann61&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwl l3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTB s0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=fxijpUJu6LmmroHN9tH8OL-ro_yRzrp5RcsF-DsRnHY&s=_RqTDbLxF ZWrmTMt09Hldqs9KQbB7-Kg-pZFjJw0ink&e=> here[icann.org]) the Adobe Connect room facilities will no longer be available to ICANN61 participants. In order to minimize disruption, we have the following steps we encourage you to follow: 1. TO JOIN THE AUDIO * Audio streaming will be available for all open, public meetings. Links can be find on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/> https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * The audio bridge is available for those who would like to ask questions or comment over the telephone. Dial in details for open GNSO sessions can be found here: <https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B> https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B 2. TO ACCESS THE PRESENTATIONS * All presentations and documents which were to be shown in the AC room will be uploaded to the corresponding page on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/> https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * Presentations and documents will also be circulated via email on demand 3. ASKING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTING IN WRITTEN FORMAT * These will be handed via live management of email comments and questions by the Remote Participation Manager. Please see list of meeting room email addresses here: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350> https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350 We apologize for the inconvenience caused. We encourage participants who have not already done so to download the ICANN61 mobile app by searching for "ICANN61" in your app stores. Please do not hesitate to email us at <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org if you need a dial out specifying which meeting you would like to join and your preferred contact number. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our i <applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses /gnso> nteractive courses and visiting the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn so.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgM FAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUh becsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EH toX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=> GNSO Newcomer pages

1 0

WT1 call for Tuesday, March 6th -- **Cancelled**
by Christa Taylor March 5, 2018

March 5, 2018

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue scheduled for Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 at 20:00 has been CANCELLED. Cheers, Christa Christa Taylor, B. Tech, CPA, CMA, MBA Skype: christat13 <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa(a)dottba.com <http://www.dottba.com/> www.dottba.com

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 20 February 2018 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Feb. 20, 2018

Feb. 20, 2018

Dear All, Please find the mp3 recording, attendance and AC Chat of the call attached to this email, and the AC recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call held on Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8ozxe4oanh/<https://participate.icann.org/p8ozxe4oanh/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=9b19dba8ccfaa74a…> 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/3gSfB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 20 February 2018
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 20, 2018

Feb. 20, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018+Work+Track+1+Meetings. See the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Action Items from Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 20 February 2018: 1. SOI Updates: No updates. 2. Review of potential recommendations for Support for Applicants from Developing Countries (4.2.14) See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8… Implementation Recommendation -- Improve Promotional Efforts (page 12): Implementation Recommendation -- Utilize partnerships to maximize outreach (page 13) Recommendation -- support beyond reduced application fees Recommendation -- understand obstacles and provide assistance accordingly General Agreements (page 14) Aspects for Further Discussion (page 14) -- Metrics -- Evaluation criteria -- Other elements -- did we provide the right tools? -- Objectives of the ASP define -- How to provide locally available consulting resources -- How to improve the learning curve -- Making the business case -- How do we penalize applicants for gaming -- String contention resolution auction considerations -- any? Discussion: -- Not as much support for penalizing -- but do they get their deposit back? -- The way the process that we ended up with was interesting (in the JAS Group). Sometimes there wasn't close coordination between the recommendations of the JAS and what the Board did: the punishment of having the application cancelled was rather scary to people. While gaming does need to be looked at that may be too strong. -- One issue we never quite got settled is how to do financial evaluation based on local economics? Keeping that cultural awareness. -- Good to look at the whole disadvantage community, not just the region. -- Do we have enough on the financial understanding? -- What do we need for metrics? -- Don't know how effective it was and whether it met the meetings of the community. How do we get the right information to say that we did get it right this time? Draft report should ask the questions. -- Add to document: perhaps a request /required post process interview or survey for all applicants under this process? >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): who will decide if the attempt of gaming was undertaken? avri doria: the review process was arduous. so yeah, they would notice. avri doria: yeah, i co-chaired a group in ALAC that tried to pin it down, and we couldn't. seems to have been a panoply of reasons. Vanda Scartezini: @ avri- yes. not one answers fits all. depend on the country/ region.. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): perhaps a request /required post process interview or survey for all applicants under this process? 3. Review of potential recommendations for Accreditation Programs (RSP Program) (4.2.8) Aspects for Further Discussion/Not Yet Agreed Upon Ideas (page 23) 1. Grandfathering clause? -- Establish what we mean by the SLA. -- Under what circumstance would grandfathering not be allowed? -- One thing that makes a draft report engaging is if there are areas where questions are asked. No bad thing to have elements partially unresolved. -- Not sure we can fully trust the current implementation of SLAs. 2. PDT on RSP and the capacity of all of hte TLDs supported by the TLD. Re-approval on some time period based on the number of RSPs. Abbreviated pre-approval (standard set of services). 3. Process Controls (page 24) -- Re: process controls -- there may be more sophisticated ways of monitoring for future performance as well as past. -- Can we detect small signs of degradation? -- Could just say that the concept of process controls looking at future performance degradation were also discussed in addition to looking at past peformance, but didn't feel that this was an approach that could be used. 4. Transfer Process -- Re: Transfer process -- There should be a warning sign if fees are not met. Something needs to be added to the first paragraph: "Conditional on financial obligations being met." There also should be a security and stability qualifier, but not sure who would do that -- ICANN, others? 5. RSPs as EBEROs (page 25) -- Need some kind of performance or timing aspect. -- Key point that is missing: ICANN had an obligation under the 2012 program to set in place and manage and operate an EBERO program for a 5-year term, with the idea that at the end of the 5-year period that program would end. This section is predicated on the assumption that ICANN no longer operates an EBERO program. Need a preamble: "On the understanding that in the subsequent round ICANN will cease to provide an EBERO program for cost savings or other reasons..." Might also address this by moving some text around. -- It might be reasonable for new entrants to be required for a period of time to have a financial instrument in place to guarantee ongoing operations, but that doesn't speak to the removal of the EBERO program. Rationale for adding above (page 26) -- COI as a pain point. -- Opportunity for the RSPs to pool the risk and furnish EBERO services for all their clients at a relatively low cost. -- Whether the EBERO service "insurance" should be provided to all the RSP clients and provided at no addtional charge is complex and merits more discussion. -- This system should work because there is no "single point of failure". Areas of Non-Agreement (page 27) For public comment (page 27) >From the chat: Jim Prendergast: what is meant by "meets SLA"? is that 100% of the time? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): SLA are in RA Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): s Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and it is defined there Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree on the benefits of including questions for community response Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I was talking about .wed Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): where EBERO was reached due to not paying for backend services Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): that is why I was talking about the backends who were not the reason for EBERO Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-12-08-en Jonathan Robinson: So. Looks like process controls are a good idea but perhaps a little too ambiotous for now Vanda Scartezini: + 1 Jonathan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): security and stability must always be overriding principles Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Have we seen yet EBERO costs for .WED? Jonathan Robinson: Thanks. I am not wedded to the preamble or formatting of the text. But, keen to ensure we don't add another layer of cost / overhead onto the industry. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): NOTE: EBERO can be triggered without RSP's failure (for example not paying ICANN bills)

1 0

WT1 Agenda for Tuesday, February 20th -- 20:00 UTC
by Christa Taylor Feb. 19, 2018

Feb. 19, 2018

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, February 20th, 2018 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of potential recommendations for Support for Applicants from Developing Countries (4.2.14) 4. Review of potential recommendations for Accreditation Programs (RSP Program) (4.2.8) 5. Next Meeting 6. AOB We encourage and appreciate all members to review and comment on WT1’s deliberations and preliminary agreement working document: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8…. Cheers, Christa Christa Taylor, B. Tech, CPA, CMA, MBA Skype: christat13 <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa(a)dottba.com <http://www.dottba.com/> www.dottba.com

1 0

RSP Program Implementation Aspects
by Kurt Pritz Feb. 13, 2018

Feb. 13, 2018

Hi Everyone: During the recent RSP discussion I made a comment that included three suggestions. After seeing the comments to some them, I am fleshing them out a bit in this email. I chose email because I did know exactly where or how to appropriately stick them into the document that Christa and Sara are shepherding. I think Jeff N’s idea that we have a section for “not-yet agreed-upon ideas” is where these might go. Of course, these are just my ideas with plenty of room for discussion. I. Process Controls a) The paragraph in the document could say: "In addition to demonstrated adequate past performance, the RSP will implement: internal process controls that monitor operations and indicate whether processes are degrading before SLAs are breached a rapid response mechanism in order to respond to new threats that are identified by reliable sources (where the RSPs could agree upon those sources and establish communications with them). "These measure would assure others that RSPs had measures in place to ensure ongoing competent performance.” b) Rationale for adding such a paragraph: The selection of RSPs should as much about ensuring future performance as it is about past performance. The terms “proven provider” or “pre-approved provider” sound a little like, “haven’t failed - yet.” Process controls detect process variances before SLAs are broken. The current plan to monitor TLDs against the SLAs will detect failures only after SLAs are broken, i.e., once their has been a failure already. That is too late. RSPs can avoid this scenario by putting their own process controls in place. Statistical process controls came into the forefront in the post-World War II industrial boom, first in the Japan (where they were introduced by an American, Edward Deming), and later the United States and elsewhere. This invention later gave rise to the 3-sigma, 6-sigma and black belt quality assurance designations. They were created to detect variances in a process before bad parts were made - so one could make corrections before having to throw out poor quality parts. II. Transfer Process a) The paragraph in the document could say: "The RSP Program must include a smoothly running transfer process. A Registry Operator must be able to freely transfer from one RSP to another (subject to the terms of the agreement signed) where both the gaining and losing RSP must cooperate fully in order to ensure a smooth and timely transition. RSPs that hinder transitions intentionally or not, should be excluded from the Program. “RSPs should combine to create a at least a set of principles, if not a transfer process, and present it to Registry Operators for advise.” b) Rationale for adding such a paragraph: During the policy discussions, one reason for creating an RSP Program was to ease the cost of transfer from RSP to another. Implicit in that is the need for the RSPs involved to cooperate in a way that does not create stability and security risks, nor risks to the Registry Operator business model. There are obvious parallels to be drawn with the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. In this case, I think the RSPs can develop a set of principles without undertaking a policy process, which can come later if need be. III. RSPs as EBEROs a) the paragraph in the document could say: “In addition to providing traditional technical services, RSPs joining the RSP Program will also provide Emergency Backend Registry Operator (EBERO) services for their Registry Operators. Significant aspects of this service are: Registry Operators using an RSP Program participant, will not be required to furnish a Continuing Operations Instrument. RSP Program members will provide this service to all Registry Operators at no additional charge, i.e., the costs are included into the standard RSP pricing model. Vertically integrated RSPs (i.e., RSPs that are also Registry Operators) will contract with another RSP to become an EBERO in the event that the RSP-Registry Operator entity fails.” b). Rationale for adding such a paragraph: The Continuing Operations Instrument is a demonstrable pain point and there s nearly universal agreement that an alternate should be found. The Continuing Operations Instrument does not translate well across different regions, creating difficulties for many Registry Operators. The Continuing Operations Instrument has turned out to be a significant drain on resources, impacting many business models. With the market developing the way it has, with relatively few RSPs serving nearly all the Registry Operators, there is the opportunity for the RSPs to pool the risk and furnish EBERO services for all their clients at relatively low cost. By participating in the Program, RSPs have demonstrated the capacity to easily provide EBERO services for a random failure. It seems that, if there s a failure, the RSP workload would actually decrease as the EBERO provides only five registry functions and, generally, the RSP would provide a Registry Operator with more functionality than required of the EBERO. Whether the EBERO Service “insurance” should be provided to all the RSP clients and provided at no additional charge is a complex issue and merits more discussion. Here is my thinking. Less risk, more affordable, more reliable: One policy reason for requiring all Registry Operators in an RSP to join in the EBERO service is that greater numbers create a greater risk pool, evening out the risk, making the program more affordable, and more reliable Lower RSP cost: If every RSP customer is in the EBERO program that will lower the RSPs cost per Registry Operator for maintaining the program Keep it simple and stable: If RSPs charge an additional fee for the EBERO service, Registry Operators will forum shop, creating a complex eco-system where Registry Operators are moving between EBERO providers and RSPs. This will create compliance tasks for ICANN - with increase ICANN costs for registries. If every Registry Operator is automatically signed on with their RSP for EBERO services, there is no compliance oversight required. Disadvantages to smaller players: In a market where vertically integrated RSPs can serve themselves without transfer cost and can offer lower pricing to larger Registry Operators, small Registry Operators might find themselves with a choice of high EBERO price or retaining the Continuing Operations Instrument. The EBERO is probably more important for smaller entities so we should not invent a pricing structure that could be bent to their disadvantage. Finally this system should work because there is no “single point of failure.” If the Registry Operator fails, the RSP EBERO takes over. If the RSP fails, the Registry Operators go find another RSP. One issue arises where the RSP is vertically integrated, i.e., operating one or more Registries. In that case there might be a simultaneous RSP / Registry Operator failure. I think (but am not sure) that RSPs might contract with one another or with an ICANN EBERO to provide back up. If you made it this far, I apologize. Way too long and pedantic. Thanks and best regards, Kurt

5 6

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 06 February 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 6, 2018

Feb. 6, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC Chat of the call are attached to this email. The AC recording and Mp3 are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 06 February 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track1-06feb18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7v80apu4e4/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** 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/3ASfB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle -------------------------------

1 0

Notes and Action Items Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 06 February2018
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 6, 2018

Feb. 6, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB. See the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Action Items from Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 06 February 2018: 1. SOI Updates: No Updates. 2. Review of potential recommendations for Accreditation Programs (RSP Program) (4.2.8) See the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8…, page 19 -- Considered the policy question: was the repetitive, resource intentive technical evaluation and pre-delegation testing an interpretation of the rules -- a form of application rather than the fault with the rules themselves? -- General Agreements: More detail will be needed in this section. Discussion: -- Footnote on accreditation - why we moved away from this term in favor of RSP Pre-Approval. -- Pre-approval process: Said it would be largely consistent with pre-delegation testing, and only do that testing once. -- Add the areas where we don't have agreement, i.e., intent was to say that whatever testing we apply in the next round should be those requirements that are tested and evaluated as part of this pre-approval process. -- Discussion about grandfathering, but don't think we have agreement on that approach. Describe the concept. -- How does pre-approval work when you have one registry service provider with multiple applicants and multiple schedule A filing -- do they go through multiple pre-delegation testing. Good to get public input on this. -- Could be registries that have been pre-approved for a set of services. -- Beside pre-approval, there should be some requirement for monitoring or statistical process control before registries reach an SLA, and a rapid response to threats. -- There might be some assurances to registry operators when the want to transition from one back-end provider they goes smoothly, that there is a process in place where the losing RSP participates in the process. -- One service RSPs could be required to provide is EBERO. -- If an RSP has shown experience and meets SLA they should be given the presumption that they are capable of provide the service. -- If there are new requirements in the next round there may be a need for approval. >From the chat: Jim Prendergast: Im still not clear what the difference between accrediation and pre-approval are. An RSP still submits to testing by ICANN (or their designated 3rd party) in exchange for a designation (certified or pre-approved) How are they different? Jeff Neuman: Everyone felt that the terms accreditation implied signing up to a separate agreement Kurt Pritz: I dont like this footnote: “In the original charter, the term ”accreditation” was used as opposed to pre-approval. However, for the reasons discussed in the discussion section below, the terms “Accreditation” or “certification” were considered to be too politically charged and to many implied a number of elements which were unintended. After considerable debate, the terms “RSP Pre-Approval” or “RSP Program” were deemed less incendiary“ We should not turn away from an accreditation program for political reasons or because it is incendiary. We should state sound business / technical reasons for going away from accreditation and toward something else. Use of "political" and "incendiary" make s our reasoning sound less than sound. Jeff Neuman: This does not envision a new agreement Jim Prendergast: so the difference is a contract with ICANN? Jeff Neuman: @Kurt - I agree we should give other reasons. It was one of the things I wanted to add to the General Agreements section Jeff Neuman: Namely what the term accreditation implies (an agreement) Vanda Scartezini: Kurt, I beleive you right Kurt Pritz: Stop reading - just stick it in the record Jim Prendergast: not everyone is in adobe Christa Taylor: There was concern on the term 'accreditation' due to the implied certification/implications and the legalities around the diff parties Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): lengthy discussion on the nomenclature indeed Jonathan Robinson: Agree with Jeff. We discussed this extensively Jonathan Robinson: @Jeff. That is an interesting point. Will there be added or different technical requirements? If so, these may reflect real-world experience from the current 2012 round Jeff Neuman: @Jonathan - I dont know Donna Austin, Neustar: I agree, that we have not reached any agreement on grandfathering. Jonathan Robinson: Not a question per se. More a recognition of the question to be determined. Jeff Neuman: I am just accounting for the possibility that there may be Jeff Neuman: That's why I dont want to just use the 2012 round as the base Jeff Neuman: @Jim - That is a great question to solicit public input on Jeff Neuman: in the initial report Jim Prendergast: I dont have ideas - thats sort of why I asked the question Jeff Neuman: @Jim - Neither do I (Thats why I punted back to you) :) Phil Buckingham: a technical audit each year going forward ? Jeff Neuman: I will note that the RySG has a document that has been going around but because it has not been approved by the SG it has not been submitted here yet. But some registries have made the point that if there are SLA breaches that those may be used against the pre-approval process. Again that is NOT a position of the SG, but an idea that was floated Jonathan Robinson: @Kurt. Current experience does appear to show that ongoing monitoring is important Jeff Neuman: @Kurt - Interesting - A pre-approved provider must agree to be an EBERO for any TLD that it supports Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): if the RO fails, TLD goes to an EBERO Ken Stubbs - Afilias: yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and I am not sure there is a process for EBERO to be non-operational Kurt Pritz: If RO fails, the RSP is the EBERO 3. Review of potential recommendations for Support for Applicants from Developing Countries (4.2.14): Working Group members should review the document and provide feedback on the mailing list.

1 0

WT1 Agenda for Tuesday, 06 February at 20:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Feb. 6, 2018

Feb. 6, 2018

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, 06 February 2018 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of potential recommendations for Accreditation Programs (RSP Program) (4.2.8) 4. Review of potential recommendations for Support for Applicants from Developing Countries (4.2.14) 5. Next Meeting 6. AOB Best regards, Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@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.

3 3

Response to Inquiry to ICANN Org about ICANN Becoming a Registry of Registries
by Steve Chan Jan. 25, 2018

Jan. 25, 2018

Dear WT1 Members, WT1 has discussed comments made by Akram Atallah, related to possible concerns the community might have about ICANN Org becoming a “registry of registries.” Per action item 8 captured on WT1’s action list here (https://community.icann.org/x/aRq4Aw) please find ICANN Org’s response below. During the last couple of WT1 calls, there were requests for clarification regarding the context of Akram’s comment that one of the things the PDP Working Group should consider is whether ICANN should be a registry of registries. Please find below the response to this request to share with WT1. Akram’s comment referred to by WT1 was a suggestion for the PDP Working Group to consider what it envisions to be the end goal of the new gTLD Program (i.e., whether it envisions a few thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions gTLDs to be added to the root, and is there a cap). Once the end goal is known, the Program, including fees, could then be structured to meet the goal and achieve the vision. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

FW: Letter from RySG RSP DG to SubPro WG
by Christa Taylor Jan. 23, 2018

Jan. 23, 2018

Hello All WT1 Members, Attached is a letter from Stephane van Gelder of the RySG RSP DG regarding the RSP/Accreditation Program. We will be discussing Accreditation Program during our next call (Feb 6 at 20:00 UTC) and ask that you review and provide comments any feedback on the WT1 working document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark84 tmg Cheers, Christa Christa Taylor, B. Tech, CPA, CMA, MBA Skype: christat13 christa(a)dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> <http://www.dottba.com/> www.dottba.com --- From: Stéphane Van Gelder - Milathan <svg(a)milathan.ltd <mailto:svg@milathan.ltd> > Date: January 23, 2018 at 4:57:00 AM EST To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> > Subject: Letter from RySG RSP DG to SubPro WG Dear Cheryl, Dear Jeff, Please find attached a letter drafted by the RySGs Discussion Group on RSPs. We hope you find this letter useful in your own groups discussions and would ask that you share the letter with the SubPro WG as appropriate. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. As mentioned in the letter, we are aware of your Feb 9 call and should you need me to attend that call to provide an overview of the DGs work, please let me know. Alternatively, members of the DG are planning to attend the Feb 9 call and can therefore also provide updates. Best regards, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" Discover The Milathan Post on <http://post.milathan.com/> http://post.milathan.com Follow me on Twitter: @stephvg

1 0

FW: Letter from RySG RSP DG to SubPro WG
by Sara Bockey Jan. 23, 2018

Jan. 23, 2018

Dear All, Please see the attached letter from the RySG RSP DG. Our next call on February 6, 2018 at 20 UTC will discuss the RSP Program. Best, Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@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. From: Stéphane Van Gelder - Milathan <svg(a)milathan.ltd<mailto:svg@milathan.ltd>> Date: January 23, 2018 at 4:57:00 AM EST To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Subject: Letter from RySG RSP DG to SubPro WG Dear Cheryl, Dear Jeff, Please find attached a letter drafted by the RySG’s Discussion Group on RSPs. We hope you find this letter useful in your own group’s discussions and would ask that you share the letter with the SubPro WG as appropriate. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. As mentioned in the letter, we are aware of your Feb 9 call and should you need me to attend that call to provide an overview of the DG’s work, please let me know. Alternatively, members of the DG are planning to attend the Feb 9 call and can therefore also provide updates. Best regards, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ———————— Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com<http://post.milathan.com/> Follow me on Twitter: @stephvg ————————

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 16 January 2018 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 16, 2018

Jan. 16, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC Chat of the call are attached to this email. The AC recording and Mp3 are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 16 January 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track1-16jan18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5elru9b3nv/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** 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/Sx1yB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle -------------------------------

1 0

Notes and Action Items Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 16 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 16, 2018

Jan. 16, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB. See the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Action Items from Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 16 January 2018: 1. SOIs: No updates. 2. Review of potential recommendations for Variable Fees (4.2.17) Consensus Items: -- Artificially increasing costs may discourage innovation and competition. -- Different application fees for different types of applicants is only warranted if the difference is greater than 20%. -- The excess of these fees could follow the same disbursement mechanism as detailed in the Application Fees section. -- Sanctions for changing the ytpe of application should be higher than applying for the desired TLD type originally -- the additional fees should be at 125% of the difference between the different application types in terms of fees plus any other related processing fees. -- Applicants who apply for multiple TLDs should not received any discounts on their application fees. Discussion: -- Discussed previously whether it should be percentage, a set amount or something else. -- Discussed previously applications fees by type. -- Still in agreement on consensus items? Don't agree that there should be different fees for different types of applications. Not sure how you would put a differential on the fees given there will be initial establishment costs for the next iteration of the progress everyone will have to be responsible for some of those costs. -- The idea was that once ICANN goes through the application fees and determines the costs they would determine that for the different types of application. Did not do a vote on this, just conversations in prior calls. -- Discussed excess fees in the Application Fees section. -- In the 2012 found there was a basement and then additional fees for additional evaluations might be needed. The WG could decide to tackle it in another way. These variable fees existed in the 2012 round already. -- CPE was one example. Don't know of others unless you went through an objection process. Geographic names had a different steps with scrutiny on letters of support. Also, RSTEP. So, could be a based with additional fees say for scrutiny of letters for geographic names, brands for trademarks, etc. -- Another aspect to consider is that we didn't have brands, so there might be another category with different costs. -- What might make the conversations around application types difficult is that we don't know the procedural differences between the types. -- On the consensus items -- Don't know what we mean by "excess of these fees"? Don't think we should talk about sanctions for changing the type. The excess fees was based on the application fees. How to distribute the excess over the actual costs. Maybe move back to the discussion section. Will update the language instead of "sanctions". -- "...should not receive any discounts on their application fees based on their multiple applications" -- Shouldn't be penalized that they have multiple applications. -- We talked about excess fees in Application Fees in general and once that's resolved if there are excess fees then those excess fees in Variable Fees these should be handled the exact same way in the previous section. Aspects for further discussion: -- Do we want to consider the speculation of TLDs? -- How would fixed assets that are used over multiple rounds be allocated? -- Are we okay with ICANN being a registry of registries? -- How do we manage compliance with a growing volume of registries? Impact on variable costs? -- How do we promote competition and encouraging innovation via pricing? -- Would like insight from IANA re: implications on the volume of TLDs and any stability issues. -- Do we want to address excesses and the timely disbursement of excess funds? Implications on the limit of delegations per year – scaling, planning, instability, compliance Discussion: -- Costs from when this program starts and until the TLD is evaluated. Compliance is not involved there should not be costs relating to compliance. -- On the question on registry of registries -- brought up by Akram Atallah. Asked for clarfication from staff. -- Need clarification in the text by what we mean by "registry of registries". >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): how the difference is measured? in %of text? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): when we talk aboout %s Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): we need to usderstand what formula is used Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Different application fees for different types of applications is only warranted if the difference is significant (for discussion purposes, 20% was used with the actual percentage to be determined). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): about this bit Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): quite small change of text can change application idea a lot Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): application = texts + PDFs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I mean - we need to define how do we see if the change is significant Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): to prevent vague reading at the implementation phase Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): the issue is not the value of the threshold Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): but the way we evaluate the particular difference (for exaple 20%) Kurt Pritz: How about, “the expense for handling changes to applications (when allowed) will be borne by the applicant.” (or am I missing the whole point? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Kurt, do you mean that if that leads to additional evaluations - then they should be paid for again? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): like additional community review adds the cost of the latter Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I think we need to clearly show in the text if we are talking about difference in costs or in the texts of the application - to avoid misunderstanding Kurt Pritz: @ Maxim: I think so - I would keep the policy statement more general and not pre-suppose different types of applications Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I did not remember the voting about it Jon Nevett: Not sure where we are going with this one either? The excess of these fees could follow the same disbursement mechanism as detailed in the Application Fees section. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so far all funds go to some accounts of ICANN , without any explanations of what is going to happen with it Jon Nevett: Donna +1 Jon Nevett: what does that mean? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I meant excess fees Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I have a question : do we see 5k USD amount (TMCH fee) as installation fee too? Jon Nevett: extended evaluation fee too Steve Chan: RSTEP, Objections (as you noted) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): some cities demanded money for the letters ... but not to ICANN Phil Buckingham: if we are going to do a cost plus model for each application type , then the initial application fee will be different . Surely it will be more expensive to apply for a community application than say a brand application Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): in reality only rich communities prevailed in the process jeff neuman 2: I believe brands needed to have a TMCH token so they paid for that....which could count as their evaluation fee as a brand Phil Buckingham: Steve +1 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): excess fees looks like "leftovers after the process finished" - and the current reading of it by ICANN that the 2012 round is not finished yet, so we can not estimate it Kurt Pritz: @ Jon (about excess fees - I think): The Application fee section states that, “Excess funds resulting from the application costs versus the floor (item a) should be distributed back to applicants or used to benefit and to another category?” Then a number of other categories are listed, e.g., outreach and so on. I would change that to: Excess funds resulting from the application costs versus the floor (item a) should be distributed back to applicants (period). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): also some applicants went out of business .. who inherits their hypothetical share? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): also some applicants went out of business .. who inherits their hypothetical share? Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jon's comment and the general intent of that point. Jon Nevett: @jeff thanks for the clarification Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): at least IANA (PTI ) is a registry of registries Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we be more specific about what is meant by Registry of Registries. There was considerable discussion around this last week and I think it would be helpful to be more descriptive about what this means. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it sounds like fist comes pays less Donna Austin, Neustar: I mean in the text, not for discussion now. Kurt Pritz: How about, "How do we promote competition and ecourage innovation via pricing and the current ICANN fee structure?" Phil Buckingham: i would have thought amortisation / depreciation of fixed assets would have to be in sync with ICANN 501 Californian corporation status Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): then 5k USD is not a part of costs (RO pays for TMCH after the execution of the RA) Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree Jeff. It is for ICANN to manage the Compliance department within their current budget. Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, yes, on my to-dos list. jeff neuman: @Donna - Ah....yes, we need to be clear in the text....once we get Akram's response. Agree 3. Review of potential recommendations for Application Submission Period (4.2.13) -- Considerable discussion how we wanted the next window or round to take place -- how to get to a continuous state (page 16 in Google doc). Consensus Items: The application submission window was too quick and too short. Due to uncertainty related to demand, the WG suggests a Hybrid approach where a single round is set (with a minimum 3 months notice) followed by an annual window, e.g., three months of application acceptance (potential publication/objection period??), remaining 9 months to complete evaluation, repeat on a yearly basis. Evaluations are conducted on a rolling basis. The set application window timeline provides predictability, with post application to delegation steps running in parallel with any subsequent window. This process will lead into a “continuous” application process. The Lead-up round should closely reflect end-goal of continuous/annual application process. Round should be a means of refining the continuous application process. Applicants in the next round (regardless whether delegated or not) have priority over additional/ subsequent round applicants. Discussion: -- Potential publication or objection period. -- Do we want to get things in a continuous motion? -- What do we do with those who can make it through in the 9-month process and is the delegation completed in the original window too? When a next window opens to you mention strings in a reconsideration process? Just make them not eligible to be applied for in the next round. >From the chat: jeff neuman: [Personal Opinion] When people claimed that the submission window was too short / too quick, I think they were more referring to the lack of effective communication announcing that the round was going to open as opposed to having 90 days to enter applicant information into the portal. jeff neuman: I am not sure they were saying that 90 days is too short to enter your information. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I suggest adding at least 1 month between rounds (to make cleaning / changes e.t.c) jeff neuman: Plus, having predictable open windows should lessen the emphasis on the time period to enter information into the application portal Jon Nevett: i have 10 applications filed just about 6 years ago that have been in various states of hell -- is 1 year enough? jeff neuman: Jon - so long as no one can apply later for the strings that are in your personal hell, then does that matter Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): if no resolution for the leftover applications of the round is foreseen it might start looking like a Ponzi scheme Phil Buckingham: + 1 Jeff applicants should have notification - say six months - that the application window (for said type) opens on ... They have (say) one month to enter all data / models on apllication Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co Chair): makes sense Jeff Jon Nevett: Yes Jeff. I agree that my personal hell might not matter, but if we can save others from in in the future, let's try to help them. 4. Next Meeting: Registry service provider pre-approval process. Give notice of the next meeting: Feb 6 at 20:00 topics include Applicant Support and RSP/Accreditation Program.

1 0

WT1 Agenda for Tuesday, 16 January at 20:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Jan. 15, 2018

Jan. 15, 2018

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, 16 January at 20:00 UTC. We will be working off the WT1 shared document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8… . Please feel free to access the document at your leisure and add any comments/thoughts. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of potential recommendations for Variable Fees (4.2.17) 4. Review of potential recommendations for Application Submission Period (4.2.13) 5. Next Meeting 6. AOB Best regards, Sara sara bockey sr. 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

Notes and Action Items Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 09 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 9, 2018

Jan. 9, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB. See the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Action Items from Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 09 January 2018: Action Item: For Application Fees – Staff to help capture the remarks by Akram Atallah from ICANN on ICANN as a registry of registries and that WT1 Sub Team is addressing them. Notes: 1. SOIs: No updates. 2. Review of Timeline: Next meeting is on Tuesday, 16 January at 20:00 UTC. 3. Review of potential recommendations for Clarity of Application (4.2.6) The Google doc is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8… Discussion: -- Re: The Registry Agreement -- Is that encompassed here? -- That is one of the items reflected here, and also in Work Track 2. -- Call out some of the items so that people know what is covered or not. -- How are we going to reflect these in our Final Report? Not clear about how these would appear in a final report. -- These will be recommendations. -- Need to delineate between a policy implementation and policy. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: On the clarifying questions themselves, this is a topic that Work Track 4 is working on. They are trying to find a way to create better questions in the application form so as to minimize the amount and type of clarifying questions that need to be asked Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): That is our aim, we are yet to breck through a couple of issues with access to the data we would like to base that work on as yet in WT4 Jeff Neuman: @Jim - Yes, that is one of the items included.....and also included in WT2 as a recommendation.... Jeff Neuman: Good idea to spell out the "associated docs" Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): indeed! Justine Chew: How might possible categorization of application types be factored in 4.2.6 (if at all)? Christa Taylor: The AGB section refers to audience driven sections Justine Chew: Thanks, Jeff. Then it does not merit a need to be bookmarked for refinement post-discussion on categories then? Jeff Neuman: @Justine - right. it applies across the board 4. Review of potential recommendations for Application Fees (4.2.10) Aspects for Further Discussion: -- When we start plugging real numbers into this it may not make sense. -- If there is some kind of floor it should reduce the perception of ICANN as a registry of registries. What does that mean? Are we okay with ICANN having so many registries out there that it becomes a registry of registries, so perceived as being conflicted. Concern raised by Akram Atallah. Can staff get more information about his concern? -- Look at an appropriate amount. -- Perhaps we should clarify what factors should be considered in setting the floor – like preventing ICANN being a registry of registries – recommendation that an economist or group be retained to take these factors and develop an appropriate floor amount? Take the concerns, look at costing, and look at scenarios so that this WG doesn’t waste time coming up with the number. -- Think we have acknowledged previously that this is a really difficult discussion. Look back at the rationale for a price floor and these could become the principles for setting that floor. We know there are excess fees from the $185,000. We don’t know what the demand is and whether $185,000 will be inhibiting or whether it’s reasonable. This is the second time we’ve had this discussion with a smaller group (APAC participants, mainly). -- Overarching issue of whether there should be a cap on applications – the point was that the WG was not interested in putting a cap on categories. -- Re: research – this could be a recommendation for ICANN to do additional work. >From the chat: Justine Chew: "Excess funds resulting from the application costs versus the floor (item a) should be distributed back to applicants or used to benefit another category as follows:" Trang Nguyen: I would not characterize Akram's point as a concern, but as a potential implication in the fees discussion. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Thanks Trang ... Point well noted Donna Austin, Neustar: Is the point not to make the application fee so low as to allow for frivolous applicants, or perhaps those that are applying in the hope of a windfall from auctions. Jeff Neuman:thanks Trang. Perhaps i mischaracterized it as a concern.....but I hope I am reflecting his thoughts on what we need to address Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, yes, you reflected his thoughts well. I think his thoughts are merely to point out the implication of additional future gTLDs and role that application fees have. Kurt Pritz:ICANN, I think, is the registrar of registries – and IANA is the registry. Notwithstanding that, is the policy question we are discussing is: should the number of new TLDs be capped? That seems like a difficult and perhaps-not-valuable discussion. Donna Austin, Neustar:Yep, okay Jeff. Trang Nguyen:ICANN org's finance team can assist with that work as well, Jeff. Jeff Neuman:Thanks. LEts make it clear in our preliminary report that we are not setting the floor in this group and not seeking feedback on what that number should be. Jeff Neuman:@Steve - Correct Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, sure, we can do that.

1 0

WT1 Agenda for Tuesday, 9 January at 3:00 UTC.
by Sara Bockey Jan. 5, 2018

Jan. 5, 2018

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, 9 January at 3:00 UTC. We will be working off the WT1 shared document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8… . Please feel free to access the document at your leisure and add any comments/thoughts. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of Timeline 4. Review of potential recommendations for Clarity of Application (4.2.6) 5. Review of potential recommendations for Application Fees (4.2.10) 6. Review of potential recommendations for Variable Fees (time permitting) (4.2.17) 7. AOB Best regards, Sara sara bockey sr. 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