- 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 26, 2018

March 26, 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. 7, 2018

Feb. 7, 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

WT1: Progress document & request to review December's topics
by Christa Taylor Dec. 20, 2017

Dec. 20, 2017

Dear Work Track 1 Members, In facilitating the discussion of Work Track 1 topics, we have created a document that provides a summary of each of the topics including the issues posed, past discussions, consensus items along with additional areas that we may wish to address. We encourage everyone to add their feedback directly to the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark84 tmg/edit?usp=sharing. We're hoping members could spare ten minutes, before the January 9th meeting, to reflect on December's topics for any additional input on: * Systems * Communications * Application Queuing Thank-you for all of your time and contributions in 2017. Safe & Happy Holidays! Christa Taylor and Sara Bockey Christa Taylor, B. Tech, CPA, CMA, MBA Skype: christat13 <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa(a)dottba.com <http://www.dottba.com/> www.dottba.com sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddyT <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey

1 0

AC Recording, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 19 December 2017
by Terri Agnew Dec. 19, 2017

Dec. 19, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Adobe Connect chat and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording is listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p2xa0krddfj/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=17e199abfa1fcf54 4e1069db42438778cb8fe907e0429b4cdb72a46f61efd41d> https://participate.icann.org/p2xa0krddfj/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/WQtyB> https://community.icann.org/x/WQtyB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WT1 -19 December 2017
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 19, 2017

Dec. 19, 2017

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. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Action Items: 1. SOIs: No updates. 2. Review of potential recommendations for Systems & Communications: Slide 4: Systems: -- Issue posed to the WG: How can the systems used to support the New gTLD Program, such as TAS, Centralized Zone Data Service, Portal, etc. be made more robst, user friendly, and better integrated? Slide 5: Systems recommendations Slide 6: System recommendations -- Consensus items to date -- ICANN's Program Implementation Review Report has some relevant information on page 168: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf -- Can we show that some of the concerns from the first round are being addressed? Can add some language on the improvements that have already been addressed. -- On the beta testing -- good recommendation -- there was a feeling that if we had done some beta testing ICANN might think that those who did the testing would have an unfair advantage. If we do recommend beta testing we should address that issue. -- Add another note saying that the system shouldn't add new legal requirements, such as click-through agreements. -- If there is a new system there will need to be new terms of use that may impose new legal requirements. We can express concern and reflect on what happened previously but it's unrealistic that a new system would not have any legal privileges and obligations. -- Any legal conditions should be known up front in the AGB. Should be finalized before the process. -- Shouldn't be the unilateral imposition of new legal terms and conditions -- should be a negotiated process. >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): last time systems were not very secure - it is possible to add sowrding about separation of info recieved from different logins? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): wording Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it was large scale issue Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): As I understand current Portal is going to accept info of Applicants, and not just Registies like now, and it is full of issues, and testing was a failure .. almost nothing was fixed after it Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so I am really pessemistic about the improvements done Donna Austin, Neustar: Jeff, I understand that but there has been improvements/changes that might be positive. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and we participated in the pilot Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): the engagement without learning Jeff Neuman: I do not believe the new portal can handle the receipt of application data Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): was last time (autmn) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): even the import of data from the old GDD portal was not done properly Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): that is why I recommended to add the wording about separation of data Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): another important item: the system should not add new legal requirements on itself Jeff Neuman: I agree 100% with Maxim. We are still dealing with this on the new portal where 50% of us have not used it because of the Terms of Use Rubens Kuhl: "Homogenous terms and conditions between AGB and application system", perhaps ? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): legal requrements, which were not written in AGB or policies Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I meant these requirements needs to be driven from the multistakeholder process and needs to be set in advance Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): or required changes to these terms - matter of IRT of something like it Slide 8: Communications -- Issue posed to the WG: Examine access to and content within knowledge base as well as communication methods between ICANN and the community. -- The data in these slides comes from the Program Implementation Review Report as well: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf You can see the relevant sections starting on page 199 Slide 9: Customer Service Center (CSC) -- Around 2200 were on TLD application status. Slide 10: CSC Annual Volume of Cases Slide 11: CSC Number of Days to Last Response Slide 12: CSC Number of Days to Case Closure Slide 13: CSC Percentage of Cases Resolved by Tier 1 Slide 14: Communication Recommendations Slide 15: Communications Recommendations -- Consensus Items to Date Discussion: -- Slide 15 -- "Program information should be contained within one website" -- Last time everything was spread around and not easy to find. -- Prioritize the issues that have the biggest impact for most people. -- Need for an escalation procedure. -- This is another area where it may help to provide policy guidance on the ability of ICANN to answer questions without treating one applicant more favorably. >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): prioritization of cases is required - like non-working application system - first grade e.t.c. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): in the future system Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): there were no SLAs - they were created as a result of common interest working group of GDD and Registries/Applicants group Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *result of work Jeff Neuman: I had that issue Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): there should be an escalation process in place Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): with clear rules and timelines Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): notifications to applicants Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): also when applicants know already open info - it saves time of support team 3. Review of potential recommendations for Application Queuing Slide 17: Application Queuing -- Issue posed to this WG: Review whether first come first served guidance remains relevant and if not, whether another mechanism is more appropriate. Slide 18: Applicant Queuing Recommendations -- If queuing need support draw/raffle, not Digital Archery. -- Allow applicants which of their applications to prioritize. -- No consensus on prioritization. Slide 19: Applicant Queuing Recommendations -- Consensus Items to Date -- Not sure asking what the goals were is very helpful. Not sure if the goal was to have IDNs go first. -- Need to consider what we gain from prioritization of applications. Prioritizaton of IDNs made sense at the time but caused problems and delays. >From the chat: Steve Chan: Ok, maybe we can formulate that into a fully formed request and then WT1 can help determine if it's something it needs to explore. Rubens Kuhl: Perhaps WT1 could establish no opposition but no request to prioritze IDNs. That ICANN would have liberty to decide whether the political scenario at that time favors doing IDN prioritization or not. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): if some special priorities identified, we should use soemthing like "Weighted Fair Queueing" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_fair_queueing Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so the prioritized group of application does not block others completely Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *applications Donna Austin, Neustar: rather than IDNs should we give some preference to applications from the global south? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Donna, I meant something like this - but using the transparent process Alexander Schubert: Global South will be gamed as tons of applicants use shell companies in tax havens anyways! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): maybe , last time lots of offshore companies were from "Europe" Donna Austin, Neustar: quite possibly Alexander Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): in terms of regions (for applications) Rubens Kuhl: Not creating high barriers like high application fees and high recurring yearly fees is what would help Global South without being gamed. Christa Taylor: Were IDN applicants who were given priority given a choice? Christa Taylor: yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @ Rubens, it will be possible to rent out such registries after the process Alexander Schubert: Low monetary entry barriers will create fun-applications by wannabe registries. Christa Taylor: So are we against the priortization of applications? Steve Chan: @Christa, I believe the order was 1) IDNs that opted in 2) standard TLDs that opted in 3) IDNs that did NOT opt in and 4) standard TLDs that did NOT opt in Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Christa, we are not against it, it should be done in transparent manner, using different priorities for approved groups of applications (if any) Jeff Neuman: No one has presented a compelling case for prioritizing any types of applications. We could ask for feedback on this in the Preliminary report.

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Christa Taylor Dec. 16, 2017

Dec. 16, 2017

Dear Work Track 1 Members, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of potential recommendations for Systems & Communications 4. Review of potential recommendations for Application Queuing 5. AOB 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

AC Recording, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 05 December 2017
by Terri Agnew Dec. 5, 2017

Dec. 5, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Adobe Connect chat and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording is listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 05 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p47pp47b7j9/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=c8cf5ea0eb669bf2…> https://participate.icann.org/p47pp47b7j9/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB> https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WT1 - 5 December 2017
by Emily Barabas Dec. 5, 2017

Dec. 5, 2017

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. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs - No updates 3. Review of Timeline - Dec 2017: Work on completing deliberations and begin review of WT recommendations - Jan-Feb 2018: Complete review of recommendations - March 2018: Take WT recommendations to the Full WG 4. Review of potential recommendations for Application Guide Book - Overview and review of questions and concerns, rationale for policy development - Proposed recommendations to date have focused on implementation guidance -- Remove background and rationale, move to Appendices. -- Suggestions: AGB should be less historical, less of a policy approach, create a practical guide with improved table of contents and index, step-by-step guide possibly by type of application - Feedback on subdividing the AGV by audience-driven sections - No harm in audience-driven sections - There should be an online and searchable version. There should be a complete document available. If directing people to specific audience driven sections, could get ICANN into hot water. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: So, if you are a back end operator, here are the sections you need to pay attention to Jeff Neuman: kind of an enhanced index Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): This approach would require re-writing multiple parts of the document in case of similar changes Jeff Neuman: Thats a recommendation as well - have a non-pdf online searchable AGB Justine Chew: Or consider inserting tags for different category of audience by type of applicant? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and online version can be changed - There will be a lot of sections that are generic that apply to all types of applicants and other sections that will apply to certain specific audiences. We seem to be stuck in a print mentality. Ultimately, the omnibus should be the entirety for search purposes. All sections should be accessible to all people, but specific sections should be tagged so that people can find the parts that are most useful to them. - You don't want to have totally different versions of the AGB for different audiences. Anywhere you replicate content you risk making errors in replicating. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: PDFs can be changed as well Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff, the offline copy will be the same (and the checksum of the file) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and as I understand the AGB should be stable between releases Alexander Schubert BackUp: As long as we have ONE version that simply bears some "labels": great! But we should avoid a balcanization of the AGB that results in hard forks.... Donna Austin, Neustar: One AGB with a readers guide perhaps. I agree with Greg this is fairly administrative. Greg Shatan: There's no need to replicate the "generic" parts of the AGB. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): could we suggest tags : like <ALL>, <GEO>, <Community> e.t.c. for pages? Justine Chew: We should not specifically discourage applicants' attention to the entire AGB -- applicants ought to read the entire AGB to determine for themselves what is relevant to them and what is not -- but tagging different sections to relevant categories of applicants would be useful to make the AGB more user-friendly. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so it would be both understandable in printed version and would allow to filter by tag Donna Austin, Neustar: Fully agree Justine Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): "choose your own adventure book" is a great analogy ðŸ˜€ - Agree to have one complete version, but to encourage greater participation, we should encourage and support tools to improve accessibility of the AGB, especially for those who are not insiders. Part of this could be a guide for specific audiences. From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): to make an initial choice of the application type, one needs to see the whole book Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, that's a great recommendation that we can work with. The details can be figured out during implementation. Greg Shatan: I don't mind talking about it., and I think that navigability and UX (user experience) cannot be overestimated. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): last AGB would be better with "Read it at least 5 times" on the first page :) Donna Austin, Neustar: To Jeff's point perhaps the recommendation is along the lines of "the AGB should be accessible to the non-insiders" with some examples of how that ocould be done 5. Review of potential recommendations for Application Support - review of history of the topic (slides 9-13) From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Since we dont know what the fees will be for the next round, $47,000 represents just about 25% of the application fee of $185,000. I cant remember if that is how we got the $47k Jeff Neuman: If it was, and we agree that applicants should be able to support 1/4 of the application fee themselves, should it be reworded to reflect that? Jeff Neuman: So, for illustrative purposes only, would it mean that if the application fee were $100k, we would expect applicants to be able to fund $25k themselves? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): +1 for "1/4 of the usual app fee" - Policy recommendations: -- Provide a process to transition to the "regular" application track (slide 14) From the chat: Justine Chew: p14 -- what criteria would be applied to deem an applicant as "gaming the system"? -- Implementation recommendation - improve promotional efforts (slide 15) - Find suitable partners with relevant global reach to deliver the message to the appropriate audiences, implement appropriate training programs for developing locally situalted registries/registrars (slide 16) - Compare volume of users of domain names registered in regional TLDs, identify the number of domain names registered in region new gTLDs (slide 16) -- Implementation recommendation - utilize partnerships to maximize outreach (slide 17) -- Recommendation - provide support beyond reduced application fees (slide 18) -- Recommendation - Understand obstacles and provide assistance accordingly (slide 19) From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): page 19. a. Which kind of tech support do we reffer to? Jeff Neuman: @Maxim - outsourced registry operations, consulting services to understand technical requirements, etc. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I think it could be written as "technical expertise inhouse or outsourced is highly recommended" - Question: Who should Applicant Support be available to? - Some concern limiting to least developed economies without looking at the individual circumstances of the applicant. Fellowship program was once only available to applicants from specific countries. Now it is available to individuals in any country as long as personal circumstances match the objectives of the program. This disadvantages those are less advantaged individuals in more affluent countries, such as those from indigenous communities. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: I agree with Greg, eligibility should not be largely based on where you come from. Jeff Neuman: So Greg - To restate - qualification on who qualifies for Applicant Support should be focused on the needs of the applicant as opposed to being focused on where they reside? - Do not want to limit to least developed countries. Means needs to be considered. Location may be relevant, but shouldn't be the main factor. - Is reducing the application fee going to be sufficient? Is it just the applicant that is disadvantaged or potentially also those using the TLD? - Where did the 2 million dollars come from? If we reduce the fees, does someone else pay more than their share? From the chat: Jim Prendergast: Who at ICANN makes the determination on the means test? Jim Prendergast: ICANN tries to avoid making decisions like that Jeff Neuman: @Jim - There was a panel that was formed to make those decisions and the panel was made up of members of community and "experts" I believe Greg Shatan: Jeff -- In a word, yes. Although, I don't think it is "binary" (i.e., "as opposed to" is not the way I'd like to look at it -- it could be more nuanced than that). Jim Prendergast: Thats my recollection as well - but it probably came out of the "historical development costs" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what happens when supported applicant goes through the aquisition process (bought by some other company)? Jon Nevett: Historical costs are being charged back to applicant fees Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): historical costs for the last round are still not stable (more and more added) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): for example IANA transition was added (according to the letter about Excess fees) Justine Chew: @Maxim, M&A are normal business transactions which we can neither foresee nor interfere with. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I mean that the support should not be used for gaming (so the M&A is not the way to save 3/4 of the application fee) Donna Austin, Neustar: I would also note that the 'string' would be an important consideration and it would need to have some relevance to the region or whatever. - If there is a limited fund available for support, how do we decide between candidates that meet the criteria if we don't use geography as a factor? We still need a mechanism to choose between applicants. - Important consideration is whether you are going to have a viable market in some of these areas. Could you approach it differently? Identify five projects to participate free and clear of fees, but they have to make a business case for why it would work, and they would work with partnerships initially, with the goal of building expertise and becoming self sufficient within a year. - Among things to consider - the CCT-RT report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> - One of the things mentioned in this report is the global south and defining this term. This could be one of the factors used in selection criteria. - Location needs to be looked at in a more nuanced way. Remote area of Alaska or South Bronx are within the US, but are less resourced communities. - Consider incubator or accelerator model. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: TLDs will have varying ideas of success Justine Chew: @Greg, sure, understood, for that matter should we look at public national Internet accessibility / infrastructure (ala ITU) as a criteria? Donna Austin, Neustar: I think some of this is outside ICANN's remit. Donna Austin, Neustar: Unless tICANN becomes some kind of philanthropist organisation because of Auction Funds. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Justine, it should not be just national, but since requirements for Registry require good connectivity ... then international connectivity is a must (purely Antarctic TLD is not possible) - Does the group want to introduce success criteria? From the chat: Greg Shatan: @Jeff, I think a "scorecard" is needed, but geography (coarse and fine) should only be one aspect. - This is an area where we can punt in the preliminary report. Once we have a better sense of what the program will look like, we will be better able to design metrics around the success of the program. Trang Nguyen: I might have missed this, but have the objectives of the Applicant Support Program been defined? - In preliminary report, ask the community for suggestions for measuring the success of meeting those goals. - Some suggestions for metrics: those who have considered applying, those who have applied, and number of successful applicants Greg Shatan: Business plan, financial sustainabiity, sources of funds, all need to be part of a scorecard. AOB: None

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for Tuesday, 05 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Dec. 5, 2017

Dec. 5, 2017

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 05 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of Timeline 4. Review of potential recommendations for Application Guide Book 5. Review of potential recommendations for Application Support 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.

2 1

- Data related to registry operators reaching emergency thresholds
by Steve Chan Nov. 29, 2017

Nov. 29, 2017

Dear WT1 Members, On the WT1 call on 19 September 2017, it was noted that the Registry Services Provider discussion group had received some information and data points regarding cases in which a registry operator reached the emergency thresholds described in specification 10 of the 2017 base registry agreement. Attached, please find input from GDD technical services related to this topic. This information can also be found on the relevant Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/KT2AAw 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

AC Recording, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 21 November 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 21, 2017

Nov. 21, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6zoa3muqcy/ 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/n5lEB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 November 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hi Jeff, it is bit louder then usual Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):5.58AM here Jeff Neuman:Still waiting for people....... Jeff Neuman:Did Christa and Sara try their mics out? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I can not use mic, too early Rubens Kuhl:Loud and clear Jeff Neuman:great! Jeff Neuman:Yes! Jeff Neuman:Thanks both Jeff Neuman:We might as well get started Rubens Kuhl:And Adobe Connect is working with Firefox 57. I was afraid the upgrade would make AC to stop working. Sara Bockey:Do we have enough people who are not staff or subpro? Jeff Neuman:Its up to Sara and Christa Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I am still in another non ICANN call sorry it will end soon Jeff Neuman:No problem CLO Sara Bockey: I think there are only 3-4 people who are not staff or Sub Pro, how many do we need for quorum? Jeff Neuman:Lets get it underway Jeff Neuman:Even if a short call Jeff Neuman:We need to keep pushing forward Kurt Pritz:It's about quality, not quantity Michael Flemming:and we are the quality ;) Jeff Neuman:Well at least Kurt is ;) Michael Flemming:>.< Karen Day:I️ am without audio tonight. Trang Nguyen:Trang is on audio only Michelle DeSmyter:Thank you Trang Trang Nguyen:Apologies, I mean to say that I am in the Adobe Connect room, and without audio. Jeff Neuman:Thanks Trang Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):ok all my attention is now he Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):here Rubens Kuhl:A percentage would (1) not reflect optimizations (2) could allow for it to go real low after just a few rounds Jeff Neuman:I dont think we should set a number Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):leftovers of the previous round fees are still not spent Sophia Feng:What's the reason for making a floor? Rubens Kuhl:50% of previous round, after 5 rounds: 3.1% Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):the policy basis, approach does make hood sense from my personal perspective Steve Chan:@sophia, you can see some pros and cons on slide 4 Jeff Neuman:So, the greater of the "floor" and the Cost-recovery amount Steve Chan:the reasons for a floor are in blue on that slide Jeff Neuman:cool Sophia Feng:got it, thanks steve Jeff Neuman:Are there also some other restrictions we can place to try and prevent "squatting" other than with the price. Not sure there are other ways, but just thought I would ask Rubens Kuhl:I understand the reasoning for preserving security and stability, but we shouldn't have a problem with it becoming a commodity. Rubens Kuhl:I think that's the defintion of IANA. ;-) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so far ICANN acted as a regulator, what changes? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):is seems to be an organisational issue on ICANN side and more relevant to operation menagement then to pricing Sophia Feng:I think some perception from the first round applicants is not about the application fee amount, but with the disclosures of how ICANN spend the fees, so the education of such transparancy shoud probably be improved in the second round Kurt Pritz:i don't get the registry of registries concern - whatever it is, I think we are already in that situation. Isn't ICANN more of a registrar? (Rhetorical question.) Donna Austin, Neustar:To Kurt and Jeff's earlier agreement about the policy, is it possible to turn the considerations into the policy principles as it relates to setting application fees in general rather than ceilings or floors. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):who is going to say that - it was the cost? this round ICANN is still depleting what was above the cost recovery Sara Bockey:@Donna, I was thinking the same. That's a good point/idea Rubens Kuhl:Accounting for inflation, 50k in 2000 would be 72k today. Rubens Kuhl:185k in 2012, adding inflation, would be 199k nowadays. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and this round staff numbers grow without any correlation with the number of Registries , so it is an operational issue too Rubens Kuhl:Maxim, ICANN staff grows proportionaly to the number of countries they want to please, not to number of registries. Jeff Neuman:I would like to make this an action item. Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: What is the action, exactly? Sorry to miss it. Jeff Neuman:Can we send around the link....I have my hand raised to follow up on that Julie Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):given the current situation where ICANN spends more than earns (if we do not talk about excess fees and auction fees and new round fees), any amount will be consumed , the only diference is the time till the +1 round Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, can you clarify which risk assessment the WG is asking for? Risks change by program phase. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):As I understand the current position of ICANN is that excess fees = 0 Jeff Neuman:@Trang - the assessment Kurt was referring to and that is referred to in the cost document Christa was discussing Jeff Neuman:I think it is a good point Donna has raised....but ICANN does have insurance Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, thank you! That predates my time at ICANN so I don't know much about it. I'm sure someone within ICANN remembers it. Jeff Neuman:I am sure their policies would cover everything (above a deductible) assuming no willful transgressions Kurt Pritz:@ Sophia: Hi ! Is there a perspective on fees for the next round from the prospective of China or Asian applicants? (not on the risk amount but on application fees in general. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):next point of spending might be few GDPR fines of 4%/20M multiplied by some number Michael Flemming:Yes, but that is an eye opener to what happens with excess funds and how we would determine what would be excess. From what we just heard, it could be questionable whether or not excess fees as we see them for the first round are "excess" in ICANN's eyes. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff. ICANN may have insurance, but if the intent was to have a program that was cost neutral, then it makes sense that any unforeseen expenses be funded from the program fees. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):what is the current speed of depletion of the reserved funds? it might give us some understanding of how much required for the next round Jeff Neuman:@Donna - A deductible at most is $1 M (and that is usually for large security class action cases) Jeff Neuman:So the only thing unforseen would be that deductible Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if ICANN loses hard - insurance next year is going to be quite different Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):cost neutral Donna Austin, Neustar:I wonder if we can make this much simpler. The policy is that excess application fees be returned to the applicants. The applicant can opt to have the application fee returned or used as a credit to ongoing fees. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the issue with the cost recovery is that ICANN adds more and more to the definition of costs (IANA added out of thin air e.t.c) Rubens Kuhl:ICANN is non-profit, so they can pay vacations in Hawaii for NextGen and still get away with it. Jeff Neuman:OK, so there is an assumption that the floor will be greater than the actual cost Jeff Neuman:In talking it through finally a little lightbulb went off in my head :) Donna Austin, Neustar:So what you're saying is that the floor amount is not a refundable component to applicants? Karen Day:@Donna that would be good but how would we ensure agreement on what excess is? Justine Chew:@Maxim, you are spot on. No one seems to know what the true cost is to ICANN. Rubens Kuhl:Perhaps the difference between the floor and the cost could be a credit towards yearly fees ? Rubens Kuhl:(if that applicant actually becomes a registry) Donna Austin, Neustar:@Karen, I think to do so would make it a complicated administrative exercise. Karen Day:but a decidedly easier policy one ;) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):then we need to ensure that formula is finished before the next round Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):legal consultations for 30M USD were not supposed to be a part of new gTLD process ... and currently it happened to be Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):(IANA ones) Jeff Neuman:Right....the yearly fees pay for the operation of the organization Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Jeff, I am not sure it works this way ... is it in FY18? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I mean that it looks like ICANN spends more than earns from Registries and Registrars Rubens Kuhl:Maxim, currently ICANN is "in the blue". It might change when registrar numbers go down and gTLD registrations go down, both likely to happen, but for now they are (+). Jeff Neuman:Its a contingency fund for the survival of the program Jeff Neuman:Not to mention that we could use some of the auction funds for future auctions Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):restricted reserve funds use also intriguing Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff, but where does that money come from? the applicants? or ICANN's operating budget? Justine Chew:Yes, with decision on rounds still pending, would we be amiss if we could even suggest that the ENTIRE excess funds be kept in reserve for the FOLLOWING round, and not the NEXT round? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Justine it looks like ponzi scheme Justine Chew:This might allow ICANN time to determine with some finality on the true cost? Rubens Kuhl:Do we have a figure for legal costs incurred so far in IRPs and court proceedings related to 2012-round ? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):determination comes with depletion of the leftovers of the previous round excess fees Kurt Pritz:Another policy reason for a floor price: mitigates risk of a short fall Sophia Feng 2:Do you have finanical review of the first round on report yet? Jeff Neuman:We should suggest this, but make sure that it is not a full blown review that would delay subsequent rounds Sophia Feng 2:Do we have some preliminary finanical review of the first round on report yet? Jeff Neuman:I think this has been a GREAT discussion Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):good plan Christia Donna Austin, Neustar:@Sophia,, ICANN has done a reasonable job of reporting on costs in the operating plan and budget since 2011. I think ICANN could easily pull that information together Justine Chew:@Maxim, if there were to be strict legal prohibitions or something like that to apply to the reserve (like what would apply to the contingency)? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Justine, non-for profits are not about saving money ... Jeff Neuman:Great questions Kurt. If you dont have it yet, we can put it as an aciton item Sophia Feng 2:I think i have issue with my microphone Michael Flemming:My prespective is of the dotbrand perspective. Large pieces of realty Sophia Feng 2:The chinese applciant find the the first round fee was too high, if the second round is about 50% then it is defintely more acceptable Justine Chew:@Maxim, non-for-profits are about not making profits. Michael Flemming:So the large amount justifies the cost, but could be cheaper, but not too cheap. Michael Flemming:I would go for maybe 60 to 70% in that regard Michael Flemming:don't want to put an amount on it, of course. We need principles to justify future costs. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Sophia Feng 2:And also transparency with how icann spend the application fee should be communicated with chinese applicants more in the second round Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):great call thanks everyone and special thanks to Christa... ðŸ‘‹ bye for now then...

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 1 Meeting 20 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 21, 2017

Nov. 21, 2017

Dear Work Track Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes from the meeting on 20 November. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Slides are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included for reference. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items and Notes, Work Track 1, 20 November 1. SOIs: None 2. Discussion on Variable and Fixed Costs & Clarity of Application Process: Actions Items: 1) get a copy of the risk assessment or a sanitized version; 2) ICANN staff to follow up on the risk assessment (or the WG) on how accurate it was, why did it not come to fruition? Hard to know when we don't know how much can be shared. Discussions to date: -- should be revenue-cost neutral -- Application fee floor amount should be set -- Method to deal with excess or shortfall of funds should be in place -- Different application fees should be set if there is significant difference Slide 5: Application Fees -- Fee Floor: -- Set amount -- Percentage of prior rounds(s) application fee -- Other elements -- When should the application fee floor be set? -- After each round? --- A specific time period? Discussion: -- Should discuss this. What are we trying to ensure occurs by setting a floor and list those reasons? Or kick it to ICANN to say you should set a fee that satisfies these policy goals. -- Should talk about the policy reasons. We want to discourage speculation or warehousing or squatting. Maybe we need an economist. What we intend to do is to have the greater of the cost recovery and the price floor. If the cost recovery is less than the price floor then the floor becomes the cost. Or visa versa. -- If the application fee is above the floor amount then there is no need for the floor. We want to make sure the fee reflects that it is a valuable piece of the Internet and we didn't want TLDs to become a commodity. We wanted to discourage speculation. Avoid barriers to entry. A much reduced fee reduces barriers to underserved regions. -- A point that was brought up by Akram Atallah -- worried about ICANN becoming a registry of registries. We need to have that discussion. -- Cost should increase registration for new gTLDs, but avoid becoming the registry of registries. -- Difficult problem with lots of contradictions. We did have a round in 2000, but we set an amount of $50K and only got 100 applications. We had a subsequent round -- we could say that if we are worried about being cost-neutral then we could say a portion gets refunded. -- We have had past rounds that were $50K or thereabouts. How can we be cost neutral? Do we charge higher up front and then refund? -- The 2004 round -- there wasn't a lot of thought into the application pricing. In the 2012 round the concern was the processing cost and running out of money. We had professional risk managers. A lot more thought went into the costing process. -- If the application fee goes down and the applications go way up that is a reason to have a floor, and then consider a refund. -- Is there something we could share from the 2012 risk assessment? Might be very sensitive. -- We can say that we think there is an application fee floor and that there could be an excess, need to decide what to do with it. -- Action items: 1) get a copy of the risk assessment or a sanitized version; 2) ICANN staff to follow up on the risk assessment ( or the WG) on how accurate it was, why did it not come to fruition. Hard to know when we don't know how much can be shared. -- ICANN still seems to be of the opinion that there will be no excess --- that all the funds will be accounted for. May still need for access to risk funding. -- Seems like we would still want an application fee floor. -- Important to keep in mind that the round isn't technically over. Slides 6 and 7: Excess/Shortage of Funds: -- If we come up with a list of categories how would we come up with fees? -- If we use the terms "cost recovery" or "Cost neutral" then the applicants cover the cost and then we refund -- only option. Not sure how to do that for those that withdraw. If we do this as a non-profit we could do other things with the excess. -- The difference was between the cost floor and recovery fee. Could be a small recovery. -- The floor kicks in if the actual costs are lower than the floor. -- The methodology should be clear and transparent. -- Need to assume that the method for determining the cost is clear and transparent. -- What happens if we've done everything right and there is a shortfall? -- Could we state that the elements of the contingency elements of the fee would go into a reserver fund in case there is a shortfall? Don't see why we couldn't suggest that, but could say there was a maximum. -- You would establish a reserve fund from a portion of the application fee? How would that work? -- In one round we institute a reserve fund if we have X amount to put into a pool. In the next round if we don't need it and there is still and excess or if not we could top it up. Continue it on that basis. -- Right now we have a contingency fund of 1/3 of the application fee. Really this is for unforeseen expenses. There is another check and balance since after the first round then if there is a shortfall then there should be a higher price for applications in the next round. -- Take the remaining issues to an email list for discussion. Excerpts from the chat: Jeff Neuman: Are there also some other restrictions we can place to try and prevent "squatting" other than with the price. Not sure there are other ways, but just thought I would ask Rubens Kuhl: I understand the reasoning for preserving security and stability, but we shouldn't have a problem with it becoming a commodity. Rubens Kuhl: I think that's the defintion of IANA. ;-) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so far ICANN acted as a regulator, what changes? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): is seems to be an organisational issue on ICANN side and more relevant to operation menagement then to pricing Sophia Feng: I think some perception from the first round applicants is not about the application fee amount, but with the disclosures of how ICANN spend the fees, so the education of such transparancy shoud probably be improved in the second round Kurt Pritz: i don't get the registry of registries concern - whatever it is, I think we are already in that situation. Isn't ICANN more of a registrar? (Rhetorical question.) Donna Austin, Neustar: To Kurt and Jeff's earlier agreement about the policy, is it possible to turn the considerations into the policy principles as it relates to setting application fees in general rather than ceilings or floors. Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, can you clarify which risk assessment the WG is asking for? Risks change by program phase. Jeff Neuman: @Trang - the assessment Kurt was referring to and that is referred to in the cost document Christa was discussing Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): As I understand the current position of ICANN is that excess fees = 0 Jeff Neuman: @Trang - the assessment Kurt was referring to and that is referred to in the cost document Christa was discussing Jeff Neuman: I think it is a good point Donna has raised....but ICANN does have insurance Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, thank you! That predates my time at ICANN so I don't know much about it. I'm sure someone within ICANN remembers it. Jeff Neuman: I am sure their policies would cover everything (above a deductible) assuming no willful transgressions Michael Flemming: Yes, but that is an eye opener to what happens with excess funds and how we would determine what would be excess. From what we just heard, it could be questionable whether or not excess fees as we see them for the first round are "excess" in ICANN's eyes. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jeff. ICANN may have insurance, but if the intent was to have a program that was cost neutral, then it makes sense that any unforeseen expenses be funded from the program fees. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what is the current speed of depletion of the reserved funds? it might give us some understanding of how much required for the next round Jeff Neuman: @Donna - A deductible at most is $1 M (and that is usually for large security class action cases) Jeff Neuman: So the only thing unforseen would be that deductible Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): if ICANN loses hard - insurance next year is going to be quite different Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): cost neutral Donna Austin, Neustar: I wonder if we can make this much simpler. The policy is that excess application fees be returned to the applicants. The applicant can opt to have the application fee returned or used as a credit to ongoing fees. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): the issue with the cost recovery is that ICANN adds more and more to the definition of costs (IANA added out of thin air e.t.c) Rubens Kuhl: ICANN is non-profit, so they can pay vacations in Hawaii for NextGen and still get away with it. Jeff Neuman: OK, so there is an assumption that the floor will be greater than the actual cost Jeff Neuman: In talking it through finally a little lightbulb went off in my head :) Donna Austin, Neustar: So what you're saying is that the floor amount is not a refundable component to applicants? Karen Day: @Donna that would be good but how would we ensure agreement on what excess is? Justine Chew: @Maxim, you are spot on. No one seems to know what the true cost is to ICANN. Rubens Kuhl: Perhaps the difference between the floor and the cost could be a credit towards yearly fees ? Rubens Kuhl: (if that applicant actually becomes a registry) Donna Austin, Neustar: @Karen, I think to do so would make it a complicated administrative exercise.

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for 21 November 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Nov. 17, 2017

Nov. 17, 2017

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 at 03:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Discussion on Variable and Fixed Costs & Clarity of Application Process 4. 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

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Julie Bisland Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3nibl2ydew/<https://participate.icann.org/p3nibl2ydew/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ba32205baa7d5c6f…> 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/fYJEB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 17 October 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone.. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi all Julie Bisland:Hello Christa :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes all clear Vanda Scartezini:ok go further Jonathan Robinson:Regardless of cost-recovery or cost-plus basis, is it established at this point, as to whether this is on a per round basis or across the program as a whole? Vanda Scartezini:i I beleive on one fits all cost since in my survey in this developing region cost was not the issue Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I suspect the issue of "affordability" will vary accross both Regions and sectors avri doria:Alan, should one raise the cost to prevent applicantions? Phil Buckingham:I think that it would be important to separate out the variable costs to run the "round " and the fixed costs / development costs that ICANN ( the corporation ) needs to implement / rollout R2 ( ie a new computer system / new application system etc ) . Vanda Scartezini:I agree with ALAN - it is our intention to especulate on gTLDs more than we had in 2102? Alan Greenberg:@Avri, if too low a cost leads to a situation that we find undesireable, then perhaps we do nooe to do that. Or maybe there are other ways to preven speculation. avri doria:What price level discourages speculation? Was there speculation in 2012? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):fair point to noJeff a good reminder Jonathan Robinson:@Phil. Regardless of slpitting across variable and fixed costs, there is a point of principle as to whether or not the cost-recovery should be spread across multiple rounds Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):should say to note Jeff Alan Greenberg:I think the first rounds were in a very different world and cannot be used to predict behaviour going forward. Vanda Scartezini:previous rounds the general investors were not alert about the opportunity, now they are Alan Greenberg:I don't much care if we use price or something else to discourage "speculation", but I beleive we do not want the equavalent of parked domains in the TLD space. And certainly not when they may predominate. Vanda Scartezini:understand we are not creating artifitial price but now lower the prices for no reason avri doria:well, there are apporximations. you could estimate the cost of the the orunds in a year, and then roll any surplus or deficit forward and rebudget and re cost the next year. Jeff Neuman:we could do that, but so long as there is a much more scientific method of determining the costs of the application process. $185,000 was a pure guess avri doria:but now that approximation can be adjusted. avri doria:based on what was learned in this round Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I also suspect that whilst we can look towards history of previous "rounds" regarding predicting uptake for future ones is not a simple correlate... Yes things are different between "now" and "then" but we do not have any ideas on what is a saturation point or steady state for opportunity uptake, nor do we hold predictable data relating to other non purely DNS Industry related effects... we are in some ways trying to crystal ball gaze regarding price point : Impact on speculation / uptake and what you see in a "crystal ball" is very much biased by postition and perspective. Jonathan Robinson:Can the apporximation be adjusted? ICANN seens to take the view that the excess application fees may still be required. Jonathan Robinson:ICANN certainly does not seem to concede that 185k is too much. Phil Buckingham:I would have thought it would be 2/3 *185K this Round , since the 1/3 "legal contingency " would not be required this time . Jeff Neuman:Can you repeat what the 10% number is? Jonathan Robinson:@Cheryl. Good points Jeff Neuman:I think that is a little low Phil Buckingham:what a question ! I would refund all applicants within that Round on an equal basis .with the "excess" - whatever that is defined as !! Jeff Neuman:In this paper, ICANN states that it has $128million of unspent gTLD application fees (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…) Jonathan Robinson:THere is still the notional 1,000 per year limit AFAIK Jeff Neuman:A letter was sent from WT 4 to the SSAC, RSSAC, the office of chief technology officer of ICANN, and the GDD to see if their thnking on that has changed. Alan Greenberg:I do not understand why Compliance is not part of the equation. Jonathan Robinson:@JEff. Thanks. Good point; there are two issues regarding what the rate limiting condition is i.e. GDD processing capability and SSAC / RSAC security & stability issues. Steve Chan:@Jeff, i think the question posed to SSAC, RSSAC, and GDD was more about root-zone scaling. I don't believe we've asked the operational questions yet, as there are quite a few variables this WG would probably need to provide in order for them to do so. Jonathan Robinson:@Jeff. To your point that we know that 185k will generate significant excess. To be clear, we do not know that US$185,000 will generate signifiacnt excess. We simply do not know what the number of applications will be at 185k or higher or lower. Jeff Neuman:I am not sure we have agreement on what "gaming" of the process means Alan Greenberg:Have to leave. Bye Vanda Scartezini:yeah if there will be a difference then applicant shall pay the difference if change the type avri doria:gaming - any opportunistic use of policies in a way people frown upon? Jeff Neuman:I would say 125% of the price differential. Jeff Neuman:But pulling that out of thin air Vanda Scartezini:there is another call starting now. need to leave Vanda Scartezini:thanks you all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye for now ....thanks Christa and Sarah. Jonathan Robinson:Thank-you all. avri doria:bye Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:bye. Phil Buckingham:thanks Christa and Sara

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 1 Meeting 17 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

Dear Work Track Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes from the meeting on 17 October. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Slides are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included for reference. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items and Notes, Work Track 1, 17 October 1. SOIs: None 2. Discussion on Variable and Fixed Costs & Clarity of Application Process: Slide 4: Variable Fees Rationale for Policy Development Slide 5: Variable Fees: One is "user pay" and one is "one fee fits all" Slide 6: Variable Fees -- Public Policy -- How does a public policy change from break-even to say, cost-plus impact our decisions on variable fees? -- Impact on "User Pays" -- If Cost Plus -- suggest a percentage of what the WG thinks is acceptable? -- If Cost Plus -- same percentage or different percentages based on type of application? -- Impacts on risk analysis. Slide 7: Variable Fees [build out] -- Financial support different from application support. Slide 8: Variable Fees -- One Fee Fits All "One Fees Fits all" -- ...and there is a difference in costs by type of application >10% -- ...is justified if the difference in costs by type of application are >10% Discussion: -- If it was 20% or 30% different would we say the same thing? -- I thought it was a fairness issue and not an affordability issue. Response: That is correct. We thought the cost would go down and that is how the issue of "cost plus" arose, including ceilings and floors. -- Problem merging what happens if the costs is too low and you get someone who can't operate without stability issues -- don't know what hoops people have to jump through. This is a different area than cost based on a cost-recovery system. -- Consider whether ICANN should operate as a registry of top level domains if the costs is too low. Saying that ICANN is a registry is a misnomer since they aren't performing a function that stands in the path of resolution -- only entity is IANA. On stability we do have requests out ot the SSAC and OCTO on delegation in the root. -- Got feedback that cost recovery was the way to go but we guessed on the costs. We now have data on the actual costs. -- Still need to decide on whether to set a floor. -- On the cost recovery understanding -- at the moment we still have determined. -- Should costs be spread across multiple rounds or do you approach each round as independent of each other? -- On whether ICANN is a registry on top level domains -- we could be the registry and IANA could be the back-end provider. Not sure if it is a benefit to you those terms. -- The issue of too many domains is party whether we want speculators. Policy decision to make. Whether compliance operations -- whether we can ensure our policies are being followed is a significant concern. We don't pay for compliance with the application fee. -- Point out that we had a couple of rounds prior to the last one where the application fee was $50K and didn't see a lot of speculation. -- Our goal is to encourage innovation and competition. Not sure picking $185K is the right thing to do just because it was the price for 2012. -- If we want to discourage speculation there could be other ways to do than keeping the price artificially high. -- Don't know how you spread out costs among different rounds since we don't know how many there will be. But if there is a way to determine the steady-state operation perhaps we could do it that way, but that will be very difficult until we know what a steady state would look like. -- One way to do that would be to make the policy that ICANN redistributes any excess. -- One idea could be that we make a policy that X% is costs and X% is separated from the application fee to pool for systems. If we do have that gap between the application fee and the floor there will be that excess. Slide 9: Variable Fees [Gaming the System] -- Not hearing that 10% is a good or bad number, but on trying to prevent issues going forward -- is there policy that would prevent gaming the system? Do we think $185K is the right number to prevent gaming? -- 10% was kind of like a line in the sand on why we should have different costs for different types of applications. -- It would make sense if you assumed apples to apples because the cost of a generic application that goes through contention is going have a higher costs than a generic one without contention. It could be a very big range. -- Is 10% an okay number or do we want to change that to something else? -- 10% seems low. There may be a much greater differential between different types application. If it is within 25% they still should be priced at around the same amount. -- So where do those excess funds go -- the surplus between our cost and the application fee. Could be used for systems and development costs. -- You could say that some should go to the reserve fund, so could go back to the applicants if we can figure out how to do that -- but we have no idea how much we will have. Do need to make it much more definitive other than a huge surplus fund. -- Don't have the number of applications we can process in a certain period [letter to SSAC/RSSAC/OTCO] but we could use that number in our equation. Don't think we'll get a definitive answer. Slide 10: Variable Fees -- User Pays -- How does a "user pay" system impact variable fees on evaluation, complexity, costs and time? -- Types of risk associated with each type of application? -- Concern is applicants who "game" the system, does the WG want to address this concern? -- Sanctions for applying for a cheaper/faster application type (or the reverse) -- Compliance costs associated with ensuring activities match the type of application. Discussion: -- If there are differences among the types and someone wants to change it then paying the difference or penalty fee could be assessed. >From the chat: Jonathan Robinson: Regardless of cost-recovery or cost-plus basis, is it established at this point, as to whether this is on a per round basis or across the program as a whole? Vanda Scartezini: i I beleive on one fits all cost since in my survey in this developing region cost was not the issue Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I suspect the issue of "affordability" will vary accross both Regions and sectors avri doria: Alan, should one raise the cost to prevent applicantions? Phil Buckingham: I think that it would be important to separate out the variable costs to run the "round " and the fixed costs / development costs that ICANN ( the corporation ) needs to implement / rollout R2 ( ie a new computer system / new application system etc ) avri doria: Alan, should one raise the cost to prevent applicantions? Phil Buckingham: I think that it would be important to separate out the variable costs to run the "round " and the fixed costs / development costs that ICANN ( the corporation ) needs to implement / rollout R2 ( ie a new computer system / new application system etc ) . Vanda Scartezini: I agree with ALAN - it is our intention to especulate on gTLDs more than we had in 2102?. avri doria: What price level discourages speculation? Was there speculation in 2012? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): fair point to noJeff a good reminder Jonathan Robinson: @Phil. Regardless of slpitting across variable and fixed costs, there is a point of principle as to whether or not the cost-recovery should be spread across multiple rounds Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): should say to note Jeff Alan Greenberg: I think the first rounds were in a very different world and cannot be used to predict behaviour going forward. Vanda Scartezini: previous rounds the general investors were not alert about the opportunity, now they are Alan Greenberg: I don't much care if we use price or something else to discourage "speculation", but I beleive we do not want the equavalent of parked domains in the TLD space. And certainly not when they may predominate. Vanda Scartezini: understand we are not creating artifitial price but now lower the prices for no reason avri doria: well, there are apporximations. you could estimate the cost of the the orunds in a year, and then roll any surplus or deficit forward and rebudget and re cost the next year. Jeff Neuman: we could do that, but so long as there is a much more scientific method of determining the costs of the application process. $185,000 was a pure guess avri doria: but now that approximation can be adjusted. avri doria: based on what was learned in this round Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I also suspect that whilst we can look towards history of previous "rounds" regarding predicting uptake for future ones is not a simple correlate... Yes things are different between "now" and "then" but we do not have any ideas on what is a saturation point or steady state for opportunity uptake, nor do we hold predictable data relating to other non purely DNS Industry related effects... we are in some ways trying to crystal ball gaze regarding price point : Impact on speculation / uptake and what you see in a "crystal ball" is very much biased by postition and perspective. Jonathan Robinson: Can the apporximation be adjusted? ICANN seens to take the view that the excess application fees may still be required. Jonathan Robinson: ICANN certainly does not seem to concede that 185k is too much. Jeff Neuman: In this paper, ICANN states that it has $128million of unspent gTLD application fees (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-reserve-fund-12oct17-en.p…) Jonathan Robinson: THere is still the notional 1,000 per year limit AFAIK Jeff Neuman: A letter was sent from WT 4 to the SSAC, RSSAC, the office of chief technology officer of ICANN, and the GDD to see if their thnking on that has changed. Alan Greenberg: I do not understand why Compliance is not part of the equation. Jonathan Robinson: @JEff. Thanks. Good point; there are two issues regarding what the rate limiting condition is i.e. GDD processing capability and SSAC / RSAC security & stability issues. Steve Chan: @Jeff, i think the question posed to SSAC, RSSAC, and GDD was more about root-zone scaling. I don't believe we've asked the operational questions yet, as there are quite a few variables this WG would probably need to provide in order for them to do so. Jonathan Robinson: @Jeff. To your point that we know that 185k will generate significant excess. To be clear, we do not know that US$185,000 will generate signifiacnt excess. We simply do not know what the number of applications will be at 185k or higher or lower. Jeff Neuman: I am not sure we have agreement on what "gaming" of the process means Vanda Scartezini: yeah if there will be a difference then applicant shall pay the difference if change the type avri doria: gaming - any opportunistic use of policies in a way people frown upon?

1 0

**PLEASE READ**FW: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] ***REMINDER*** Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

Dear All, As a reminder, only members can join meetings. If you would like to change your status to member, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Kind regards, Julie From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Buckingham Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:31 PM To: 'Jonathan Robinson' <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] FW: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] ***REMINDER*** Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 20:00 UTC Hi Jonathan, Here's the reminder invitation, links and access for the WT1 call in ½ hour . Hope you can get into the room. Regards, Phil From: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Bisland Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:11 PM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org> Cc: gnso-SECS Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] ***REMINDER*** Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 20:00 UTC Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 21:00 London, 22:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/ybblw6r3 Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option below (also sent in the calendar invitation). Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter You're Invited. You've been invited to a GlobalMeet® phone only meeting. Have the meeting call you. Click the Connect Me link below. No need to dial-in. Connect Me [toolbar.conferencinghub.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__toolbar.conferencinghu…> Not at your computer? You can join by dialing one of the access numbers below. Mobile: tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825#<tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825> Access Number: 1-605-475-5604 Guest Passcode: 8650457825 Additional Access: USA: 1-605-475-5604 USA: 1-712-770-4203 USA: 1-719-457-6209 Canada, Calgary: +1 403 407 5793 Canada, Montreal: +1 514 669 5928 Canada, Toronto: +1 647 426 9172 Canada, Vancouver: +1 604 222 7836 Argentina, Buenos Aires: +54 (0) 11 5172 6003 Argentina (toll free): 0800 800 1223 Australia, Sydney: +61 (0) 2 8017 6064 Australia, Melbourne: +61 (0) 3 8687 0553 Australia, Brisbane: +61 (0) 7 3015 0535 Australia (toll free): 1 800 804 786 Austria, Vienna: +43 (0) 1 25302 1785 Austria (toll free): 0800 8866 3413 Bahrain, Manama: +973 1619 8739 Bahrain (toll free): 800 04212 Belarus (toll free): 8 820 0011 0341 Belgium, Brussels: +32 (0) 2 400 6928 Belgium (toll free): 0800 39279 Brazil, Sao Paulo: +55 11 4935 7169 Brazil, Rio de Janeiro: +55 21 4560 0072 Brazil (toll free): 0800 887 0233 Bulgaria, Sofia: +359 (0) 2 491 6045 Bulgaria (toll free): 00800 111 4950 Cambodia, Phnom Penh: +855 23 965 723 Canada (toll free): 1 855 950 3717 Chile, Santiago: +56 (0) 2 2666 0696 Chile (toll free): 171 800 835 783 China (national): +400 613 8103 China, Beijing: +86 10 5667 0003 China, Shanghai: +86 21 2039 7081 Colombia, Bogota: +57 1 508 8137 Colombia (toll free): 01 800 755 0102 Costa Rica (toll free): 800 542 5328 Croatia (toll free): 0800 805 940 Cyprus (toll free): 800 97424 Czech Republic, Prague: +420 225 986 554 Czech Republic (toll free): 800 701 532 Denmark, Copenhagen: +45 32 72 78 10 Denmark (toll free): 80 70 35 86 Egypt (toll free): 0800 000 0593 Estonia, Tallinn: +372 622 6551 Estonia (toll free): 800 011 1589 Fiji (toll free): 00800 3322 Finland, Helsinki: +358 (0) 9 2310 1677 Finland (toll free): 0800 772 236 France, Paris: +33 (0) 1 70 37 16 56 France (toll free): 0800 946 531 France (national): 0811 655 100 France (national): 0821 231 671 Georgia, Tbilisi: +995 32 2 050 778 Germany, Frankfurt: +49 (0) 69 2222 10612 Germany, Munich: +49 (0) 89 2030 31207 Germany (national): 01801 003 899 Germany (toll free): 0800 588 9170 Greece, Athens: +30 211 181 3824 Greece (toll free): 00800 128 913 Hong Kong: +852 3018 9111 Hong Kong (toll free): 800 901 787 Hungary, Budapest: +36 1408 8953 Hungary (toll free): 068 001 9673 Iceland (toll free): 800 9847 India, Delhi: +91 (0) 11 6641 1394 India, Bangalore: +91 (0) 80 6127 6710 India, Mumbai: +91 (0)22 6187 5028 India, Chennai: +91 (0)44 6688 6061 India (toll free): 1800 200 9415 Indonesia, Jakarta: +62 21 2188 9084 Indonesia (toll free): 007 803 321 8927 Ireland, Dublin: +353 (0) 1 526 9421 Ireland (national): 0818 270 271 Ireland (toll free): 1800 937 649 Ireland (national): 1890 907 630 Israel, Tel Aviv: +972 (0)3 721 7943 Israel (toll free): 1809 213 168 Italy, Milan: +39 02 3600 8006 Italy, Rome: +39 06 8750 0676 Italy (toll free): 800 146 094 Japan, Tokyo: +81 (0) 3 4560 1270 Japan, Osaka: +81 (0) 6 4560 2410 Japan (toll free): 0120 305 211 Japan (mobile): 0120 632 611 Japan (national): 0570 085 744 Kazakhstan (toll free): 8800 333 7554 Kenya, Nairobi: +254 (0)20 529 3581 South Korea, Seoul: +82 (0) 2 6007 0079 South Korea (toll free): 00798 6136 1454 Latvia, Riga: +371 6601 3627 Latvia (toll free): 8000 4418 Lithuania, Vilnius: +370 5205 5468 Lithuania (toll free): 8800 31449 Luxembourg: +352 2088 1749 Luxembourg (toll free): 800 28433 Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur: +60 (0) 3 7724 8010 Malaysia (toll free): 1 800 816 152 Mexico, Guadalajara: +52 33 4162 4504 Mexico, Mexico City: +52 55 8421 0326 Mexico, Monterrey: +52 81 4162 5648 Mexico (toll free): 01 800 733 4102 Morocco, Casablanca: +212 (0) 520 48 0022 Morocco (toll free): 0800 091 296 Netherlands, Amsterdam: +31 (0) 20 716 8345 Netherlands (toll free): 0800 020 2597 New Zealand, Christchurch: +64 (0) 3 974 2596 New Zealand, Wellington: +64 (0) 4 909 4674 New Zealand, Auckland: +64 (0) 9 929 1825 New Zealand (toll free): 0800 452 947 Nigeria, Lagos: +234 1 277 3944 Norway, Oslo: +47 21 00 48 15 Norway (toll free): 800 56081 Oman (toll free): 800 77265 Panama, Panama City: +507 8 335 913 Panama (toll free): 00800 223 1390 Peru, Lima: +51 (0) 1 700 9571 Peru (toll free): 0800 78102 Philippines, Manila: +63 (0)2 395 3426 Philippines (toll free): 1 800 111 013 99 Poland, Warsaw: +48 22 295 3570 Poland (toll free): 00 800 121 4356 Portugal, Lisbon: +351 21 316 4093 Portugal (toll free): 800 784 442 Qatar (toll free): 00 800 100 491 Romania, Bucharest: +40 (0) 21 529 3992 Romania (toll free): 0800 801 035 Russia, Moscow: +7 495 646 9181 Russia (toll free): 8 800 500 9241 Saudi Arabia (toll free): 800 844 6641 Saudi Arabia (toll free): 800 850 0219 Serbia (toll free): 0800 190 712 Singapore: +65 6622 1957 Singapore (toll free): 800 616 3192 Slovakia, Bratislava: +421 (0)2 3321 5498 Slovakia (toll free): 0800 002 002 Slovenia, Ljubljana: +386 1600 8695 Slovenia (toll free): 0800 81193 South Africa, Johannesburg: +27 (0)11 589 8321 South Africa (toll free): 0800 999 434 Spain, Madrid: +34 91 114 6653 Spain, Barcelona: +34 93 800 1946 Spain (toll free): 900 828 035 Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka: +94 720 910 333 Sweden, Stockholm: +46 (0) 8 5065 3956 Sweden (toll free): 0200 125 588 Switzerland, Geneva: +41 (0) 22 595 4795 Switzerland, Zurich: +41 (0) 44 580 7207 Switzerland (toll free): 0800 740 360 Taiwan, Taipei: +886 (0) 2 2650 7329 Taiwan (toll free): 0800 666 596 Thailand, Bangkok: +66 (0) 2104 0761 Thailand (toll free): 001 800 6136 1473 Tunisia, Tunis: +216 31 378 101 Turkey, Istanbul: +90 212 375 50 49 Turkey (toll free): 00800 4488 26642 Ukraine (toll free): 0800 500 896 UAE (toll free): 8000 3570 2662 UK (03): +44 (0)330 336 6002 UK (toll free): 0800 358 6385 UK (national): 0844 473 5010 UK (national): 0845 545 0015 USA /Canada (toll free): 1-866-398-2885 Uruguay (toll free): 0004 019 0152 Venezuela, Caracas: +58 212 720 2164 Venezuela (toll free): 0 800 162 7451 Vietnam, Hanoi: +84 4 4458 3312 Vietnam (toll free): 1800 9226

1 0

FW: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] ***REMINDER*** Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 20:00 UTC
by Phil Buckingham Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

Hi Jonathan, Heres the reminder invitation, links and access for the WT1 call in ½ hour . Hope you can get into the room. Regards, Phil From: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Bisland Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:11 PM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-SECS Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] ***REMINDER*** Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 20:00 UTC Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 21:00 London, 22:00 CEST For other times: <http://tinyurl.com/ybblw6r3> http://tinyurl.com/ybblw6r3 Adobe Connect room: <https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/> https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option below (also sent in the calendar invitation). Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter You're Invited. You've been invited to a GlobalMeet® phone only meeting. Have the meeting call you. Click the Connect Me link below. No need to dial-in. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__toolbar.conferencinghu b.com_pmc_pmc.aspx-3Fconf-3DIt9YhUoAI2rfs1zIA-252bAx3QmQT6tWBqeXWSFdqGVekIsz tvtH9f-252fwTmVoUoGQcXIjam6xqRJSb-252ft1Xa1F2iFDtJK8Rimw5MHjUZDWRcl3kjaN7ZyZ iz2RZ-252f8F4gxhagi8&d=DgMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM& r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=XBEFIMSR_26gdprlVUQkBQGAjWnJ ia5AA_-8RtqknPA&s=lrYtKY3Hjh68NVxy7nfvsw7X6KbuKK7qWcAOszyAmgc&e=> Connect Me [toolbar.conferencinghub.com] Not at your computer? You can join by dialing one of the access numbers below. Mobile: <tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825> tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825# Access Number: 1-605-475-5604 Guest Passcode: 8650457825 Additional Access: USA: 1-605-475-5604 USA: 1-712-770-4203 USA: 1-719-457-6209 Canada, Calgary: +1 403 407 5793 Canada, Montreal: +1 514 669 5928 Canada, Toronto: +1 647 426 9172 Canada, Vancouver: +1 604 222 7836 Argentina, Buenos Aires: +54 (0) 11 5172 6003 Argentina (toll free): 0800 800 1223 Australia, Sydney: +61 (0) 2 8017 6064 Australia, Melbourne: +61 (0) 3 8687 0553 Australia, Brisbane: +61 (0) 7 3015 0535 Australia (toll free): 1 800 804 786 Austria, Vienna: +43 (0) 1 25302 1785 Austria (toll free): 0800 8866 3413 Bahrain, Manama: +973 1619 8739 Bahrain (toll free): 800 04212 Belarus (toll free): 8 820 0011 0341 Belgium, Brussels: +32 (0) 2 400 6928 Belgium (toll free): 0800 39279 Brazil, Sao Paulo: +55 11 4935 7169 Brazil, Rio de Janeiro: +55 21 4560 0072 Brazil (toll free): 0800 887 0233 Bulgaria, Sofia: +359 (0) 2 491 6045 Bulgaria (toll free): 00800 111 4950 Cambodia, Phnom Penh: +855 23 965 723 Canada (toll free): 1 855 950 3717 Chile, Santiago: +56 (0) 2 2666 0696 Chile (toll free): 171 800 835 783 China (national): +400 613 8103 China, Beijing: +86 10 5667 0003 China, Shanghai: +86 21 2039 7081 Colombia, Bogota: +57 1 508 8137 Colombia (toll free): 01 800 755 0102 Costa Rica (toll free): 800 542 5328 Croatia (toll free): 0800 805 940 Cyprus (toll free): 800 97424 Czech Republic, Prague: +420 225 986 554 Czech Republic (toll free): 800 701 532 Denmark, Copenhagen: +45 32 72 78 10 Denmark (toll free): 80 70 35 86 Egypt (toll free): 0800 000 0593 Estonia, Tallinn: +372 622 6551 Estonia (toll free): 800 011 1589 Fiji (toll free): 00800 3322 Finland, Helsinki: +358 (0) 9 2310 1677 Finland (toll free): 0800 772 236 France, Paris: +33 (0) 1 70 37 16 56 France (toll free): 0800 946 531 France (national): 0811 655 100 France (national): 0821 231 671 Georgia, Tbilisi: +995 32 2 050 778 Germany, Frankfurt: +49 (0) 69 2222 10612 Germany, Munich: +49 (0) 89 2030 31207 Germany (national): 01801 003 899 Germany (toll free): 0800 588 9170 Greece, Athens: +30 211 181 3824 Greece (toll free): 00800 128 913 Hong Kong: +852 3018 9111 Hong Kong (toll free): 800 901 787 Hungary, Budapest: +36 1408 8953 Hungary (toll free): 068 001 9673 Iceland (toll free): 800 9847 India, Delhi: +91 (0) 11 6641 1394 India, Bangalore: +91 (0) 80 6127 6710 India, Mumbai: +91 (0)22 6187 5028 India, Chennai: +91 (0)44 6688 6061 India (toll free): 1800 200 9415 Indonesia, Jakarta: +62 21 2188 9084 Indonesia (toll free): 007 803 321 8927 Ireland, Dublin: +353 (0) 1 526 9421 Ireland (national): 0818 270 271 Ireland (toll free): 1800 937 649 Ireland (national): 1890 907 630 Israel, Tel Aviv: +972 (0)3 721 7943 Israel (toll free): 1809 213 168 Italy, Milan: +39 02 3600 8006 Italy, Rome: +39 06 8750 0676 Italy (toll free): 800 146 094 Japan, Tokyo: +81 (0) 3 4560 1270 Japan, Osaka: +81 (0) 6 4560 2410 Japan (toll free): 0120 305 211 Japan (mobile): 0120 632 611 Japan (national): 0570 085 744 Kazakhstan (toll free): 8800 333 7554 Kenya, Nairobi: +254 (0)20 529 3581 South Korea, Seoul: +82 (0) 2 6007 0079 South Korea (toll free): 00798 6136 1454 Latvia, Riga: +371 6601 3627 Latvia (toll free): 8000 4418 Lithuania, Vilnius: +370 5205 5468 Lithuania (toll free): 8800 31449 Luxembourg: +352 2088 1749 Luxembourg (toll free): 800 28433 Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur: +60 (0) 3 7724 8010 Malaysia (toll free): 1 800 816 152 Mexico, Guadalajara: +52 33 4162 4504 Mexico, Mexico City: +52 55 8421 0326 Mexico, Monterrey: +52 81 4162 5648 Mexico (toll free): 01 800 733 4102 Morocco, Casablanca: +212 (0) 520 48 0022 Morocco (toll free): 0800 091 296 Netherlands, Amsterdam: +31 (0) 20 716 8345 Netherlands (toll free): 0800 020 2597 New Zealand, Christchurch: +64 (0) 3 974 2596 New Zealand, Wellington: +64 (0) 4 909 4674 New Zealand, Auckland: +64 (0) 9 929 1825 New Zealand (toll free): 0800 452 947 Nigeria, Lagos: +234 1 277 3944 Norway, Oslo: +47 21 00 48 15 Norway (toll free): 800 56081 Oman (toll free): 800 77265 Panama, Panama City: +507 8 335 913 Panama (toll free): 00800 223 1390 Peru, Lima: +51 (0) 1 700 9571 Peru (toll free): 0800 78102 Philippines, Manila: +63 (0)2 395 3426 Philippines (toll free): 1 800 111 013 99 Poland, Warsaw: +48 22 295 3570 Poland (toll free): 00 800 121 4356 Portugal, Lisbon: +351 21 316 4093 Portugal (toll free): 800 784 442 Qatar (toll free): 00 800 100 491 Romania, Bucharest: +40 (0) 21 529 3992 Romania (toll free): 0800 801 035 Russia, Moscow: +7 495 646 9181 Russia (toll free): 8 800 500 9241 Saudi Arabia (toll free): 800 844 6641 Saudi Arabia (toll free): 800 850 0219 Serbia (toll free): 0800 190 712 Singapore: +65 6622 1957 Singapore (toll free): 800 616 3192 Slovakia, Bratislava: +421 (0)2 3321 5498 Slovakia (toll free): 0800 002 002 Slovenia, Ljubljana: +386 1600 8695 Slovenia (toll free): 0800 81193 South Africa, Johannesburg: +27 (0)11 589 8321 South Africa (toll free): 0800 999 434 Spain, Madrid: +34 91 114 6653 Spain, Barcelona: +34 93 800 1946 Spain (toll free): 900 828 035 Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka: +94 720 910 333 Sweden, Stockholm: +46 (0) 8 5065 3956 Sweden (toll free): 0200 125 588 Switzerland, Geneva: +41 (0) 22 595 4795 Switzerland, Zurich: +41 (0) 44 580 7207 Switzerland (toll free): 0800 740 360 Taiwan, Taipei: +886 (0) 2 2650 7329 Taiwan (toll free): 0800 666 596 Thailand, Bangkok: +66 (0) 2104 0761 Thailand (toll free): 001 800 6136 1473 Tunisia, Tunis: +216 31 378 101 Turkey, Istanbul: +90 212 375 50 49 Turkey (toll free): 00800 4488 26642 Ukraine (toll free): 0800 500 896 UAE (toll free): 8000 3570 2662 UK (03): +44 (0)330 336 6002 UK (toll free): 0800 358 6385 UK (national): 0844 473 5010 UK (national): 0845 545 0015 USA /Canada (toll free): 1-866-398-2885 Uruguay (toll free): 0004 019 0152 Venezuela, Caracas: +58 212 720 2164 Venezuela (toll free): 0 800 162 7451 Vietnam, Hanoi: +84 4 4458 3312 Vietnam (toll free): 1800 9226

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for 17 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Discussion on Variable and Fixed Costs & Clarity of Application Process 4. 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.

4 4

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Oct. 3, 2017

Oct. 3, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 03 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p62pieo9lj8/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=0555d3b4d0c723a6 443ff49bfca3e762f690bbacbaefaf5bc7f0e0b28a3e10d0> https://participate.icann.org/p62pieo9lj8/ 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/e4JEB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 03 October 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue on Tuesday, 03 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_e 4JEB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ e4JEB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LNfaoHk8Lv0hzH4Ds7UBJZ2UUkT__0XlZRoIXQEo11s &s=3WwAIGAmEcES5uDlc77xgbgPT1Rv_4yx-r7QgiGhJAY&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LNfaoHk8Lv0hzH4Ds7UBJZ2UUkT__0XlZRoIXQEo11s&s=3W wAIGAmEcES5uDlc77xgbgPT1Rv_4yx-r7QgiGhJAY&e= Donna Austin, Neustar:What was 1.1.3? Christa Taylor:The Afilis comment Steve Chan:@Donna, slides available now. Steve Chan:And they are unsynced Rubens Kuhl:We need to start the recording first. Donna Austin, Neustar:so is our takeaway that no agreement is required between an RSP and ICANN? Ashley Roberts:Donna, I would agree with that. Ashley Roberts:Presumably the ALAC comment should refer to the RA rather than the RAA. Rubens Kuhl:Initial testing during the 2012 round also did not test nexus information or post-registration activation. Richard Merdinger:audio issues Richard Merdinger:I will type it here Richard Merdinger:I am satisfied with limiting the scope as Jeff recommended Terri Agnew:@Richard, please let me know if a dial out on the telephone would work. I will send you a private chat Richard Merdinger:My concerns are tmainly with the movement of domains between RSPs when TLD requirements differ Richard Merdinger:so if there does come a time that TLD moves to a new RSP that all testing as prescribed is done Richard Merdinger:thank you Richard Merdinger:Thank you JEff Donna Austin, Neustar:yep Richard Merdinger:One more comment...I hope further that the RrSG engages with the RySG to make thsi efficient as possible Donna Austin, Neustar:Rich, there is a WG that registrars can join. i'll send you the details. Richard Merdinger:Thank you, Donna Kurt Pritz:Important to the idea of a cutoff date is the requirement of a clear RSP application processing timeline that is always met Rubens Kuhl:If the new is a subset of the old, they can be different and still covered by the previous testing. jeff neuman:accident Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, I think the answer to your question depends on the requirements for the RSPs under the approval program. I believe that Francisco previously provided some comments to WT4 regarding additional criteria for RSPs to enhance SSR. jeff neuman:I am not sure that I understand the Afilias comment jeff neuman:From a legal standpoint i am not sure it matters whether there are new requirements or not, but I would love to hear from ICANN legal Rubens Kuhl:The E in EPP stands for Extensible, so it will have different extensions... jeff neuman:This comment needs to get referred to WT 4 jeff neuman:I told you we would get through this :) Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Rubens Kuhl:Bye all! Sara Bockey:thanks all Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 1 Meeting 03 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 3, 2017

Oct. 3, 2017

Dear Work Track Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes from the meeting on 03 October. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Slides are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included for reference. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items and Notes, Work Track 1, 03 October Actions: ACTION: See if anyone on ICANN legal staff would see anti-competition concerns if RSP incumbents didn't have to go through testing. Notes: Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions on RSP Program (continuation from Sept 19th call): The CC2 responses are available online at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS… 1.1.3 - Who should be responsible for evaluating whether an RSP meets the requirements of the program? (Slide 16) -- Comment by Afilias: Satisfied with the current program, nothing to suggest the evaluation process needs to change. -- Note that an RSP doesn't have a contract with ICANN, so this statement can't be achieved, "Compliance team should also be involved to confirm that all existing RSPs are meeting existing contractual compliance." 1.1.4 - Should there be an continuing obligations for approved RSPs, such as high-level requirements for accreditation? Should the requirements be variable based on the types of TLDs the RSP intends to serve or other factors? (Slides 17 and 18) -- Support and opposition for different requirements for specific TLD types from Nominet and the RySG. -- Additional input on Program requirements from Nominet, BC, BRG, and Valideus. -- Suggestion for improving efficiencies in place of accreditation program from Afilias. 1.1.5 - Should there be an Agreement between an RSP and ICANN? If so, what enforcement mechanisms should be made available to ICANN in the event that such an Agreement is breached? (Slides 19, 20, and 21) -- Opposition to an Agreement between ICANN and RSPs from CIRA, Jim Prendergast, ALAC, RYSG, Afilias, and Valideus. -- Support for an Agreement between ICANN and RSPs from Nominet and BC. -- Support for a limited Agreement from BRG. Discussion: -- See if we can tie some of these together to see if we have agreement. If you look at comments in support of an agreement between ICANN and RSPs, those seem to relate to an accreditation program. Not sure those would be the same if we are talking about a pre-approval program, rather than an accreditation or pre-certification program. Not sure if there is support for an agreement for a pre-approval program. -- One point that could be considered is if the program were in a steady state of first-come, first-served how would that play into pre-approval readiness? >From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: so is our takeaway that no agreement is required between an RSP and ICANN? Ashley Roberts: Donna, I would agree with that. Ashley Roberts: Presumably the ALAC comment should refer to the RA rather than the RAA. 1.1.6 - What, if any, are the potential impacts (both positive and negative) of an RSP Program on ICANN Accrediated Registrars? If there are any negative impacts, what are ways in which those impacts can be mitigated? (Slide 22) -- Nominet, BRG, RySG, and Valideus all stated that if implemented correctly, there should be no impact on ICANN Accredited Registrars. -- Afilias noted no negative impacts and pointed to a potential positive impact. -- Registrar concerns raised during the RySG RSP Discussion in Johannesburg and still need to be addressed. Discussion: -- Re: the Registrar concerns -- Once you are certified you are in a pool of certified registries is a different type of program than we are talking about. We are talking about a pre-approval program (not a certification). In terms of this comment perhaps we can go back to the Registrars and ask that if we do a pre-approval does that address their concerns. -- The transfer to a new RSP is outside of our scope, we would hope that the registries are working on that process. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Initial testing during the 2012 round also did not test nexus information or post-registration activation. Richard Merdinger: I am satisfied with limiting the scope as Jeff recommended Richard Merdinger: My concerns are tmainly with the movement of domains between RSPs when TLD requirements differ Richard Merdinger: so if there does come a time that TLD moves to a new RSP that all testing as prescribed is done Richard Merdinger: One more comment...I hope further that the RrSG engages with the RySG to make thsi efficient as possible Donna Austin, Neustar: Rich, there is a WG that registrars can join. i'll send you the details. 1.1.7 - Should there be a process to reassess RSPs on a periodic basis? If so, how often should an assessment be conducted and what would the process be for re-approval? (slides 23 and 24) -- Support for regular audits from Nominet, BC, BRG, Afilias, and NCSG. -- Regular audits are not necessary -- Valideus and CIRA. 1.1.8 - If there is an RSP Program, how far in advance should such a program be launched prior to the opening of the next application window? (Slides 25 and 26) -- As soon as practical: CIRA, BRG, RySG, Valideus. -- Within 3-12 months: Nominet, BC, John Poole. -- When the AGB is complete: Afilias. 1.1.9 - Should there be an RSP application "cut-off" date to allow sufficient time for an RSP seeking approval in order for their application to be approved before the opening of an application window? (Slides 27-29) -- Support for a "cut-off date": BC. -- Support for no "cut-off date": RySG, CIRA, and BRG. -- Suggestions for timeframes: Valideu, BRG, CIRA. -- Program should be optional: Nominet. -- Proposal for process improvements without accreditation: Afilias. >From the chat: Kurt Pritz: Important to the idea of a cutoff date is the requirement of a clear RSP application processing timeline that is always met 1.1.10 - If there is a list of pre-approved RSPs in any RSP Program, should there be a provision granted to organizations that act as an RSP to an existing delegated TLD? If yes, how would such a provision work? If not, could ICANN use an RSP's existing performance to satisfy any of the technical requirements and/or tests used in the approval process? (Slides 30-32) -- Established providers should be considered to meet the minimum qualifications of an RSP Program: RySG, Nominet, and CIRA. -- Follow the same Program requirements: BC and Google. -- Leverage information about the past performance of RSPs: BRG and Afilias. -- John Poole stated that it is up to "ICANN Technical" to decide. Discussion: -- If there are different requirements for the next round and ongoing, not sure how we can say that none of the existing providers would have to go through some form of the pre-approval process. ACTION: See if anyone on ICANN legal staff would see anti-competition concerns if RSP incumbents didn't have to go through testing. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: If the new is a subset of the old, they can be different and still covered by the previous testing. Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, I think the answer to your question depends on the requirements for the RSPs under the approval program. I believe that Francisco previously provided some comments to WT4 regarding additional criteria for RSPs to enhance SSR. jeff neuman: I am not sure that I understand the Afilias comment jeff neuman: From a legal standpoint i am not sure it matters whether there are new requirements or not, but I would love to hear from ICANN legal 1.1.11 - If an RSP program is established, how should it be funded? For instance, should registries pay into the program, which will reduce related ICANN evaluation fees (and associated application fees)? (Slides 33-35) -- Charge RSPs participating in the program: CIRA, BC, BRG, John Poole, RySG, and Valideus. -- Charge new RSPs a fee; no/minimal fee for proven RSPs: Nominet. General Comments (Slide 36) -- Require RSPs to meet Standards in Extensible Provisioning (EPP) extensions, file formats, billing transactions, and Domain Transaction Type Name: RrSG. -- Reduced fees over time: Afilias. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: The E in EPP stands for Extensible, so it will have different extensions... jeff neuman: This comment needs to get referred to WT 4

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for October 3, 2017 @ 15:00 UTC
by Christa Taylor Oct. 2, 2017

Oct. 2, 2017

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 3 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions * RSP Program (continuation from Sept 19th call) 4. AOB The CC2 responses are available online at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS… 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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 1 Meeting 19 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Dear Work Track Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes from the meeting on 19 September. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items and Notes, Work Track 1, 19 September RSP Accreditation Program (Slide 3) Benefits and risks (Slide 4) -- Is there any evidence of an issue about lack of competition? Is that a mandate for this group? -- BRG Supports the concept of an RSP program [see comments]. (Slide 5) -- Point: Terminology re: accreditation program. We are talking about a pre-approval process, not an accreditation program. -- The data that ICANN has come out with wasn’t available when we did the initial draft. The Registry RSP discussion group recently got additional information from Francisco and we are working through that to understand where the problems were, and a way to use the monitoring to resolve those problems. There is data now. Benefits and challenges (slide 7 & 8) -- Nominet: Support for a lighter touch regulatory regime for established providers, support for any RSP programs would be conditional on the outcomes (slide 9) -- Afilias, RySG, and Valideus provided comments on scalability (slide 13) -- CIRA and Demys: feedback on additional program elements (slide 14) -- BRG and ALAC: feedback on additional program elements (slide 15); Given ICANN's mandate on security and stability, it is most effective to set a minimum threshold for requirements up front. This seems consistent with BRG's comment to avoid barriers to entry in the marketplace. - 1.1.3 (slide 16) -- Nominet: Does not see any other option than ICANN being responsible -- Afilias, RySG, Valideus: Support for continuing to the use the model from the 2012 round -- BRG: Support for using the same provide for testing associated with the RSP Program and application evaluation. Concern about statement by Afilias regarding involvement of Compliance team to confirm that all existing RSPs are meeting existing contractual requirements. This will be picked up on the next call. >From the chat: Sarah L Verisign: Preapproval of an RSP without making commensurate changes to the test cases used during PDT might not improve performance at all if you take ICANNs data into account detailing the number of EBERO triggering incidents that are occurring. Jeff Neuman: For clarity - and I did not have a role in drafting the comments for Valideus - but those were not challenges, but rather statements addressing the challenges raised by others. Jim Prendergast, Afilias, Jannik Skou: Opposition to establishing an accreditation or preapproval Program at this time, recommendations for alternative mechanism to create process efficiencies (slide 10-11) Justine Chew: Could someone remind me of the difference between "accreditation" and "certification" plse? Donna Austin, Neustar: Justine, i don't think there is one. Justine Chew: @Donna, really?! Donna Austin, Neustar: Justine, in this discussion we have generally used them interchangeably. So I'm sure there is a difference, but in this context i don't believe there is. Rubens Kuhl: Justine, this is an area where there is the market reading of the terms and the ICANN reading of it. Usually, certification goes into deeper assessment and checking of a capability, while accreditation is lighter. But due to registrar relations that are called accreditation in ICANN world, people usually equate accreditaiton with a contract framework. Jeff Neuman: In the ICANN context, "Accreditation" generally means that based on your application, you are approved to perform certain services in the future.... Jonathan Robinson: There was an earlier comment that an approval process could test the ability to scale. There is no evidence provided for the fact that this could be done effectively. Such a process goes beyond setting a minimum standard and (potentially) confers authority to the tester (ICANN) for performance testing beyond minimum standards Jeff Neuman: "Certification" is a process that evaluates performance and certifies that you have met the performance standards (based on past behavior) Jeff Neuman: So, Accreditation looks towards the future, Certification looks to the past Jeff Neuman: But....that said....I am not sure that the comments here make that distinction and Donna is right that they use the terms interchangeably Justine Chew: Noted. Thanks, Jeff. Thanks, Donna. Jonathan Robinson: @Jeff. Agreed that one could argue for a disctinction but they do seem to have been used interchangablly here - ALAC: Doubt expressed regarding value of ongoing expansion on gTLDs, issue is of relatively little importance to Internet users (slide 11) - Question 1.1.2 - CIRA, Nominet, BC, Google, BRG: Feedback on the issue of scalability (slide 12) - Support expressed for setting a minimum standard/threshold so applicants can be confident in their application passing through. That is different from evaluating live operating TLDs for performance. - At the time that an RSP is seeking pre-approval, they are going to need to identify system and capacity. Any RSP is going to provide a pretty good picture at that that time. Important to seperate that from the compliance function that takes place during operation. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Scalability problems could be number of TLDs, number of DUMs or number of peak transactions. Usually the later is the one that hits more frequently. Jeff Neuman: They also need to provide supporting documentation to show evidence of their scalability. Jeff Neuman: So, it would not just be affirmatively making that assertion, but demonstrating their ability Rubens Kuhl: There is one small technical function that is linked to number of TLDs in DNSSEC, but it's unusual to hit such a problem. - The entire purpose is to set a minimum threshold. Too many barriers up front create hurdles that are difficult to prove up front and establish inappropriate barriers to entry. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: The more features of a registry system ICANN evaluates, the more liability it creates if such infrastructure doesn't deliver on that promise. Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jonathan, the pre-approval process is intended to establish that the potential RSP has the technical wherewithal to run a registry. Rubens Kuhl: And since new gTLDs are not getting the gigantic registration volumes once foreseen, scability concerns seem overzealous at this point. Donna Austin, Neustar: Good point Rubens, and also highlight the difficulties associated with predicting registration volumes.

2 1

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Sept. 19, 2017

Sept. 19, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p7jvnfqk9ya/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4c3b942c19b662a3…> https://participate.icann.org/p7jvnfqk9ya/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/8hkhB> https://community.icann.org/x/8hkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 September 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6Z04n4A45NXawKHktu70Vv_OCWBrMjpF3hMxR8A5pYk&s=D8QkddagJbXemgRHm0gh6-NY6RInnqtXuqrAPB-5g9k&e= Jeff Neuman:hello all Jeff Neuman:Looks like Alan and Justine are the only ones I can tell not in the contracted parties :) Jeff Neuman:I had hoped for more people given the tpic Jeff Neuman:topic Michael Flemming:Sorry, additional time means we will go over? Sara Bockey:Michael, possibly Michael Flemming:Undeerstood, thanks! Michael Flemming:Sarah, you are kind of soft Christa Taylor:No, we won't go over time Christa Taylor:We have a continuation as required on the schedule Michael Flemming:I see. Jonathan Robinson:Good to not go over time. Need to schedule additional meetings if required. Christa Taylor:Currently on slide 3 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ok you have my right brain Justine Chew:@CLO: good one! *I still haven't figured out which side of my brain is where. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):three meetings at once sigh Michael Flemming:You only have two ears, how does that work? I've done the two, but usually rely on auto streamed transcripts for the third. Jonathan Robinson:@Sara. Sorry for referring to you as Christa. I have recently got up at 3:30 am! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ambient audio and that screen must be centre with ear and screen sides switched from the usual cross over Donna Austin, Neustar:who are these comments from? Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Sara Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Donna Jeff Neuman:I agree with Donna....we should forever change the term to pre-approval Jeff Neuman:@Sara - no need to apologize. That is the term that was used in the charter Donna Austin, Neustar:no apology necessary Sara, we're reviewing comments that referred to RSP Accreditation Just wanted to flat it. Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry, flag it. Rubens Kuhl:Or a ranking system... (it should also not be) Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jonathan and Rubens points. Jeff Neuman:Sorry Jonathan - that was my instruction to make it easier to find the themes Jonathan Robinson:@Jeff / Sara. It is helpful. I agree with the highlights in this case :-) Steve Chan:@Jonathan, all, to the extent the staff highlighting is not helpful, or even misleading, definitely let us know! Justine Chew:@Donna, excellent news. Sarah L Verisign:Pre-approval of ann RSP without making commensurate changes to the test cases used during PDT might not improve performance at all if you take ICANNs data into account detailing the number of EBERO triggering incidents that are occurring. Jeff Neuman:For clarity - and I did not have a role in drafting the comments for Valideus - but those were not challenges, but rather statements addressing the challenges raised by others. Justine Chew:Could someone remind me of the difference between "accreditation" and "certification" plse? Donna Austin, Neustar:Justine, i don't think there is one. Justine Chew:@Donna, really?! Donna Austin, Neustar:Justine, in this discussion we have generally used them interchangeably. So I'm sure there is a difference, but in this context i don't believe there is. Rubens Kuhl:Justine, this is an area where there is the market reading of the terms and the ICANN reading of it. Usually, certification goes into deeper assessment and checking of a capability, while accreditation is lighter. But due to registrar relations that are called accreditation in ICANN world, people usually equate accreditaiton with a contract framework. Jeff Neuman:In the ICANN context, "Accreditation" generally means that based on your application, you are approved to perform certain services in the future.... Jonathan Robinson:There was an earlier comment that an approval process could test the ability to scale. There is no evidence provided for the fact that this could be done effectively. Such a process goes beyond setting a minimum standard and (potentially) confers authority to the tester (ICANN) for performance testing beyond minimum standards Jeff Neuman:"Certification" is a process that evaluates performance and certifies that you have met the performance standards (based on past behavior) Jeff Neuman:So, Accreditation looks towards the future, Certification looks to the past Jeff Neuman:But....that said....I am not sure that the comments here make that distinction and Donna is right that they use the terms interchangeably Justine Chew:Noted. Thanks, Jeff. Thanks, Donna. Jonathan Robinson:@Jeff. Agreed that one could argue for a disctinction but they do seem to have been used interchangablly here Justine Chew:Thanks Rubens. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):they would be crazy not to Donna Rubens Kuhl:Scalability problems could be number of TLDs, number of DUMs or number of peak transactions. Usually the later is the one that hits more frequently. Jeff Neuman:They also need to provide supporting documentation to show evidence of their scalability. Jeff Neuman:So, it would not just be affirmatively making that assertion, but demonstrating their ability Rubens Kuhl:There is one small technical function that is linked to number of TLDs in DNSSEC, but it's unusual to hit such a problem. Rubens Kuhl:The more features of a registry system ICANN evaluates, the more liability it creates if such infrastructure doesn't deliver on that promise. Jonathan Robinson:@Rubens. Agreed. Christa Taylor:Slide 13 Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jonathan, the pre-approval process is intended to establish that the potential RSP has the technical wherewithal to run a registry. Jonathan Robinson:Apologies. Old hand. Rubens Kuhl:And since new gTLDs are not getting the gigantic registration volumes once foreseen, scability concerns seem overzealous at this point. Donna Austin, Neustar:Good point Rubens, and also highlight the difficulties associated with predicting registration volumes. Rubens Kuhl:I don't see why we should stipulate ICANN doing it itself or outsourcing it. Donna Austin, Neustar:Can I make a quick comment before we move on? Jonathan Robinson:@Rubens. Agreed. Being responsible for it doesn't mean actually doing it Christa Taylor:I'll add to open that up next call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone bye ðŸ‘‹ for now Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Jonathan Rubens Kuhl:Bye all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ðŸ‘‹ Jonathan Robinson:Thank-you! Christa Taylor:Thanks All!

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for 19 September 2017 @ 3:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 2017

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 3:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions * RSP Accreditation Program 4. AOB The CC2 responses we will be covering may be review in the google document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS…. Chat soon! sara bockey policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

1 0

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Julie Bisland Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 5 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p64hbbzg59r/<https://participate.icann.org/p64hbbzg59r/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=f0f4dcd59786ab91…> 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/7hkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 5 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach on Tuesday, 05 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Vanda Scartezini:hi Julie, Julie Bisland:hello Vanda :) Vanda Scartezini:already muted my phone Julie Bisland:excellent, thank you and welcome :) Vanda Scartezini:my office is in a large avenue and has always people singign in the street with lots of noise... Julie Bisland:oh my! sounds lovely (until you need quiet time) :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Vanda has a stunning view I have seen some great post by Jorge Emily Barabas:slides are now unsynced so everyone can zoom as needed to read the text Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:I do see the page counter - x/23 - but can't see any slides. Anyone else? Rubens Kuhl:Katrin, normal for me using Firefox. Julie Bisland:Katrin, you may need to log out and back in. Christa Taylor:Working here as well Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:I see... :-/ Workaround has been downloading it. Alan Greenberg:It happens occasionally for reasons unknown. Relogging on tends to fixit. Jeff Neuman:I was wondering if there was anyone from the BC that could expand on the comment on "behavoir experienced in the last round." Jeff Neuman:I like trying to use the regional IGF networks if that is possible Jeff Neuman:just dont know if their rules allow that Jim Prendergast:as long as its basic awareness building and info sharing - shouldnt be a problem Jeff Neuman:How far in advance do we need to suggest topics to the IGF organizations Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Jeff there is a strong nexus between Regional igfs and our ICANN hubs so should be ways Jim Prendergast:schedule varies - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.intgovforum.org_mul… Alan Greenberg:Important to understand that the only applicants for the program were ICANN insiders. Greg Shatan:ISOC and its chapters could be used as well. Rubens Kuhl:Some ccTLDs see ICANN outreach regarding new gTLDs as ICANN promoting one of their "sons" instead of applying similar amounts of money to also promote ccTLDs. Vanda Scartezini:EVEN IGF DOS NOT ACCESS COMPANIES AROUND THAT COULD APPLY Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and the National Initiatives are opportunities for outreach Vanda Scartezini:in our region is more associations in general that can make the information flows. Greg Shatan:Agree with Vanda that a way to reach the business sector is important. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yep avri doria:Basically should use as many of these channels as possible. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Jeff Neuman:THere are alo of responses that are great at a high level, but I am not sure that it helps us on a micro level. For example the BC says we should streamline the process, but what specifically can be streamlined? Jeff Neuman:I would love to state in the Preliminary report a question that states: "What can your SO/AC/Constituency do to improve awareness of the progra?" Jeff Neuman:program Greg Shatan:I would add to that Jeff: How can we help? Vanda Scartezini:like your question jeff Jeff Neuman:I agree with Cheryl that most of the comments do seem positive on keeping an Applicant Support Program in some form Jeff Neuman:Most also state that Applicant Support should involve more than just financial support, but also technical support, etc. Vanda Scartezini:during the survey I did in this region I promise to several companies to infrom them when the program will start Vanda Scartezini:even here cost was not the main point - infromation about on how to apply will be more relevant Christa Taylor:one sec Jeff Neuman:Applicants that wanted to be in the JAS program had to pay $47,000 up front as the reduced application fee Donna Austin, Neustar:dropping off adobe, will still be on the phone Vanda Scartezini:video with cations in aseveral language would be good Vanda Scartezini:captioning Phil Buckingham:Q : so how much should ICANN put up to support a programme . How we do we arrive at this number . Vanda Scartezini:to strat a new gTLD offer in the market you will need much more money than just the fees. so As I ahve asking here , the fees was not the barrier. Vanda Scartezini:the knowledge, timely aware, on how to trust to be backend technical etc are the barriers Sara Bockey:go ahead Vanda Scartezini:thank you for sharing your thoughts. appreciate the call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good call thanks everyone ðŸ‘‹ bye for now then... Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:Thanks and bye, everybody. Phil Buckingham:thanks very mcuh

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 1 - 5 September 2017
by Emily Barabas Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and 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/7hkhB. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 2. SOIs -- No SOI updates 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions a. Applicant Support - Summary of discussions to date: possible reasons that may have contributed to the liminted number of applications; suggestions on how to address the issues identified (see slides for details). - Question 1.2.1 - feedback on proposal to expand the Applicant Support Program - BC, RySG, and ALAC provided feedback on Applicant Support for IDNs. - BC, RySG, ALAC, and Jannik Skou submitted comments on the concept of the "middle applicant." - Nominet and Afilias suggested focusing on other areas of the New gTLD ecosystem. - Valideus suggested research and studies into program needs and weaknesses. - John Poole opposed expanding the Applicant Support Program. - Question 1.2.2 - feedback on other support mechanisms beyond financial support/application submission. - Nominet - shorter and simpler documentation and publicity/education. - RySG – focus on application process and improving outreach and publication of the ASP. - ALAC – make criteria less stringent, expand the definition of communities, and expand technical training, mentorship, and knowledge/capacity building. - BC - support applicants targeting registrants in underserved regions that use the language and script of that region, leverage lessons learned from the JAS program; mechanisms should address TLD operator's needs; work with local/regional experts. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I was wondering if there was anyone from the BC that could expand on the comment on "behavoir experienced in the last round." - Question 1.2.3 -- suggestions for improving publicity/outreach. - Jannik Skou – engage with ccNSO/GAC/ALAC, add multilingual customer support, improve outreach materials. - Nominet – leverage regional IGFs. - RySG – improve outreach ans publication, build relationships with business associations. - Afilias - identify appropriate partners. - BC - simplify the process - ALAC – improve communications and expand training and awareness opportunities. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I was wondering if there was anyone from the BC that could expand on the comment on "behavoir experienced in the last round." Jeff Neuman: I like trying to use the regional IGF networks if that is possible Jeff Neuman: just dont know if their rules allow that Jim Prendergast: as long as its basic awareness building and info sharing - shouldnt be a problem Jeff Neuman: How far in advance do we need to suggest topics to the IGF organizations Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Jeff there is a strong nexus between Regional igfs and our ICANN hubs so should be ways Jim Prendergast: schedule varies - http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-regional-and-national-i…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.intgovforum.org_mul…> Alan Greenberg: Important to understand that the only applicants for the program were ICANN insiders. Greg Shatan: ISOC and its chapters could be used as well. Rubens Kuhl: Some ccTLDs see ICANN outreach regarding new gTLDs as ICANN promoting one of their "sons" instead of applying similar amounts of money to also promote ccTLDs. Vanda Scartezini: EVEN IGF DOS NOT ACCESS COMPANIES AROUND THAT COULD APPLY Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and the National Initiatives are opportunities for outreach Vanda Scartezini: in our region is more associations in general that can make the information flows. Greg Shatan: Agree with Vanda that a way to reach the business sector is important. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yep avri doria: Basically should use as many of these channels as possible. - Question 1.2.4 - suggestions for metrics that could be used to evaluate success. - Jannik Skou –number of domain names registered. - BC - number of workshops, attendance, and follow up communication - RySG - number of applications and number of successful applications. - ALAC – consider broader context of success; in terms of metrics, look at numbers of people within LDCs who participate and are successfully trained as registrars. - 1.2.5 - additional recommendations for improving ASP - BC - streamline the application process and improving the network of informal support for applicants. - ALAC - support people from underserved regions to improve chances of meeting eligibility criteria. - RySG - applicant must be able to demonstrate that there is a business case for the TLD. - NCSG - better advertising and an exclusive round for applicants from developing countries. - GAC - referenced CCTRT Draft Report comments. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: THere are alo of responses that are great at a high level, but I am not sure that it helps us on a micro level. For example the BC says we should streamline the process, but what specifically can be streamlined? Jeff Neuman: I would love to state in the Preliminary report a question that states: "What can your SO/AC/Constituency do to improve awareness of the program Jeff Neuman: I agree with Cheryl that most of the comments do seem positive on keeping an Applicant Support Program in some form Jeff Neuman: Most also state that Applicant Support should involve more than just financial support, but also technical support, etc. Vanda Scartezini: during the survey I did in this region I promise to several companies to infrom them when the program will start Vanda Scartezini: even here cost was not the main point - infromation about on how to apply will be more relevant - Important to take the next step in consolidating feedback and looking at specific opportunities for improvement in the program. - Applicants that received support were required to pay a part of the application fee in the 2012 round. Did this hinder applicants? From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Applicants that wanted to be in the JAS program had to pay $47,000 up front as the reduced application fee b. Communications - 1.9.1 - suggestions for additional areas for improvement in communications. - Jannik Skou - produce a video. - BRG - develop tailored information information and processes for different business models. - ALAC - regional teams need to be organized within underserved regions to more effectively introduce, educate and inform. - GAC UK - leverage regional IGFs. - RySG, Afilias - push notifications, SLAs for responding to applicant questions, helpline, searchable FAQ page and knowledge base, webinars and sessions with detailed minutes. - 1.9.2 - metrics to measure success of communications - BRG - mainstream media coverage, response time. - RySG, Afilias - hire an experienced firm to do comms, use established metrics. - ALAC - training program participation and successfully meeting goals, number of RSPs set up, number of outreach opportunities that get people to apply. - John Poole - total "revamp" From the chat: Vanda Scartezini: video with cations in aseveral language would be good Vanda Scartezini: captioning - We don't know to what extent reducing the application fee was addressing the main issue. Are there other other impediments to having successful application from developing economies? If so, what are those impediments? Not clear if more information would have helped. Hard to tell if we know what we are trying to accomplish and how we are going to accomplish it. - For some applicants, it wasn't so much an issue of the cost, it was that there wasn't a good enought business case to apply. - There was also a punitive aspect. If you applied for support and didn't succeed, that was the end of your application. Did this effect anyone? Timing issue may also have had an impact. - Agree the timing issue could have been important. A single awareness-raising event without sustained follow up may not be enough. Needs and approach may vary by region. It may take more time in some regions to develop plans and prepare applications. From the chat: Phil Buckingham: Q : so how much should ICANN put up to support a programme . How we do we arrive at this number . Vanda Scartezini: to strat a new gTLD offer in the market you will need much more money than just the fees. so As I ahve asking here , the fees was not the barrier. Vanda Scartezini: the knowledge, timely aware, on how to trust to be backend technical etc are the barriers 4. AOB - None

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for 5 September 2017 @ 20:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

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

1 0