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

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 31 January
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 31 January. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Please note also that the slides referenced below are attached and for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items 31 January 1. Recap of outcomes from Jan 10th call a. Application Queuing (slide 4) -- "Lottery" was the way to go. -- In the last round in 2012 there was a decision by the Board to prioritize IDN applications (randomized them first). Then randomized the non-IDN application. If you wanted to enter the randomization process you paid a fee. Then randomized those that didn't want to be in the "lottery". Should talk about whether there should be some priority on IDNs this time or not. -- Question: IDNs were prioritized to facilitate their entrance in the market -- correct? Yes. There was a political desire to have IDNs introduced in the market first. -- CC2 draft question -- whether or not certain application types should be moved to the front of the queue. -- What might help that we do have information that could be useful as to whether putting IDNs first was worthwhile -- gather some data on whether those applications who received prioritizatioin took advantage of that. -- No feedback/objections on the "lottery" ("raffle") approach. -- No insight/feedback on further discussion questions. Will recirculate. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: We can call it "Randomization Process" for now. Kurt Pritz: ICANN called it a "raffle" for important reasons. I think we should adopt that wording if we are indicating that we want to recommend the same process. b. Application Submission Period (slide 5) -- We should talk about the communication period for the first application window as opposed to subsequent communication periods. Would assume that would be longer and for subsequent ones if there is some sort of regular process (from the drafting team on overarching issues) -- such as 2 windows a year -- that may overlap with other things going on. Push that off until we get some work product from the drafting team. -- Also ties into a couple of other topics. >From the Chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jeff, that there is a distinction in communication between the first v subsequent window application/ Jim Prendergast: yes - agreed c. Application Fees/Variable Fees (Slides 6 and 7) -- As we move these processes we probably need to have a few fundamental conversations, such as around categories. Where we end up might influence this conversation and in the legal/regulatory track. -- Not sure agree that there will be differences in time and effort for different applications, but can't know that without doing the research. What you need to factor in is what you are applying for is unique and has cost associations. -- Not sure that we should give any weight to the fact that applicants in the last round paid $185k. Decide on the core methodology -- cost recovery or cost recovery+. -- We could get agreement from the group that a registry backend provider would only get evaluated once, which could eliminate the technical evaluation from every other application. -- Efficiencies could be gained in a bunch of the processes. >From the chat: Jim Prendergast: When does cost recovery from previous round stop and cost recovery for this next procedure/round start? Phil Buckingham: +1 Donna , so we have two application fee elements ? a fixed price + variable cost plus ? Jon Nevett: No weight? Jeff Neuman: Correct, I dont think what groups paid in the first round should have any weight. It didnt have any weight in the 2005 round or the 2012 round. Jon Nevett: cause it went up. Donna Austin, Neustar: I think the same applies with regard to what financial information is required, ie. if there is no requirement for a COI. Jeff Neuman: Technically the first TLDs paid nothing.......but the 2000 round did not argue for parity Jim Prendergast: I think we need to ask ICANN why they insisted on evaluating RSP over and over and see if those reasons still stand. We can make all the arguments we want but if ICANN legal says that we did it for liablity prevention reasons, I don think our outcome whill change that. Jeff Neuman: @Jim - if you read the implementation plan, they did not indicate that they did that for any liability reasons. Jon Nevett: Agree with Donna that the $185K should have some weight. Jeff Neuman: In fact, I believe their input was the opposite...sorry I meant the ICANN Implementation review. Kurt Pritz: One way to think about it: if the cost is $20K, do we agree with cost recovery; if the cost is $50K do we agree with cost recovery; if the cost is $100K do we agree with cost recovery? d. Invoice Challenges (Slide 7): -- Do we agree that there should be an invoicing system? -- ICANN had challenges on the ability to invoice, which caused some issues for some applicants. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I think all we are saying is that we agree that there should be an invoicing process when applying for TLDs. As opposed to having to get in the money a few weeks before or whatever the process was. Many big companies have rules that they can only pay after receiving a valid invoice. Steve Chan: Or make it available on request? I recall, maybe incorrectly, someone saying that having an invoice is actually problematic? Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services: Applicants that needed a statement/invoice (generally larger companies and governments) had to request such from ICANN for the 185k and ICANN eventually provided something. 2. Systems (Slide 9) Our task: WG may want to consider providing implementation guidance, such as a minimum set of security and infrastructure standards, for consideration by ICANN during implementation of subsequent procedures (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.9+Systems?preview=/58735915/5… ). -- Context (from the Issue Report): No guidance in the 2007 final report, so this is a new topic. We are talking about applicant-facing systems: (from slide 9) TLD application System (TAS), Customer Portal, additional support solutions -- Digital Archery, Centralized Zone Data Service, Application Comments Forum. See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf. -- Take into consideration that we have moved on quite a bit from this. The best we can do is some high-level recommendations that go to a better user experience. -- If we get the summary from staff and agree that would be a good thing. -- We need to balance that with the needs of those that have to evaluate the applications at the end of the day. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: all of these topics were referred to us by the GNSO whether considered policy or implementation. IF we want to provide guidance, we should.....if not, that is fine too. The systems issue is not really policy either, but more implementation...but it is part of the subsequent procedures Jon Nevett: if get into that level of detail on every issue, 2020 will be optimistic Jeff Neuman: I am not sure we are getting too deep. We are just recommending that an invoicing process be made available. Jon Nevett: Systems should be safe and secure -- avoiding glitches and data breaches that we have had in the past. Jeff Neuman: For systems, we may recommend better usability........ability to copy applications....ability to do non-ASCII. Jon Nevett: ok and better user experience. Jeff Neuman: Perhaps for the next call, we can summarize the ICANN staff recommendations...and if they make sense, just sign off on them Donna Austin, Neustar 2: The recommendations on this should be high level and not in the weeds. Phil Buckingham: we require changes to the CZDS . For starters - not to have to reapply every 90 days to every single Registry ! Jeff Neuman: @Phil...I am not sure that CZDS falls within our mandate. The requirement to provide a zone file as a requirement would be, but not sure that that system is for us. Phil Buckingham: @ jeff , I agree CZDS is outside our mandate , but Registry reporting of their zone file data is ? 3. Communications (Slide 10) Our task: Consider suggesting targeted groups or sectors, communication methods, as well as metrics to help identify if the communications plan was effective. A PDP-WG may also want to consider what themes should be conveyed and to what parties, as it may be beneficial to customize messaging based on the needs of the particular demeographic…consider providing implementation guidance related to communication methods, goals for communications, success criteria and other elements. (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.11+Communications?preview=/58…) 2011 Communications Plan: See: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical- documentation/matrix-plans. The program implementation review document discusses Communications on pg 189. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf -- Concerns: Whether communications were enough, adequate, and timely. Lack of outreach to developing countries. -- Could provide guidance on methods, goals, measuring success, groups to target, etc. -- Touched on having a database that is easily searchable. Could be part of the applications process discussion. -- This another area where things improved over time. Things are now running a lot smoother. Registry Stakeholder Group had a running dialogue with the GDD. -- Staff can provide a summary of recommendations on the next call. -- Agree that after applications were submitted they improved communications. ICANN posted advisories but not everyone knew to look for them. Look at a better mechanism, such as a subscription. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: Agree with Donna on communications after applications were submitted. But someone needs to go through the application knowledge database and clean that up. 4. Accreditation (Slide 11) -- Call for volunteers from ICANN. Not sure there will be a group. Trying to find out if there is a group and what we should take on. Will give an update on the next call.

1 0

Agenda - Work Track 1
by Sara Bockey Jan. 30, 2017

Jan. 30, 2017

Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 31 January 2017 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Recap of outcomes from Jan 10th call * Application Queuing * Application Submission Period * Application Fees/Variable Fees 4. Systems * Our task: WG may want to consider providing implementation guidance, such as a minimum set of security and infrastructure standards, for consideration by ICANN during implementation of subsequent procedures (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.9+Systems?preview=/58735915/5… ) 1. Communications * Our task: Consider suggesting targeted groups or sectors, communication methods, as well as metrics to help identify if the communications plan was effective. A PDP-WG may also want to consider what themes should be conveyed and to what parties, as it may be beneficial to customize messaging based on the needs of the particular demeographic…consider providing implementation guidance related to communication methods, goals for communications, success criteria and other elements. (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.11+Communications?preview=/58… ) 1. Accreditation Program 2. AOB Attached for your convenience are excerpts from the final report on Systems and Communications, which further outline the question(s) we are to address. Please review this material prior to the call to assist in topical, focused discussions. Thanks, 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

WT1 Jan 10th Call Outcomes, Follow-Ups, Further Discussion and Future Topics
by Christa Taylor Jan. 30, 2017

Jan. 30, 2017

Thank-you to all who joining the WT1 call this morning (January 10th). As mentioned, we will be utilizing more email lists to solicit feedback and making progress to meet deadlines. Application Queuing Outcomes: * First come, first served was discussed and the lottery system which was the method used in round one was thought to be most relevant. * Vote on whether to keep the current lottery system: yes/no -- lottery system 10 approvals and no objections. This is based on the assumption that rounds will be used and are similar to the first round, a prioritization based on the type of application such as IDNs can be used. * We seem to have consensus but please send an email to the chairs, co-chairs and working group along with an explanation why the decision is believed to be in error in time for the next meeting. Next meeting, we will review the above along with any comments received to ensure we have full consensus. Follow-ups: * Need to confirm ICANN can/will continue to use the lottery license/system in future rounds Further discussion: * If rounds are not going to be used, then what method should be used? * If it's a continuous application period - how will we deal with application queuing? First come first served? What is appropriate? Application Submission Period Outcomes: * For approval: Initial period is three months, subsequent period is two months -- 7 approvals and no objections. This is based on the window to submit applications based on the pretense that there is sufficient length of time between communicating when the window will open and the submission period beginning. The length of this initial communication to application submission can vary depending on the circumstances. * We seem to have consensus but please send an email to the chairs, co-chairs and working group along with an explanation why the decision is believed to be in error in time for the next meeting. Next meeting, we will review the above along with any comments received to ensure we have full consensus. * Based on the next application periods based on rounds (see further discussion below). Follow-ups: * Need to draft the language re: above as there is currently no guidance for the length of time. Further discussion: * Does the application submission period of 3 months and 2 months have any implications on applicant support? * If we have a few next 'rounds' followed by continuous application periods, how should the application submission period be handled? Application Fees Outcomes: * n/a Follow-ups: Alternatives to cost recovery keeping in mind that any alternatives other than cost recovery could impact ICANN's Not-For-Profit (NFP) status. However, profits from fees could be used exclusively for promoting its stated goals. However, activities that a NFP should not be engaging in include: goods and services are not restricted to members and their guests and operation on a profit basis rather than a cost-recovery basis. Further discussion: * Existing policy is based on cost recovery. * Impact to variable fees based on application types (topic for next meeting) * Should we implement cost floors/ceilings? Seems like we might be more concerned about a floor. What are the implications if we choose a methodology other than cost recovery? * Current overages from the first round have no policy Variable Fees Outcomes: * One Fee Fits All approach Follow-ups: * Applicant support fees discount Further discussion: * The $90m first round overages have no policy on how the money will be used which is outside the scope of our discussion however, we should be mindful of this in future rounds i.e. how accepting will applicants be of fees that exceed costs and the policy or other items that should be included in the variable fees to deal with such overages? Next Call Preparation: * Further discussion items from today's call (see above) * Systems: "may want to consider providing implementation guidance, such as a minimum set of security and infrastructure standards, for consideration by ICANN during implementation of subsequent procedures" (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.9+Systems?preview=/58735915/5 8737114/Section%204.2.9.pdf ) * Communications: "consider suggesting targeted groups or sectors, communication methods, as well as metrics to help identify if the communications plan was effective. A PDP-WG may also want to consider what themes should be conveyed and to what parties, as it may be beneficial to customize messaging based on the needs of the particular demeographic.consider providing implementation guidance related to communication methods, goals for communications, success criteria and other elements" (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.11+Communications?preview=/58 735919/58737118/Section%204.2.11.pdf ) * Accreditation based on carve out on new working group and this WT CCT2 Questions * Application Fees: Given that fees are to be for cost recovery, and given the surplus from the last round, do you believe cost recovery based on the existing cost structure is still appropriate? With cost recovery in mind, should there be a floor/ceiling threshold? * Variable Fees: Should the New gTLD application fee be variable based on such factors as application type (e.g., open or closed registries), multiple identical applications, or other factors? * Application Submission Period: Is three months the proper amount of time? Is the concept of a fixed period of time for accepting applications the right approach? We welcome all input from the working group to expand this list of question Christa Taylor, B. Tech, CPA, CMA, MBA Mobile: 604-961-9460 Skype: christat13 <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa(a)dottba.com <http://www.dottba.com/> www.dottba.com

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 10 January
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 10 January. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Please note also that the slides referenced below are attached and for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items 10 January 1. Work Track Progress Status [reading from slide 3] -- Good progress on all of the topics -- Adjusting the work plan a bit -- Focus to see if we can close a few topics -- Accreditation -- had hoped to close by mid-December but still discussing -- Still on track for applicant support -- Need more discussion on clarity of application process, application fees, and variable fees -- application queuing and submission period will fall under clarity of application process 2. Clarity of application process [reading from slide 4] Accreditation -- new working group and carving out policies for WT1 to focus on for the next meeting Clarify of application process [reading from slide 5] -- Any additions to what is on the slide? -- Will put forward what we have to the list for consideration Application Queuing [reading from slide 6] -- Need feedback on whether we still believe that first come, first served is relevant, or if another mechanism is more appropriate -- If it is a round is first come, first served relevant? Could be some other method after that. -- This just the order that the application is reviewed. -- Not sure how this would play out in an application period. Two options -- wait for the last one in the contention set or everyone gets the benefit of the first one selected -- all applications for the same TLD would be evaluated. -- To be clear we are talking about the substantive processing, which could potentially go all the way through to delegation. Processing on contention sets has to be done on all of the applications. -- First what would happen is ICANN woudl time stamp the applications as received, wait until the end of the period, determine the contention sets, they would do the review application 1, 2, etc. Use the priority numbers to release the intial results, but that wouldn't be processing everything, just the priority number for initial processing. -- The question we are trying to address is whether first come, first served is still relevant. -- First come, first served: Yes/No; lottery system: yes/no -- lottery system 9 approvals and no objections. -- Went away from first come, first served to the lottery. We are seeing a preference for a lottery and not seeing why we should go back to first come, first served. -- Could hold multiple lotteries within categories (as with IDNs). -- Should not use the term "lottery". Cannot get a license for that process. Action Items: 1. Put forward lottery system to the list. 2. Ask staff what they would need to do to keep their lottery license to continue to do lotteries >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: As long as we are doing rounds, it is not relevant. Rubens Kuhl: Changes are required at least to reflect what has already been done. Alexander Schubert: 1stcome1stserve would only benefit the portfolio guys with their unlimited rescources! Alexander Schubert: In a gTLD round! Jeff Neuman: So, is everyone comfortable with the randomization/lottery that ICANN held Steve Chan: The current guidance should be viewed in contrast with the prioritization. Jeff Neuman: (assuming ICANN can maintain the license to run lotteries)? Michael Flemming: Firstly in rounds, then yes as long as we have objections of course :) Jeff Neuman: If we do rounds, I would not be comfortable with first come first served. I think the lottery was the only fair way to go. Michael Flemming: once again are we talking about rounds? Jeff Neuman: I think a question needs to go to staff (legal) to see whether they can maintain their license to run the lottery Alexander Schubert: +1 Jeff - two scenarios: Round and ongoing application period Michael Flemming: secondly, if a long term period, then first come first serve as long as we have objections of course :) Ashley Roberts: Agree some kind of randomised assignment of priority numbers is preferable to FCFS Laura Watkins (Nominet): +1 Ashley Alexander Schubert: How about prioritizing GEo's - as they are usually clear cut cases with no contention (as they usually require the OK of the Government) Rubens Kuhl: FCFS is an invitation to dropcatch-like practices where people will bomb the application system to hell so their TLDs go first in application processing. Michael Flemming: I'm with Jeff Trang Nguyen: In the current round, the priority numbers were used to release IE results. Alexander Schubert: Another idea: Have 10% of slots being prioritized by the Internet Community! So the 10% strings the Internet Users in the world value as potentially most impacting would be awarded the top 10% slots? Negative: Potential gaming. Rubens Kuhl: We can let every applicant point one other string as their main competitor, and the process would honor those requests so the results would be released in the same time. Steve Chan: The priority numbers were also used for contracting, PDT, and transition to delegation, if I'm not mistaken. Jeff Neuman: So again, we need to ask ICANN legal whether they could maintain the license to run the "lotteries" and what they need to do to maintain that license. Rubens Kuhl: But if not in the policy, it should be written that processing would always favor and only be based on process efficiencies. Queueing would be only applied, if applied, to release of results. Alexander Schubert: +1 Rubens: We should NOT honor drop-catchers! Trang Nguyen: Perhaps one question that the group could consider is what was the intent behing the GNSO policy recommendation of first come first served, and given objections/string contention, whether the intent could be achieved. Jeff Neuman: @Steve - that was the theory, but not sure how much that was honored given all of the interruptions in the application processing Trang Nguyen: There is a negative aspect to using priority numbers... the ability to normalize priori to releasing IE results. Alexander Schubert: Lottery and some system whereby e.g. GEO applications (with no contention) get prioirity as they serve communities? Michael Flemming: I'd prefer the lottery Laura Watkins (Nominet): Agree Alexander. It makes sense that applications less likely to have contention gets priority Justine Chew: If FCFS caused issues, then keeping the lottery system makes sense 3. Application Submission Period [reading from slide 7] Assuming that the next round is for a fixed period of time, is three months sufficient? -- Suggestion: 3 months is long enough for the first of the application windows as long as there is a long enough communication period prior to the start. Each subsequent window could be shorter, such as 30 or 60 days. -- In writing the Issue Report for this topic we didn't see that there was guidance for the exact length of time for the application period, but guidance of when to start after the request for proposal. This was not a policy issue identified in the Issue Report, but the WT could draft some language if it wishes. -- In considering the example of applicant support in order to apply, would 3 months be relevant in considering those parties? Or do we want to address that in the applicant support area? -- Think it would be in the applicant support area. -- For approval: Initial period is 3 months, subsequent period is 2 months -- 7 approvals. -- Approved assuming we are talking about rounds and a delay before the next round, and in no other areas, such as applicant support. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: So again my proposal would be a three month submission period for the first application window, but to have a shorter 60 day application window for subsequent application windows Rubens Kuhl: Preparing can be done before application window. If the community needs time, postpone the begining of the application period Rubens Kuhl: Until we know how Applicant Support would play out, it's premature to determine something to support it. Steve Chan: Policy recommendations could potentially be less specific than an actual number of months. Laura Watkins (Nominet): If applications are to be batched anyway should the submission period(s) relate to number of applications received rather tha running for a set time? Justine Chew: I abstain. Not comfortable with questions surrounding the AGB. Jeff Neuman: @Alan - Agree we need to sync with other recommendations 4. Application Fees [reading from slide 8] -- Methodology was cost recovery. -- Are we requiring more substance to understand the methodology? "It may be useful to evaluate how well costing estimates compared to actual costs incurred by ICANN...consider providing implementation guidance to be taken into account when ICAN works with the community to develop the costing methodology for subsequent procedures." -- Need to determine how we address overages. -- Should we implement cost floors/ceilings? Seems like we might be more concerned about a floor. What are the implications if we choose a methodology other than cost recovery? Look at comments on the list. >From the chat: Alexander Schubert: The fees should NOT be lowered in the next round. We are inviting speculators otherwise. A good .com is much more expensive than the gTLD application fee. Rubens Kuhl: If we are arbitrating fees, than it's not cost-recovery. Phil Buckingham: + 1 Alan . should Applicant support applications to go through a separate process channel Alexander Schubert: Actually 500k USD would be more appropriate. Michael Flemming: I disagree. I think costs need to be lowered to a more realistic cost. More substance would help to determine a realistic fee. Jeff Neuman: existing plicy is cost recovery at this point. Phil Buckingham: Should be free . Fund it from auction funds and Round 1 "profit excess ",. Michael Flemming: I think you need to set a cost analysis per TLD category. Rubens Kuhl: Arbitrating fees to market value could put ICANN non-profit status in jeopardy. Trang Nguyen: One thing to note is that we have much more information based on this round than we did when we estimated the cost of the program (from a cost recovery perspective). The learnings from this round can be used to better estimate the actual cost for next round. Alexander Schubert: ICANN could do it at a cost of $US 15k probably - we would have 25,000 applications then...... Michael Flemming: Some TLD types require much less check and the process can. e much more streamlined to be cost effective. Justine Chew: Having a surplus is a good problem to have. For starters can use some of this to fund application support, no? Phil Buckingham: Dont need a legal contingency fund (1/3 ) anymore for a Round 2 ?? Rubens Kuhl: Phil, .africa and .merck are showing that legal contingencies could be needed... and we don't yet if .amazon will turn into another legal battle. Jeff Neuman: I agree with Trang. I also believe that having such a large contingency fund (legal fund) for future rounds would be unnecessary. Rubens Kuhl: Size of the fund can be argued, though. Variable fees: Seemed to be consensus that there should be one fee. Is that still the case or do we want to revisit this? May need to revisit. >From the chat: Laura Watkins (Nominet): Agree fixed fee - except in the situation of applicant support - those fees could effectively be discounted in some way maybe Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Alan good points Trang Nguyen: There was no difference in application processing costs for applications this round.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 10 January 2017 at 15:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 January 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue on Tuesday, 10 January 2017 at 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Alan Greenberg:Number ending in 9001 is me. Terri Agnew:@Alan, I have renamed the line Rubens Kuhl:As long as we are doing rounds, it is not relevant. Rubens Kuhl:Changes are required at least to reflect what has already been done. Alexander Schubert:1stcome1stserve would only benefit the portfolio guys with their unlimited rescources! Alexander Schubert:In a gTLD round! Jeff Neuman:So, is everyone comfortable with the randomization/lottery that ICANN held Steve Chan:The current guidance should be viewed in contrast with the prioritization. Jeff Neuman:(assuming ICANN can maintain the license to run lotteries)? Michael Flemming:once again are we talking about rounds? Rubens Kuhl:Not comfortable with Bingo, Jeff... Michael Flemming:Firstly in rounds, then yes as long as we have objections of course :) Jeff Neuman:If we do rounds, I would not be comfortable with first come first served. I think the lottery was the only fair way to go Jeff Neuman:I think a question needs to go to staff (legal) to see whether they can maintain their license to run the lottery Alexander Schubert:+1 Jeff - two scenarios: Round and ongoing application period Michael Flemming:secondly, if a long term period, then first come first serve as long as we have objections of course :) Rubens Kuhl:ZZzzzZZzzz... ;-) Ashley Roberts:Agree some kind of randomised assignment of priority numbers is preferable to FCFS Laura Watkins (Nominet):+1 Ashley Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx Jeff Alexander Schubert:How about prioritizing GEo's - as they are usually clear cut cases with no contention (as they usually require the OK of the Government) Rubens Kuhl:FCFS is an invitation to dropcatch-like practices where people will bomb the application system to hell so their TLDs go first in application processing. Michael Flemming:I'm with Jeff Trang Nguyen:In the current round, the priority numbers were used to release IE results. Alexander Schubert:Another idea: Have 10% of slots being prioritized by the Internet Community! So the 10% strings the Internet Users in the world value as potentially most impacting would be awarded the top 10% slots? Negative: Potential gaming. Rubens Kuhl:We can let every applicant point one other string as their main competitor, and the process would honor those requests so the results would be released in the same time. Steve Chan:The priority numbers were also used for contracting, PDT, and transition to delegation, if I'm not mistaken. Jeff Neuman:So again, we need to ask ICANN legal whether they could maintain the license to run the "lotteries" and what they need to do to maintain that license. Rubens Kuhl:But if not in the policy, it should be written that processing would always favor and only be based on process efficiencies. Queueing would be only applied, if applied, to release of results. Alexander Schubert:+1 Rubens: We should NOT honor drop-catchers! Trang Nguyen:Perhaps one question that the group could consider is what was the intent behing the GNSO policy recommendation of first come first served, and given objections/string contention, whether the intent could be achieved. Jeff Neuman:@Steve - that was the theory, but not sure how much that was honored given all of the interruptions in the application processing Trang Nguyen:There is a negative aspect to using priority numbers... the ability to normalize priori to releasing IE results. Alexander Schubert:Lottery and some system whereby e.g. GEO applications (with no contention) get prioirity as they serve communities? Michael Flemming:I'd prefer the lottery Jeff Neuman:I think for now, we need to just consider the main method for queing before determining whether certain types of applications should get priority in thelottery Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Alan agree Justine Chew:Agree with Alan Rubens Kuhl:We will make Digital Archery Great Again. Alexander Schubert:+1 Alan Laura Watkins (Nominet):Agree Alexander. It makes sense that applications less likely to have contention gets priority Justine Chew:If FCFS caused issues, then keeping the lottery system makes sense Alan Greenberg:I think we should appoint Rubens President! Laura Watkins (Nominet):Eeek! I can't figure out how to vote! Michael Flemming:consensus reached? Rubens Kuhl:Laura, it's the same button to raise hand. Jeff Neuman:9 approvals Alexander Schubert:9 approvals? Laura Watkins (Nominet):Aaah got it - thanks Rubens. done it now Alexander Schubert:Alan disappeared again :-) Jeff Neuman:10 now Terri Agnew:@Laura, top tool bar, select icon that has person with raised hand. Rubens Kuhl:Steve has his hand up. Rubens Kuhl:And Jeff too. Rubens Kuhl:Just an implementation note: bundle the lottery ticket with the application fee so there is need for a separate payment. Christa Taylor:Just like we did with IDNs in the last round Christa Taylor:agreed Alexander Schubert:+1 Jeff Christa Taylor:draw Rubens Kuhl:Bingo Justine Chew:Random picking Christopher Niemi:'priority draw' Jeff Neuman:"Game of chance" Michael Flemming:draw straws Trang Nguyen:@Rubens, I believe a nominal fee must be collected for the priority draw for legal reasons. Alexander Schubert:Well, the application system could assign a random number when you apply - the number is stored (and nobody can see it) - and it is later used to avoid a lottery! Trang Nguyen:We can look into whether that can be collected with teh application fee, or has to be separate. Jeff Neuman:Thanks Trang Rubens Kuhl:@Trang, yes, but it can be bundled. US$85,000 - application fee ; US$85 - draw ticket. Deposit of US$ 85085 to clear both. Phil Buckingham:@ Trang - thats my understanding . Phil Buckingham:I thought i was $100 per lottery ticket Jeff Neuman:I think this is a good question for CC2 Sara Bockey:I agree Jeff Rubens Kuhl:Shorter is better. Longer periods invite events of chance. Justine Chew:Assuming there is enough support to assist applicants in preparing and submitting their applications? Trang Nguyen:@Phil, yes, each draw ticket was $100 USD Michael Flemming:Forgot about the Applicant Guidebook for a minute. Jeff Neuman:So again my proposal would be a three month submission period for the first application window, but to have a shorter 60 day application window for subsequent application windows Rubens Kuhl:Preparing can be done before application window. If the community needs time, postpone the begining of the application period. Michael Flemming:Sorry my question has relevance now. Justine Chew:Yes, hence my question before! Rubens Kuhl:Until we know how Applicant Support would play out, it's premature to determine something to support it. Steve Chan:Policy recommendations could potentially be less specific than an actual number of months. Laura Watkins (Nominet):If applications are to be batched anyway should the submission period(s) relate to number of applications received rather tha running for a set time? Justine Chew:I abstain. Not comfortable with questions surrounding the AGB. Jeff Neuman:@Alan - Agree we need to sync with other recommendations Justine Chew:+1 Alan Alexander Schubert:The fees should NOT be lowered in the next round. We are inviting speculators otherwise. A good .com is much more expensive than the gTLD application fee. Rubens Kuhl:If we are arbitrating fees, than it's not cost-recovery. Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Alan . should Applicant support applications to go through a separate process channel Alexander Schubert:Actually 500k USD would be more appropriate. Michael Flemming:I disagree. I think costs need to be lowered to a more realistic cost. More substance would help to determine a realistic fee. Jeff Neuman:existing plicy is cost recovery at this point. Phil Buckingham:Should be free . Fund it from auction funds and Round 1 "profit excess ",. Michael Flemming:I think you need to set a cost analysis per TLD category. Rubens Kuhl:Arbitrating fees to market value could put ICANN non-profit status in jeopardy. Trang Nguyen:One thing to note is that we have much more information based on this round than we did when we estimated the cost of the program (from a cost recovery perspective). The learnings from this round can be used to better estimate the actual cost for next round. Alexander Schubert:ICANN could do it at a cost of $US 15k probably - we would have 25,000 applications then...... Michael Flemming:Some TLD types require much less check and the process can. e much more streamlined to be cost effective. Justine Chew:Having a surplus is a good problem to have. For starters can use some of this to fund application support, no? Phil Buckingham:Dont need a legal contingency fund (1/3 ) anymore for a Round 2 ?? Alexander Schubert:If it is "free" we have ".xyz"-times :-) Rubens Kuhl:Phil, .africa and .merck are showing that legal contingencies could be needed... and we don't yet if .amazon will turn into another legal battle. Jeff Neuman:I agree with Trang. I also believe that having such a large contingency fund (legal fund) for future rounds would be unnecessary Rubens Kuhl:Size of the fund can be argued, though. Alan Greenberg:I think we should say we will determine the cost only after we know how many appilications there are. That wasy we can predict costs more accurately. And limit applications to only those with near infinite money. Alan Greenberg:(That was a joke) Michael Flemming:haha Rubens Kuhl:Alan, although a joke, it's an alert that some organizations are not that price-sensitive as others. Michael Flemming:I'm surprised no one came up with a Trump joke Phil Buckingham:Rubens - I m just lobbing out the Q - I agree with you actually . ICANN will need all of it going forward Alan Greenberg:@Rubens. Indeed. When you look at profit made by some in the self-auctions, the cost from ICANN was never meant to indicate the VALUE of the TLD. Michael Flemming:I thought this meeting runs for another half hour Julie Hedlund:@Michael: That was an error. The meeting is for 60 minutes. Michael Flemming:Thank you. Michael Flemming:I would like to revisit Rubens Kuhl:I have to drop at the hour anyways... Laura Watkins (Nominet):Agree fixed fee - except in the situation of applicant support - those fees could effectively be discounted in some way maybe Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Alan good points Trang Nguyen:There was no difference in application processing costs for applications this round. Trang Nguyen:Except for CPE. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx everyone... bye for now... good progress Justine Chew:Thanks, Christa, Sara for leading the discussions on calls and looking forward to the email list discussions. avri doria:bye Alexander Schubert:Bye! Ashley Roberts:thanks Michael Flemming:great meeting Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks and bye , everyone. Phil Buckingham:Great job , Christa and Sara

1 0

Agenda - Work Track 1
by Sara Bockey Jan. 9, 2017

Jan. 9, 2017

Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, Jan 10, 2017 at 15:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Work Track Progress Status 4. Clarity of Application Process 5. Application Submission Period 6. Application Queuing 7. CCT2 questions (if there is time) 8. AOB Attached for your convenience are excerpts from the final report on Application Submission Period and Application Queuing, which outline the question(s) we are to address. As we are currently behind numerous timelines, please review this material prior to the call to assist in topical, focused discussions. Thanks, 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

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 13 December
by Steve Chan Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 December. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Best, Steve Notes and Action Items 13 December 4. Applicant Support - Financial support by itself is inadequate (e.g., coaching, mentoring, partnering) - Need perspectives of those in relevant areas - Rubens - one idea is to lift a bit vertical integration restrictions for under-developed markets 5. Application Process & Cost - Clarity of Application Process - Clarifying Questions, Streamline Answer Submission, Contacts by Categories, Knowledge Database - Streamline Answer Submissions - Re: RSP "tick a box" to note using RSP (already identified via RSP discussion, should be tied back here) - What is the purpose of seeing the actual CQ and responses versus the themes, categories, etc. as identified in the PIRR? - Trang - As Donna mentioned, CQs could be indicative of the nature of the question, which is not a process issue. They could also be an indication of the non-structured way that answers were collected, which is a process issue that can be fixed. 6. Application Submission Period & Queuing - Is there a floor price that should be established to avoid TLDs becoming a commodity? Or ceiling? - Invoices - allow for generation, but make it optional (since there may be tax implications) - Should $185k have any bearing on future costing estimates/models? - Cost recovery was basis for 2012 round - should that carry forward? It's very difficult to do without a true understanding of demand (e.g., 2012 round had far more than the estimated 500 applications) - Is there support for cost recovery in future processes? What are the alternatives? - Rubens - "market value" pricing - Donna - Went with fixed fee because demand was unknown - Cheryl - Support the concept of cost-recovery, thinks that first-movers assume some risks, higher costs. As such, uneven playing field is ok. - Alan - Supports points of Cheryl. How/who puts forward a number? - Rubens - Perhaps the policy and the implementation drifted apart, but the policy guidance was cost-recovery and this still seems to resonante with people. - Kurt - we won't know costs until the policy and implementation work is done, i.e., when we have a new question set. E.g., if categories are included, that would drive costs up; and the form of objection processes drive costs also. - Support from multiple commenters to stick with previous approach from 2012 round. Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 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

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 03:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 December 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 03:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Yoshi Murakami:Hi Steve Chan:@Sara, the slides are unsynced - did you want to have control over them for the group? Christa Taylor:yes please we need to be on Schedule of Topics Kurt Pritz:can you paste the link into the chat? Christa Taylor:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sch… Kurt Pritz:thanks Christa Terri Agnew:@Sara, we are unable to hear you Sara Bockey:ok let me log back in Kurt Pritz:this is a link to the Hyderabad meeting on accreditation, correct? Trang Nguyen:@Donna, my understanding is that the efforts that Francisco is leading is targeted at improving the process for RSP changes for current ROs under the existing RA. Rubens Kuhl:I can't talk loud at this our in my timezone, but one idea is to lift a bit vertical integration restrictions for under-developed markets. Rubens Kuhl:(at this time) Justine Chew:+1 Kurt Justine Chew:Wasn't there some thought about simplifying the application process too? Rubens Kuhl:I just did what Alan mentioned, see above in the chat... ;-) Kurt Pritz:Good idea Alan Justine Chew:Sorry I could be jumping the gun on the next agenda item :) Rubens Kuhl:The mirror idea of lifting vertical integration restrictions is to establish must-carry rules for registrars. Which are bound to be unpopular. Donna Austin, Neustar:@ Rubens, if you can shift it to a collaborative partnering similar to what Kurt suggested, then it might be more palatable if considered voluntary and for the greater good of the industry. Kurt Pritz:Should we agree to get some opinions like alan said? Rubens Kuhl:That's why I prefer the non-mirror, original idea: not forcing anyone to do something they don't want to. Steve Chan:Here is the link to the AMGlobal report - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Steve Chan:This study was conducted on behalf of the CCT-RT Rubens Kuhl:CQs answers were not available. Confirmed by Christine Willet. Trang Nguyen:The PIRR report provides the number of CQs issued for each of the application questions. Trang Nguyen:CQs and responses were not posted. Steve Chan:And here is a link to that report again: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Steve Chan:Program Implementation Review Report = PIRR Rubens Kuhl:The questions and answers for CQs for publicly-posted questions had no reason to not be published. Trang Nguyen:As Donna mentioned, CQs could be indicative of the nature of the question, which is not a process issue. They could also be an indication of the non-structured way that answers were collected, which is a process issue that can be fixed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I agree Rubin's.. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sorry I am father quite today now about to start driving and so will not be readily available in chat either just audio Rubens Kuhl:Just to add an opt-out mechanism on invoices... some countries, including mine, have a bit bizarre tax system. Kurt Pritz:I agree we don't have the future cost but it could be markedly lower than previous rounds cost. The application could be simplified, risks could be mitigated, fixed costs might be reduced the second time around. Kurt Pritz:Omigosh, it would be a mess trying to allocate costs for each of these types and watch the applicants trying to qualify for lower application fees Rubens Kuhl:I think the WT is ready for doing a Consensus Call on the model being cost-recovery, but it hasn't happened yet AFAIK. Rubens Kuhl:Noting that cost-recovery doesn't mean granular cost-recovery. Agree with Kurt on losing efficiencies by trying to set a per-type cost. Alan Greenberg:I have a problem voting for one option not knowing what the other(s) might be. Christopher Niemi:Alan +1 Rubens Kuhl:Different from cost-recovery could be "market value" pricing. Rubens Kuhl:(Which I do not support, but identify as an option) Rubens Kuhl:Even the 185,000 was already cost-recovery... Donna Austin, Neustar 2:@Rubens, yes it was based on the cost-recovery but it was not accurate for various reasons Donna Austin, Neustar 2:+89m at this point Rubens Kuhl:Donna, perhaps the policy and the implementation drifted apart, but the policy guidance was cost-recovery and this still seems to resonante with people. Kurt Pritz:we won't know costs until the policy and implementation work is done, i.e., when we have a new question set. E.g., if categories are included, that would drive costs up; and the form of objection processes drive costs also. avri doria:the policy last time was cost recovery, but the cost being 'recovered' was not exactly agreed upon by all. Justine Chew:Sorry, I have to drop off now. Catch up next time. Donna Austin, Neustar 2:Thanks Sara Rubens Kuhl:We should only use FCFS if no rounds/windows. If using slotted system, we should not use FCFS, like what was done in the 2012-round. Donna Austin, Neustar 2:i think my answer would be B. Trang Nguyen:There are potential impacts to FCFS, CQs for example. Kurt Pritz:I agree with Rubens - the queueing should be as the previous round. Trang Nguyen:Thank you, all. Bye. Donna Austin, Neustar 2:thanks Sara and Christa

1 0

Work Track 1 - proposed agenda for 12 Dec 2016
by Sara Bockey Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 2016

Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 03:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. RSP Accreditation 4. Applicant Support 5. Application Process & Cost 6. Application Submission Period & Queuing 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

Notes and Action Items for 29 November meeting – New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1
by Emily Barabas Nov. 30, 2016

Nov. 30, 2016

Dear All, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the sub team 1 meeting on 29 November. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar . Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: 2. SOIs: no updates. 3. ICANN 57 Recap – Accreditation and Applicant Support - Good feedback received in the WG meeting - Additional meetings held (Alice from the GAC, APAC) - Takeaway: We need to fully understand why the applicant support program failed before moving forward. - Cost was an important factor. - GAC will put forward a plan for work to better understand challenges related to applicant support. - Concern flagged that North American companies may not understand other regions, review should be led by someone that understands the impacted regions. - Comment on the presentation slides: We need clarity in the way we describe these issues in the future. It is important to be specific (for example, if cost was an issue, which costs specifically?) - COE study recommends that ICANN should do more outreach and can still be impartial in doing so (https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?docum…) [rm.coe.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rm.coe.int_CoERMPublic…> - Feedback from Alice Munyua in the GAC --If we do pursue applicant support going forward, need to understand priorities of prospective applicants in underserved regions. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: I agree Christa -- if there is no market for domain names or infrastructure or resources to support a TLD, then providing financial support to apply for a TLD may not necessarily solve the problem. Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group: I think the ongoing costs issue is important. $185 k is just the beginning. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jim, agree - Need to revisit the balance between preventing gaming vs. making the applicant support program successful. By setting the bar so high to prevent gaming, we may have discouraged too many potential applicants in the last round. From the chat: avri doria: we need to be clear that accusations of possible gaming do not become in themselves a form of gaming. Jeff Neuman: One question is whether we believe ICANN needs an ongoing set of funds to pay for infrastructure for any RSP that agrees to support one of the Applicants who qualifies for support - Was the original intent of the program to target specific TLDs or regions or was it more focused on serving those who did not have the financial ability to apply for a TLD? - JAS report that came out at the time is useful background reading. The program wasn’t about any specific TLD, but there was a sense that IDNs would be valuable. There was a recommendation from the GAC that fees needed to be low for developing economies. There was a component that was just financial, but there were also elements of the program offering other types of help. - Important to remember that the ASP work was done very late, some felt that it was misdirected. We need to do a zero base budgeting exercise -- We should go back and look at what we really need, not base future work on the JAS proposal alone. - Re-evaluate the goals of the program in order to help determine what represents success going forward. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Our experience in LAC region shows distribution channel as the largest barrier to overcome, at least for open TLDs. Rubens Kuhl: So in our experience, revisiting the vertical integration policy and registrar accreditation policy would go much further than paying application fee or part of it. avri doria: there is also a big difference between the JAS report and the Board designed program. 4. Clarity of Application Process - Generally it was felt that the AGB was the proper vehicle for implementing recommendations, but transparency was lost in implementation of operational processes and procedures. - These processes got better over time as ICANN rolled them out. The change requests were too opaque. Customer support got better over time. Application prioritization in the end became largely irrelevant as other issues came up. The draw iself was reasonable successful, but ultimately did not have much relevance. ICANN has done some work documenting its process and opportunities for improvement. Maybe we can use this as a starting point for our discussion. - One possible recommendation --ICANN developed a knowledge base. Every time a question was asked that generally applicable, the question and answer were added to the knowledge base. It was very difficult to search and find answers. We could recommend improving and reorganizing this knowledge base and making more searchable and readable. Make sure we capture in the applicant guidebook any clarifications that were made in those knowledge base entries to improve clarity of language guidebook. - We don't have good insight into the clarifying questions that were asked. The public does not have any record of the clarifying questions (without revealing what was asked to specific applicants). It would be useful to have a list of these questions that were used in general. - To the extent that an applicant or an RSP got a question, it got the same question for every application it supported. It would be helpful to devise a process where an applicant could answer the question once and have the answer apply to all applications submitted by that applicant. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: AGB is a mixture of "how to"'s and "why"'s. A simplified how-to only version would be easier to digest. The "why's" are only needed when changes to AGB or new processeses are needed. Rubens Kuhl: CQs and answers for published responses should have been published. Donna Austin, Neustar: The clarifying questions could also indicate that the question was ambiguous and in that regard the question should be reviewed to remove ambiguitiy or any other problems. - It would be helpful to have a clear method of determining the correct point of contact and communication channel. - Staff response to discussion on CQs: There is useful information on pages 52, 79, 85 of the Program Implementation Review report https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf[i…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> 5. Application Fees except & Variable Fees - Application fees: it would be useful to review total cost recovery anticipated vs actual. - Staff response: Financial Management section of the Program Implementation Review is a useful resource (see page 183), includes some numbers on forecast and actual costs. - Application fee for 2012 was $185000. If the next round is in 2018, do we use $185000 as a basis for the future fee if we don’t do it on a cost recovery model? The $185000 probably wasn’t the right amount if we do it on a recovery basis, but was that a reasonable fee? - There was a lack of invoices, which was identified as challenge for applicants in the previous round. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: Application Fees based on cost recovery is difficult to do if you don’t understand the demand, which is evidenced from the 2012 rounds. Phil Buckingham: + 1 Donna . cost recovery of which costs - 1/3 of the fee was a legal contingency cost . Is this needed now. avri doria: or even if we do stay with a cost recovery model. the model slected was quite controversial at the time. Rubens Kuhl: I support cost-recovery. Donna Austin, Neustar: even if that means $5,000/application? Rubens Kuhl: Donna, even in this case. Donna Austin, Neustar: I don't agree. Donna Austin, Neustar: a unique piece of real estate on the internet has a value - and I think that needs to be part of the discussion. Rubens Kuhl: Errors of the past don't justify making them forever. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 29 November 2016 at 22:25 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 29 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 29 November 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue onTuesday, 29 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):audio? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):OK thx Terri Agnew:@Cheryl calling you Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):IN Terri Agnew:Sara is back avri doria:unfortantely Rafik did not make it. apologies for promising something i could not deliver on. Alan Greenberg:Not really an error, just a need to be clearer. Steve Chan:Here is a link to the study Jeff mentioned: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rm.coe.int_CoERMPublic… Steve Chan:It is also available on the Wiki under 4.4.5 Community Applications Donna Austin, Neustar:I agree Christa -- if there is no market for domain names or infrastructure or resources to support a TLD, then providing financial support to apply for a TLD may not necessarily solve the problem. Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group:I think the ongoing costs issue is important. $185 k is just the beginning. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jim, agree Terri Agnew:@Sara, let me know if a dial out to the hotel room would be helpful Jeff Neuman:One question is whether we believe ICANN needs an ongoing set of funds to pay for infrastructure for any RSP that agrees to support one of the Applicants who qualifies for support Sara Bockey:I'm back. sorry about that Donna Austin, Neustar:@Alan, when you say not use the program again do you mean the Applicant Support program or the TLD program? avri doria:we need to be clear that accusations of possible gaming do not become in themselves a form of gaming. Steve Coates:+1 Terri Agnew:Rubens has joined Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Rubens Kuhl:AC on Chrome is a bit shaky. Will try switching to Firefox. Rubens Kuhl:Our experience in LAC region shows distribution channel as the largest barrier to overcome, at least for open TLDs. Rubens Kuhl:So in our experience, revisiting the vertical integration policy and registrar accreditation policy would go much further than paying application fee or part of it. Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Avri and Alan avri doria:there is also a big difference between the JAS report and the Board designed program. Kurt Pritz:is this sub team essentially the new JAS or will that be undertaken elsewhere? Rubens Kuhl:AGB is a mixture of "how to"'s and "why"'s. A simplified how-to only version would be easier to digest. The "why's" are only needed when changes to AGB or new processeses are needed. Rubens Kuhl:CQs and answers for published responses should have been published. Donna Austin, Neustar:The clarifying questions could also indicate that the question was ambiguous and in that regard the question should be reviewed to remove ambiguitiy or any other problems. Steve Chan:The report Russ is talking about is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Donna Austin, Neustar:Russ, i think its on pg 52 of the report Steve Chan:And mentioned by Donna. And a resoucee for us to continue to use going forward. Donna Austin, Neustar:Application Fees based on cost recovery is difficult to do if you don't understand the demand, which is evidenced from the 2012 rounds. Russ Weinstein:Thanks Donna, Pg 52 has the high level, page 79 has further detail about CQ's from the Technical Panel; pg 85 for Financial; Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Donna . cost recovery of which costs - 1/3 of the fee was a legal contingency cost . Is this needed now. avri doria:or even if we do stay with a cost recovery model. the model slected was quite controversial at the time. Rubens Kuhl:I support cost-recovery. Donna Austin, Neustar:even if that means $5,000/application? Rubens Kuhl:Donna, even in this case. Donna Austin, Neustar:I don't agree. Alan Greenberg:Dropping off bridge to go to other call. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):THX everyone, I need to leave fr my next back to back call now... Bye for now Donna Austin, Neustar:a unique piece of real estate on the internet has a value - and I think that needs to be part of the discussion. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Christa - agree - Rubens Kuhl:Errors of the past don't justify making them forever. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed Rubens Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye avri doria:bye, thanks, good meeting

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Nov. 29, 2016

Nov. 29, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 29 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 29 November 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue onTuesday, 29 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):audio? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):OK thx Terri Agnew:@Cheryl calling you Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):IN Terri Agnew:Sara is back avri doria:unfortantely Rafik did not make it. apologies for promising something i could not deliver on. Alan Greenberg:Not really an error, just a need to be clearer. Steve Chan:Here is a link to the study Jeff mentioned: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rm.coe.int_CoERMPublic… Steve Chan:It is also available on the Wiki under 4.4.5 Community Applications Donna Austin, Neustar:I agree Christa -- if there is no market for domain names or infrastructure or resources to support a TLD, then providing financial support to apply for a TLD may not necessarily solve the problem. Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group:I think the ongoing costs issue is important. $185 k is just the beginning. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jim, agree Terri Agnew:@Sara, let me know if a dial out to the hotel room would be helpful Jeff Neuman:One question is whether we believe ICANN needs an ongoing set of funds to pay for infrastructure for any RSP that agrees to support one of the Applicants who qualifies for support Sara Bockey:I'm back. sorry about that Donna Austin, Neustar:@Alan, when you say not use the program again do you mean the Applicant Support program or the TLD program? avri doria:we need to be clear that accusations of possible gaming do not become in themselves a form of gaming. Steve Coates:+1 Terri Agnew:Rubens has joined Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Rubens Kuhl:AC on Chrome is a bit shaky. Will try switching to Firefox. Rubens Kuhl:Our experience in LAC region shows distribution channel as the largest barrier to overcome, at least for open TLDs. Rubens Kuhl:So in our experience, revisiting the vertical integration policy and registrar accreditation policy would go much further than paying application fee or part of it. Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Avri and Alan avri doria:there is also a big difference between the JAS report and the Board designed program. Kurt Pritz:is this sub team essentially the new JAS or will that be undertaken elsewhere? Rubens Kuhl:AGB is a mixture of "how to"'s and "why"'s. A simplified how-to only version would be easier to digest. The "why's" are only needed when changes to AGB or new processeses are needed. Rubens Kuhl:CQs and answers for published responses should have been published. Donna Austin, Neustar:The clarifying questions could also indicate that the question was ambiguous and in that regard the question should be reviewed to remove ambiguitiy or any other problems. Steve Chan:The report Russ is talking about is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Donna Austin, Neustar:Russ, i think its on pg 52 of the report Steve Chan:And mentioned by Donna. And a resoucee for us to continue to use going forward. Donna Austin, Neustar:Application Fees based on cost recovery is difficult to do if you don't understand the demand, which is evidenced from the 2012 rounds. Russ Weinstein:Thanks Donna, Pg 52 has the high level, page 79 has further detail about CQ's from the Technical Panel; pg 85 for Financial; Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Donna . cost recovery of which costs - 1/3 of the fee was a legal contingency cost . Is this needed now. avri doria:or even if we do stay with a cost recovery model. the model slected was quite controversial at the time. Rubens Kuhl:I support cost-recovery. Donna Austin, Neustar:even if that means $5,000/application? Rubens Kuhl:Donna, even in this case. Donna Austin, Neustar:I don't agree. Alan Greenberg:Dropping off bridge to go to other call. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):THX everyone, I need to leave fr my next back to back call now... Bye for now Donna Austin, Neustar:a unique piece of real estate on the internet has a value - and I think that needs to be part of the discussion. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Christa - agree - Rubens Kuhl:Errors of the past don't justify making them forever. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed Rubens Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye avri doria:bye, thanks, good meeting

1 0

Work Track 1 - Proposed Agenda for 29 Nov 2016
by Sara Bockey Nov. 28, 2016

Nov. 28, 2016

Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 29 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. ICANN 57 Recap – Accreditation and Applicant Support 4. Clarity of Application Process excerpt<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.6+Clarity+of+Application+Proc…> - please review excerpt from Final Issue Report 5. Application Fees except<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.10+Application+Fees?preview=/…> & Variable Fees excerpt<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.17+Variable+Fees?preview=/587…> - please review excerpts from Final Issue Report (if there is time) 6. AOB 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

Request for Input - new gTLDs - Work Track 1
by Sara Bockey Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

Dear All, Based on the feedback received on our call on Monday, we have made significant updates to our Google document located at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… The updates include: Accreditation Programs, comments from Donna, pros/cons mentioned to date along with points from the GDD Summit brainstorming notes on RSPs. Regarding Applicant Support, we have noted key comments/takeaways from the AMGlobal survey results. Please take a moment to review the Google document. For your convenience, we’ve attached the GDD Summit brainstorming notes and AMGlobal survey results. Action items: - Review the Google document to ensure all considerations for accreditation have been included and accurately reflected - Are there other alternatives to an accreditation program? - Additional pros and cons for applicant support - Potential paths forward based on the problems we are trying to solve Thank-you for your participation! As always, discussion on the lists is welcomed and encouraged! The next call is schedule on Tuesday, October 18th at 15:00 UTC. 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 5

Google Open Sources Domain Name Registry
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

...pressure builds on RSPs.....and Donuts is abroad... BTW, this was but one of the more disruptive outcomes the At-Large caucus thought was possible from the Google brand investment. http://domainnamewire.com/2016/10/18/google-open-sources-domain-registry-do… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 1

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team ? Track 1 ? Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

On today's call Arvi bought into the debate the work of the Joint Applicant Support WG. For those who want to investigate further the following links will lead to more and better information: SO-AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS-WG): https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=8455565 JAS Material: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/ jas-wg-materials Applicant Support Program: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ applicants/candidate-supp Best, -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799 <876-818-1799>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 SubTeam Meeting 18 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 October. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. See the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/x/tQ2bAw. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Accreditation Discussion (continued) 4. Application Support 5. Applicant Guidebook 6. AOB Action Items: 1. Accreditation Discussion: Comments that have been provided (from Donna Austin and Rubens Kuhl thus far) will be incorporated in the Google Doc. WG members are encouraged to provide comments. 2. Applicant Support Discussion: Seek JAS alumni to discuss -- Carlton Samuels and Rakif Dammik were co-chairs on the JAS. 1. Accreditation Discussion (continued) [Reading from 3. Problems to solve in the Google Doc. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve…] · Donna expanded on the notion on RSP ability to interact directly with ICANN re: technical issues. · Re: 3.d. -- This is an immediate issue -- portability of TLDs: The process for Registry Operator switching backend providers is unpredictable. Improve ability to switch RSPs. Can this be taken up more quickly? Perhaps by GDD? · Staff: The GDD is looking at that topic -- RSP certification. One thing in particular is the community input model at ICANN57. How best to ensure that community input is taken into account. Not sure what that model will be. Probably provide a proposed model and get input. 2. Applicant Support · Look at the normative view of should the developing economies have the ability to get new gTLDs and is the program for the developed economies prohibitive for them? Demand is not a good guidance parameter. · Copied from the chat room: Avri Doria: a bit more on the Applicant Support program, the GAC had several recommendation on applicant support at the time, with specific recommendations that we need to include in the next pass at this discussion. · A survey of new gTLD prospects being prepared for the CCT RT that might be useful as input to this aspect of the discussion 3. Applicant Guidebook · Anything in Module 1 that really sticks out as an issue? Or in the AGB itself? What were the problems in each subject matter? · All of these topics are being discussed by the various Sub Teams. · JAS Report: Application Process: The timeline for changes in application content was an issue. Several applicants say that the process of making admissible changes, especially the time line, needed clarity. · Copied from the chat room: o Jeff Neuman: A couple of questions: Is this the right format for applications for new TLDs? Should there be additional topics to be included in the AG? Was there too much information in the AG (background)? Was there not enough information on certain topics? o Carlton Samuels: @Registry Service Reviews: This is where the idea of a set of accredited RSPs would be useful; that process would be a black box to the application process with just an on-ramp to the Application process. Declare you will use an accredited RSP and that’s it. · Should there be different AGBs for different perspectives? · Could be one AGB with extensions. Whatever vehicle is used will need to be accessible and available to all. · What was discussed was potentially have an AG for RSPs, one for Escrow Providers, a separate document that discusses the RPMs, etc. · Modules allow the AGB to be scalable. Continue with the format. · Based on feedback: Seem to have the right format. Anything in module 1 or 2 that will need a deeper dive or more details? · Coordinate with other work tracks on the content. This topic could revisited after work is done on the various topics. Could rearrange the timeline of work to address this at the end. · Add: A discussion of merging in of all the other documents that came out later into the AGB.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> 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#nov> ** 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 18 October 2016 Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Jeff Neuman:Hello all....i am in a noisy place so will mostly participate via chat:) Terri Agnew:thanks for this information Jeff Carlton Samuels:Hi everybody Christa Taylor:go ahead one min Steve Chan:@Christa, if you can dial-in, it's more reliable than the AC room Vanda 2:i am listen only - noise room Donna Austin, RySG:I'm sorry I didn't get the input to the list earlier than I did. Emily Barabas:wip Emily Barabas:sorry for the delay Emily Barabas:everyone can now scroll themselves as needed Donna Austin, RySG:I think so Sara Vanda 2:from this region a list of acrredited service providers was the general answer I got in all intervews i have done in LAC region Jeff Neuman:thanks to Donna for providing her power point slides....i think it is a good basis for a proposal going forward. Donna Austin, RySG:What's the community input model? Steve Chan:@Donna, that's what the GDD is seeking input on - how to define it Donna Austin, RySG:thanks Steve Carlton Samuels:Quick question. For problem resolution, is this WS looking at making a recommendation for a Certification Scheme or an Accreditation Scheme? Jeff Neuman:Carlton - to level set, what is your defnition of each Jeff Neuman:definition Carlton Samuels:Certification = testing against a set of outcomes from a defined criteria Carlton Samuels:Accreditation = Ceding authority to an outside group to validate competence against a defined set of requirements Carlton Samuels:@Avri: +1 Justine Chew:s not a good guidance parameter on issue of demand because in this case demand isI agree with Avri Vanda 2:we have jsut finished an study from LAC region and the feedback can be useful. I have interviewd many potential new gTLds in several countries in LAC region and will add some coments on the lsit Carlton Samuels:Unfortunately can't talk. In a room with pothers Vanda 2:i can't talk either Vanda 2:could be a good idea Carlton Samuels:@Avri: Again, +1 for reading the AS WG report. Carlton Samuels:A survey of new gTLD prospects being prepared for the CCT RT that might be useful as input to this aspect of the discussion avri doria:Carlton weren't you the co-chair with Rafik of the JAS- Carlton Samuels:@Avri: Yes ma'am! avri doria:so sometime when you can speak, would be helpful for you to add a bunch. Carlton Samuels:@Christa: Will be happy to do that. Justine Chew 2:Sorry, my earlier comment got garbled. I meant to say I agree with Avri on the issue of demand because in this case demand is not a good guidance parameter. avri doria:a bit more on the Applicant Support program, the GAC had several recomendation on applicant support at the time, with specific recommendations that we need to include in the next pass at this discussion. Carlton Samuels:@Application Process: The timeline for changes in application content was an issue. Several applicants say that the process of making admissible changes, especially the time line, needed clarity Carlton Samuels:@AVri: +1. Those were also acknowledged in the JAS Report Vanda 2:@ avri - on organization that had tried to apply first round called ICANN several times for support during the application period and never got feedback.. Jeff Neuman:A couple of questions: Is this the right format for applications for new TLDs? Should there be additional topics to be included in the AG? Was there too much information in the AG (background)? Was there not enough information on certain topics? Carlton Samuels:@Registry Service Reviews: This is where the idea of a set of accredited RSPs would be useful; that process would be a black box to the applciation process with just a on-ramp to the Application process. Declare you will use an accredited RSP and thats it. Vanda 2:@ Carlton agree this shall be simplified Steve Chan:@Carlton, unless the WG were to mandate the usage of a cerfified RSP, you would still need to have those technical reviews available in the event the applicant wants to supply their own registry services Carlton Samuels:@Donna: +1 One authoritative document is desirable! Sub-processes should be described elsewhere in companion productions Mary Wong:Whatever vehicle is used ultimately, it will need to be accessible and available to all interested potentail applicants. Jeff Neuman:What was discussed was potentially have an AG for RSPs, one for Escrow Providers, a separate document that discusses the RPMs, etc. Jeff Neuman:This is an area we need to coordinate with the other work tracks Jeff Neuman:I think this topic was more for overall format......the rest will have to wait until the very end Jim Prendergast:its not specific to these particular sections but the translations into other languages need to be available much sooner. Vanda 2:TIME was the main issue related to first round in this region, information came too late on the timeline Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):true Vanda Michael Flemming (GMO):exciting Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):happy to end now at 0250 local time for me ;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx all bye for now then Jeff Neuman:thanks! Carlton Samuels:Jeez CLO, what a trooper! Justine Chew 2:Nope, thanks. Carlton Samuels:Thanks all

1 0

FW: dear colleagues
by Vanda Scartezini Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

This is a friendly reminder on the At-Large Review Survey. This is your opportunity to help improve the organization effectiveness of the At-Large Community. Please take the survey no later than 21 October 2016, make your voice heard! all communities have a say. Please participate!!!! Survey is available in 3 languages - English, French and Spanish English: http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/ 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. [cid:image001.png@01D2294A.18BC5480]

1 0

Agenda for Work Track 1 for Oct 18 at 15:00 UTC
by Christa Taylor Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC. 08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 16:00 London, 17:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/jcnfqsg Adobe Connect room: <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldsubteams/> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldsubteams/ The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Accreditation Discussion (continued) 4. Application Support 5. Applicant Guidebook 6. AOB Cheers, Christa Christa Taylor, B. Tech, CPA, CMA, MBA <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa(a)dottba.com <http://www.dottba.com/> www.dottba.com

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 SubTeam Meeting 03 October
by Steve Chan Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff 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 a substitute for the recording. See the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/x/tQ2bAw. Apologies for the late delivery – I knew I missed at least a few points and had to find time to review the recording. Best, Steve New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue Tuesday, 04 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC Apologies: Laura Watkins, Katrin Ohlmer, Vanda Scartezini, Ashley Roberts On audio only: Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Accreditation Discussion (continued) 4. Application Support 5. AOB Notes: 1. Accreditation Discussion (cont.) Why is it needed? Christa - Most efficient way to mange through the process to TLD delegation. Avoids repeating the same process over and over again in evaluation, PDT, etc. Jeff - Here were 7 reasons I gave on a previous email: 1. Will lead to lower application fees for registry operators. 2. Greater initial choice in back end operators 3. Quicker processing of applications if accreditation done in advance 4. consistency In evaluation results for registry operator 5. Quicker time to delegation as all pdt tests done in advance 6. Increases portability of back end registry operators and simplifies Icann processes to change back end operators 7. Could lessen costs and time for switching back end providers Donna - Applicant challenges to answering questions. Issues for RSPs going through PDP for every registry. RSP transition. Neustar is a large RSP, will likely have useful contributions to discussion. Can things be slowed down? Christa - Middle ground - make some progress and can continue to bring up next meeting (and beyond), since there are multiple passes for each topic. Jeff – Not making any final decisions on this meeting. Discussion began some time ago and will not end today. Not just about PDT. Also related to clarifying questions, inconsistencies in evaluation results, inability to streamline processes (e.g., applying same answer over many applications), more choices for RSPs, quicker delegation, increases portability. Should review the notes from GDD summit as well. Christa - Oct 2009 document discussed accreditation (e.g. phase 4 documentation). Might provide clues to what should be included in testing for “certification”, how time and money can be saved. Also provides proposal for pricing/cost. Donna - Only one solution has been considered. What other options are available? Could there be other methods to streamline, like only testing technical or PDT once for the same RSP? What are the technical requirements for ensuring DNS stability? Christa – look at other options during next meeting. Jeff - Should look at multiple solutions, though only one has been raised. Listed a number of advantages beyond just streamlining PDT. Suggested in GDD New gTLD Program Reviews. Christa - Have the processes been identified that would be considered as a part of “accreditation”? Avri - What about downsides? What benefits can be considered requirements versus nice to have? Cecilia - logistics, circulate materials via email ahead of the meeting. Would promote discussions on the call and email. Should also in general conduct email conversations. Jeff - GDD Summit - extensive discussions between front-end registries, registrars, and RSPs. Could help provide points for consideration, but need to include concerns from applicants and others. ACTION - collect benefits, disadvantages from these meetings and GDD Summit. May already be a part of deliberations Google Doc, but if not, can be added there. 2. Applicant Support Christa - AM Global Report – Confusion, dense, not accessible, not enough information, limited categories for applying, concerns about total cost for running a registry, infrastructure, lack of outreach, lack of traditional media outreach. Consult slides for fuller information. Only 3 applied and only 1 applicant passed the criteria (.Kids). There was also support beyond financial – consultants that would provide expertise. Michael – Good to look at criteria, process, what ASP really is. More background information would be good. Identify distinct issues. Avri - Previously called Joint Applicant Support, went to the ICANN Board, became Applicant Support. Highly complicated, scored evaluation akin to CPE. Issues - late in the process, challenging questions/criteria, still required outlay of money ($47k), minimal outreach done. Non material assistance also provided, separately (pro bono). Penalty if not passed (cancellation). ALAC research - registry industry (registrars and ccTLDs) ground was not properly laid well in advance (e.g., years in advance). Christa – Community-based project, underserved languages, NGOs, not-for profit, local entrepreneur, etc. Each category has points. Social benefit, financial need, financial capability (ability to continue registry as going concern). Anything that should be included or added for future rounds? What benefits were extended beyond just application (e.g., first year) Sara - Pros and cons for this program? Primarily resellers in the underserved regions, maybe lack registry industry infrastructure. Michael - Behind support for economically disadvantaged applicants. Need better outreach, more than just economic support, review the criteria – it’s not just based on region, process too complicated (process itself is not supportive itself). Benefit to brands? Christa – Applying a string to your company, not just a .brand. Recommend reviewing AM Global Report Jeff - CCT-RT surveys - should check their work (the AM Global Report is actually the report mentioned by Jeff). Get thoughts from those who developed ASP. Good topic for ICANN57 since input from GAC/ALAC/etc. would be useful? Should applicants who do not pass AS criteria be automatically failed? Avri - Part of JAS group, initially. Arguments around auto cancellation -> if you need the money, why would you move forward at full price? Could apply for additional funding in the meantime. Developing economy companies - population of possible registrants could be smaller. Christa - AM Global report focused on universal acceptance, developing economies – how do you target them in the most effective way? Sara - Does it make sense to integrate into capacity building efforts? Help drive the development of the criteria. Donna - IDN launch - registrars didn't support Arabic. Not much interest at the time in second-level Arabic domains. Need to help evaluate long-term viability/sustainability of TLD. ACTION - seek JAS alumni to discuss Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 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://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

New gTLDs, Work Track 1 - 4th Meeting - Proposed Agenda
by Sara Bockey Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear All, The 4th meeting for Work Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach - will take place on Tuesday, 04 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC 20:00 PDT (Monday), 23:00 EDT (Monday), 04:00 London, 05:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/gw35mwt Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldsubteams/ The proposed agenda is as follows 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Accreditation Discussion (continued) 4. Application Support 5. AOB Best regards, Sara Bockey 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.

7 7

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 04 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> 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#nov> ** 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 04 October 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on on Tuesday, 04 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC Terri Agnew: wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/-Qm4Aw Michael Flemming: Phil, you weere able to join us! Michael Flemming: Avri said she will be a few minutes late. Terri Agnew: thank you for the update Michael! Phil Buckingham: Lving and working Californian time this week ! Sara Bockey: hmmm Terri Agnew: @Sara, we are unable to hear you, please check your mute Terri Agnew: We can hear you now, thank you Sara. Jeff Neuman: Here were 7 reasons I gave on a previous email: 1. Will lead to lower application fees for registry operators.2. Greater initial choice in back end operators3. Quicker processing of applications if accreditation done in advance4. consistency In evaluation results for registry operator5. Quicker time to delegation as all pdt tests done in advance6. Increases portability of back end registry operators and simplifies Icann processes to change back end operators7. Could lessen costs and time for switching back end providers Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): That ll makes sense to me Jeff avri: there are going to be multiple passes through each topic Michael Flemming: Jeff has his hand up Justine Chew: Steve has also circulated some notes on the RSP certfication brainstorming notes from Amsterdam Sara Bockey: yes, we are slated to dicuss this topic throughout this subteam - we need to discuss addtional topics but that doesnt mean we are done with this topic Rubens Kuhl: I think the answer to the "GDD Summit" part was "no", and that became an ask from contracted parties for future editions. Jeff Neuman: @Rubens: I am not sure there was an answer at the Summit, but there were flip charts that we did with many pros and cons Berry Cobb: Link to notes from GDD summit: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.8+Accreditation+Programs Rubens Kuhl: "no" as in not having more structured capture of what was said there, not in being pro or con. Jeff Neuman: Thanks Berry....there are some pretty extensive notes Jeff Neuman: Donna - Have you proposed other options? Michael Flemming: More or less, we need to look at the Pros and Cons of the issue. Michael Flemming: I think just going over what was discussed at the GDD Summit would provide for input on that side. Steve Chan 2: Proposals might be good to discuss in between meeting on email? Cecilia Smith: I agree with Michael. We can't rely on what was discussed/captured on who was present at the GDD Summit. Rubens Kuhl: One possible downside that is frequently mentioned is "race to bottom". Berry Cobb: This is also a link to the GDD summit recording for those that may want to listen to that part of the session on this topic. https://www.icann.org/gddsummit Unfortunately, I do not recall which day and time Accredidation was discussed. Sara Bockey: @Steve - agree. i made a note to have those notes recirculated to the group Michael Flemming: @Cecilia, in addition to that, I think the GDD Summit captured a majority of the discussion from Registries, but less applicants opinion. Michael Flemming: applicants as being non-BERO parties Rubens Kuhl: GDD Summit activity on this had a few groups working in parallel so recording might not be that much representative. It was also somewhat more geared towards change of backend for 2012 TLDs, although having a future procedure in context. Michael Flemming: It is a "base" Cecilia Smith: Back@ Michael (in agreement), there are many applicants that did not partiicipant at the GDD for reasons including $$, location and late timing of agenda topics. Michael Flemming: There was only one applicant that actually met the criteria for Applicant Support, correct? Michael Flemming: .Kids Michael Flemming: Cecilia has her hand up as well. Rubens Kuhl: .kids, but it's still in accountability mechanisms disputes and likely going to an auction. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I thought it was just me finding it hard to hear Christa Steve Chan 2: I believe three applied, one passed - .kids as Michael pointed out. Michael Flemming: .kids, .idn and .ummah Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Gld to see your hnd up Avri mine was about to go up Steve Chan 2: The other two that did not meet the criteria were .IDN and .UMMAH Steve Chan 2: Details regarding the program available here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Berry Cobb: Listed on microsite: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Justine Chew: Agree with Michael, + an indication of why the other 2 did not pass, to get an idea of how to help future applicants Steve Chan 2: @Berry, jinx. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): WAY too complicated Christa Taylor: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Rubens Kuhl: In trying to prevent gaming, JAS gamed itself to death. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and poorly advertised or pushed out to the ares one would think could benefit most Berry Cobb: $40K as I recall Christa Taylor: $37k Steve Chan 2: $47k Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): WAY too late Really the whole thing was Too Little effort made Too Late in the program Justine Chew: So, factors were cost, timing of program, complexity of application process or program Rubens Kuhl: .IDN was also blocked due to being a reserved name. Christa Taylor: $47k you have it right Steve Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes we do need to go look it all over again Rubens Kuhl: IDN is the 3-letter code for Indonesia Cecilia Smith: So, just so I understand. It cost an applicant $47K to apply for applicant support. Only 3 applied and none were qualified? Sara Bockey: If anyone wants to view the google doc for this WG, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… Michael Flemming: So in order to apply for help to applying for a TLD, you have to apply through JAS? This includes not only financial support but also help on the questions for the TLD Application Process? If thats the case, being required to apply for help through a separate process kind of defeats the purpose of asking for help on the TLD Application questions. Michael Flemming: Oxymoronish Michael Flemming: My understanding might not be up to speed so I will take time to go over the background material before offering points of discussion. avri: no, JAS awas the WG that recommended aspects of the program, The Board and Staff designed the Applicant Support Program. avri: one had to go through the SARP, which was a judging panel Steve Chan 2: I do not believe the support extended beyond application either (e.g., running the registry, paying registry fees) avri: there may have been some first year considerations but i do not remember off hand Rubens Kuhl: Board left the door open for considering initial or recurring support, but not commiting to any. avri: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Rubens Kuhl: A streamlined distribution network, possibly not requiring registrars, might also work for TLDs targeted at economically-restricted communities. avri: the ASP? not at all for brands. Michael Flemming: Yeah, my apologies. I need to do more background reading before jumping to conclusions. avri: that is a good idea - to get some of JAS support folks into a conversation. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Huge Issue Jeff I agree I din't think it should either avri: i mentioned that undr the rubric of severe penalties for failure. i twas totally based on the fea of gaming. Rubens Kuhl: I believe there were thresholds - One could fail applicant support but not fail evaluation if their points were not so bad. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Well said Avri... It was all rather frustrating re these aspects IMO Justine Chew: Capacity building would require resources. Is there any possibility to reduce complexity? Meet halfway? avri: and certainly before UA, was not all that possible anyway avri: sustanability also has different defintions in the global south avri: i.e lowe salries, lower overjhead cost &c. avri: pardon the typos, please Rubens Kuhl: http://www.dnsec.eg/ is trying to develop such capacities in the middle east, including arabic speaking countries. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Very true Avri Justine Chew: Yes, the support is needed if there is demand, so need to promote program also. Terri Agnew: The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): No OB Jeff Neuman: Thanks all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thnks everyone Bye for now Justine Chew: Cheers. Michael Flemming: Thank you! Cecilia Smith: thanks!! avri: good buch of substance discussed today. thanks avri: ... bunch ... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Bye

1 0

Notes and Action Items for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Emily Barabas Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear All, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 September. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The MP3 recording is available at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar. Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: 20 September 2016 - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Work Plan Schedule/Subject Area and 4. Prioritization (continued) - Sara did a rough first pass at ordering categories and setting timeline, welcomes input (attached). - Current schedule: Alternate Tuesdays, rotating 3:00 UTC, 15:00 UTC, 20:00 UTC. - Sub team leads added timeline for community feedback to the overall timeline. The co-chairs have suggested providing 1-2 questions for CC2 or the group can send out its own request for community feedback. - Sara created a working document for the group, available in Google docs to help guide discussion. [Action Item: WG members are encouraged to add comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve…] - Topics/Questions for Work Track 1 -- no initial feedback provided. - The document originally had more background information. It is now more concise. Background information on each topic is available in the wiki. - Avri Doria: this is a good approximation for the topics for us to work on. 5. Accreditation Discussion (continued) - Sara Bockey: Task for today for the group: nail down terminology around accreditation program -- what are we looking to approve or certify them to do? - Paul McGrady: Primary goal if we decide to go forward with it - streamline the process, cut down number of people ICANN needs to review an application, drive down costs, increase accessibility of the marketplace for more businesses and organizations, including those unable to apply in the first round due to costs. - Jeff Neuman: We would be certifying that the provider meets or exceeds the technical requirements for the application process, so that applicants know there is a pool of providers that meet these criteria. We still need to determine those requirements. - Paul McGrady: Is this beneficial to backend providers or just applicants? - Jeff: It’s good for backend providers, too. They have certainty going in that they meet or exceed ICANN's requirements and can demonstrate this to applicants. Cheryl Langdon-Orr agrees. - Sara Bockey: Question 4 asks whether we should differentiate between new and existing providers who have already been through this process. - Jeff Neuman: Initially, he would require all backend providers to go through testing. He would not create criteria that go beyond those in the last applicant guidebook. It would be fair for everyone to go through the process at least once. Presumably it would be easy for existing providers to demonstrate they meet or exceed requirements. - Avri Doria: Wouldn't we need to consider the need for a periodic re-check? - Jeff Neuman: If this group determines that periodic checks are necessary, then yes. But maybe the periodic check can be satisfied by the fact that they are up and running, almost as more of an audit. Personal view: existing providers should not be treated differently from new providers. - Kurt Pritz: The accreditation program could be different than the requirements in the applicant guidebook. The accreditation program could demonstrate not only that the provider can operate the registry in accordance with technical requirements, but could also be a guarantee towards resiliency and stability. The criteria could include multiples of capacity to resist DDoS attacks and could address the latest threat matrices. These requirements might change over time, so the providers would need to prove that they are up to date. - Jeff Neuman: He likes what Kurt said. It would be good for the industry to have a check. But the fear is that ICANN is acting as a guarantor rather than certifying that providers meet minimum requirements. There is a risk of exposing ICANN to liability. If there's a way to do it that is voluntary or avoids having ICANN vouch for the providers’ capabilities, it’s a great idea. Maybe a third party could play a part in establishing the higher standard, or maybe this is left to the market. - Kurt Pritz: Correct, we are trying to improve resiliency but not guarantee it. - Laura Watkins: There are some concerns with the term “accredited,” as it has other connotations. Perhaps there is another more neutral term. - Jeff Neuman: Agrees that this term has raised concerns on the mailing list, as it implies that you have a legal agreement with ICANN. He prefers to move away from this term and prefers to say that ICANN is certifying that the provider meets or exceeds requirements. Does the term "certify" also have connotations that may raise concerns? Cheryl Langdon-Orr agrees with Jeff. - Sara Bockey: It sounds like we are talking about something between certification and accreditation. Certification is often a program to test and evaluate and accreditation is a formal declaration by a third party that the provider meets the standards. But what are the criteria we think are most important and who would perform the certification/accreditation? - Jeff Neuman: We don’t need to resolve criteria now. One option is to make a policy recommendation that it meets or exceeds requirements, and then kick it out to an implementation group or get input from WT4. WT4 could have some recommendations regarding criteria. We do not need to agree upon the specific criteria within this group. We can talk about the processes and procedures as appropriate. - Donna Austin: This is why we wanted to understand the problems we were trying to solve before we started talking about the solution. There may be more than one solution to the problems we believe accreditation or certification would solve. - Kurt Pritz: Agrees that writing the criteria is an implementation issue. Vanda agrees, as well. - Avri Doria: There may also be criteria that we would want to add regarding the capability to support multiple applicants. That might be a criterion we would want to add beyond basic pre-testing. - Donna Austin: ICANN identified that the ability to test for multiple registry operators was a fail in the first round and something that should be remedied. For those RSPs that have been operating ROs from the first round they have been doing so in accordance with the requirements of the RA after going through PDT. There may be ways to adjust PDT to test for x number of registry operations and domains under management. - Jeff Neuman: It would be possible to ask questions on capacity and scalability. There may be ways to make educated predictions based on responses to written questions. But it is hard to directly test that. - Cheryl Landon-Orr: Do we need an action item to summarize issues for sub team 4? - Jeff Neuman: If this sub team makes a recommendation on this issue, it would go to the full group and then be referred to sub team 4. No immediate action item needed now. - Yasmin Omer: Has this group made a distinction between 1) a RSP demonstrating its ability to manage the critical registry functions (effectively what the application process was) and 2) the RSPs ability to actually manage the critical registry functions (what Pre-Delegation Testing was). Is the scope of this group limited to point 1 or does it extend to point 2? - Jeff Neuman: At this point, the only recommendation we have agreed upon is #1 in Yasmin's comment, but #1 could include pre-delegation testing. Jeff wouldn't want to go much further, as #2 might create liability for ICANN. - Paul McGrady: Is there a lesson to be learned from academia or health care regarding whether accreditation by a third party results in liability for the third party in the event that the accredited party does not end up being “up to snuff?” Could we dig around in some of these spaces? - Jeff Neuman: The first thing that comes to mind is an auditor. An auditor will certify that you’re able to do what you said you could do, but not that what you can do meets a certain standard. They do this for same reason related to liability. Someone can do this research if they want. - Donna Austin: As the entity responsible for security and stability of the Internet, isn't ICANN going to be liable if a registry fails or compromises SSR in some way? - Jeff Neuman: He does not believe that it is the case with the certification process carefully designed. - Laura Watkins: When we refer to the process of "Accreditation" are we inventing a new process for future rounds? Or was this something that took place as part of pre-delegation testing last time and the discussion is just about moving it to earlier in the process in the future? - Jeff Neuman: The question gets to the heart of the criteria. We talked about this as a way to go through the process once instead of hundreds or thousands of time. It would be great to move the application process and pre-delegation testing process to being at the same point (to be required for approval). But we are not setting the criteria now. We first need to all agree on the policy. - Sara Bockey: How would this program be funded? - Jeff Neuman: He believes it should be strictly cost recovery funded by the RSPs. - Donna Austin: This assumes one solution and I'm not sure this is a question we need to get into at this point. Katrin Ohlmer agrees. - Jeff Neuman: If this is a program we agree on, this would be a voluntary program, on a cost recovery basis. We have to define what costs are included in cost recovery and make sure it doesn’t go beyond costs for administering the program itself. - Avri Doria: Cost recovery is dangerous since that leaves so many costs up to interpretations. If we are going to say cost recovery, we have to be careful how we say it and specify what is included. - Vanda: Agrees with Avri on costs. - Katrin Ohlmer 2: The cost should be fixed. - Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fixed costs are ok where they are agreed and predictable. - Jeff Neuman: Asked for clarification from Donna on the list regarding points raised in the chat. He wants to make sure that if they develop a proposal, everyone is behind it. Otherwise, it looks like the group is headed towards preliminary recommendations. Steve Chan (Staff): Echoing Donna's comment, he suggests identifying and document the problem we are trying to solve and then come up with requirements. [Action Item: Go back to notes about this topic in previous conversation including pros and cons identified by the Contracted Parties at the GDD Summit] Jeff Neuman: We have had conversations about pros/cons/issues in the full group. Kurt also put out a paper on pros/cons. Kurt Pritz: Here are some problems we are trying to solve: (1) the application process was clunky and repetitive w/o any benefit for the extra cost; (2) little in the existing PDT criteria serves stability and resiliency, i.e., capacity in excess of activity or addressing threats; (3) the process for R.O. switching backend providers in unpredictable; 6. Application Support (if time permits) - This topic was not discussed 7. AOB - none From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 20 September 2016 at 23:38 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> 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#nov> ** 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 20 September 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call held on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/rxWsAw Vanda:hi all !!! Vanda:yes Laura Watkins:Hi. I sent apologies but have been able to join after all. Terri Agnew:@Sara, your audio seems fine Terri Agnew:@Laura, thank you, apology has been removed Laura Watkins:Thanks @Terri - sorry Terri Agnew:@Laura, happy it worked out you could join Emily Barabas:Everyone can now scroll and zoom in the center pod Avri Doria:i think it is a good new approximation for the ST to work from. Vanda:from the sudy we had in this region service providers list would be encouraging for potential applicants here Paul McGrady:HI everyone. Sorry to be late. Emily Barabas:Link to Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… Terri Agnew:Please remember to mute when not speaking Emily Barabas:Everyone can now scroll Emily Barabas:and zoon Emily Barabas:zoom Paul:Wow, this document is beautiful. Thanks so much for all the hard work on this. It gives us a clear path forward for meaningful discussion. Paul:@Jeff, is this beneficial to backend providers too or just applicants? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Jeff Paul:@Jeff, thanks! A rare win/win. Katrin Ohlmer 2:+1 Jeff! That has been a big issue in the prevoious round Phil Buckingham:+1 Katrin Phil Buckingham: Periodic check in the form of an "audit " once a year Avri Doria:up and running with no comlaints/problems. agree that at time 0, all should go through the first testing. Paul:@Jeff, Seems fair. Terri Agnew:@Laura, we are unable to hear you, you are unmuted on the AC. Please check mute on your side Donna Austin, Neustar:Apologies for being late. Kurt Pritz:@Jeff: correct. Setting criteria has to be done very carefully and I should not have used the word "guarantee." We are try to improve resiliency but not guarantee it. Laura Watkins:Seems my mic is not working. I wanted to raise that there are some concerns with the term "accredited" as it has other connotations as Jeff has just mentioned. Perhaps there is another more neutral term that could be used? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree again Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:I'm sorry I don't have audio. This is why we wanted to understand the problems we were trying to solve before we started talking about the solution. Donna Austin, Neustar:There may be more than one solution to the problems we believe accreditation or certification would solve. Kurt Pritz:I agree that writing the criteria is an implementation issue. Developing criteria in other arenas has been a highly contentious process where industry participants try to write criteria that are well-suited to their operation. The criteria writing should be led by a strong independent party. Vanda:agree Kurt Paul:@Kurt - good advice. Vanda:yes. Jeff Neuman:@Donna - If you listen to the beginning of the call, I went through how I believe this is a win-win situation from applicants and beck end providers Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Jeff I note the referal to WT4 here, but would aappreciate a short articulation of the 'issues as identified by this WT" perhaps framed as a few simple questions, for us in WT4 to list in our WP and ensure we effectively deal with... Perhaps an AI Sara? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Avre - ICANN identified that the ability to test for multiple registry operators was a fail in the first round and something that should be remedied. For those RSPs that have been operating ROs from the first round they have been doing so in accordance with the requirements of the RA after going through PDT. There may be ways to adjust PDT to test for x number of registry operations and domains under management. Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:Apologies for joining this group late, has this group made a distinction between 1) a RSP demonstrating its ability to manage the critical registry functions (effectively what the application process was) and 2) the RSPs ability to actually manage the critical registry functions (what Pre-Delegation Testing was). Is the scope of this group limited to point 1 or does it extend to point 2? Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry Avri Laura Watkins:When we refer to the process of "Accreditation" are we inventing a new process for future rounds? Or was this something that took place as part of pre-delegation testing last time and the discussion is just about moving it to earlier in the process in the future? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):WP means Work Plan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):No Not yet to work on BUT to ensure we do address the secifics of anaything from this WT to WT4 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):just don't want thngs to slip through the cracks NOR have this group do more thna needed Paul:AI = Action Item WP= Work Plan CLO = Alfonso Bonilla Aragón International Airport :) Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:As the entity responsible for security and stability of the Internet, isn't ICANN going to be liable if a registry fails or compromises SSR in some way? Paul:Thanks Jeff. Jeff Neuman:@Donna - I dont believe that with a certification process carefully designed, no Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Sara, I'll review the earlier part of the call. Paul:All, I have to switch to phone only. Jeff Neuman:@Paul - we will miss you witty written banter Jeff Neuman:I believe it should be strictly cost recovery funded by the RSPs Donna Austin, Neustar:Sara, this assumes one solution and I'm not sure this is a question we need to get into at this point. Katrin Ohlmer 2:@ Jeff: I agree Avri Doria:cost recorvery is dangerous since that leaves so many costs up to interpretations Katrin Ohlmer 2:@Avri: The cost should be fixed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):FIXED COSTS IS OK where they are agreed and redictable Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Predictable Phil Buckingham:Yes -out of the auction proceeds or Fixed price contract with an independant third party Vanda:nice music around... Donna Austin, Neustar:You rapping away there Jeff Avri Doria:i did for a few seconds Terri Agnew:it ended so quickly I was unable to find which line it was coming from Cecilia Smith:It was DEFINITELY Jeff's music... Vanda:agree with Avri about costs.. Donna Austin, Neustar:I will, noting that I am currently on vacation so it will not be timely, but it's not the first time I've requested that we start with identifying the problems before jumping to solutions. Emily Barabas:Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… Jeff Neuman:No problem Donna. Just want to make sure your thoughts and comments are brought out Avri Doria:yes, everybody, lets not wait for the next call to do mmore work on this. Avri Doria:thank you good call Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Donna - identify the problem(s) first Emily Barabas:Next meeting: Tuesday 4 October at 3:00 UTC Kurt Pritz:Here are some problems we are trying to solve: (1) the application process was clunky and repetitive w/o any benefit for the extra cost; (2) little in the existing PDT criteria serves stability and resiliency, i.e., capacity in excess of activity or addressing threats; (3) the process for R.O. switching backend providers in unpredictable; Kurt Pritz:(4) Avri's point that the capacity for providing back end services is not tested Avri Doria:i think there may be enough in the previous docs for synthesis of the questions asked. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Sara and everyone... good call ... talk again soon... bye for now Avri Doria:yes safe to end. thanks Jeff Neuman:The other item I would like to get are the pros and cons identified by the Contracted Parties at the GDD Summitt Katrin Ohlmer 2:thank you everyone Laura Watkins:Thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Kurt Pritz:good job Sara Vanda:buy all Jeff Neuman:Can we please track those down. I know we did those on flip charts at the GDD Summit Steve Chan:@Jeff, yes, i can get those from GDD staff Steve Chan:or, i will try that is

1 0

[gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] - Notes from RSP Certification/Accreditation brainstorming session at GDD Summit
by Steve Chan Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear WT1 Members, Even for those that participated in today’s call, you may not have seen the request from Jeff Neuman in the chat to track down the notes from a brainstorming session on a potential RSP Certification/Accreditation program that took place at the GDD Summit in Amsterdam. Please find those notes attached to this email or available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/KT2AAw In addition, I’m pleased to inform you that Francisco Arias, who is part of the Global Domains Division, will be participating in this work track and lending his technical and operational expertise to the WT’s deliberations, particularly on this subject. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 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://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> 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#nov> ** 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 20 September 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call held on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/rxWsAw Vanda:hi all !!! Vanda:yes Laura Watkins:Hi. I sent apologies but have been able to join after all. Terri Agnew:@Sara, your audio seems fine Terri Agnew:@Laura, thank you, apology has been removed Laura Watkins:Thanks @Terri - sorry Terri Agnew:@Laura, happy it worked out you could join Emily Barabas:Everyone can now scroll and zoom in the center pod Avri Doria:i think it is a good new approximation for the ST to work from. Vanda:from the sudy we had in this region service providers list would be encouraging for potential applicants here Paul McGrady:HI everyone. Sorry to be late. Emily Barabas:Link to Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… Terri Agnew:Please remember to mute when not speaking Emily Barabas:Everyone can now scroll Emily Barabas:and zoon Emily Barabas:zoom Paul:Wow, this document is beautiful. Thanks so much for all the hard work on this. It gives us a clear path forward for meaningful discussion. Paul:@Jeff, is this beneficial to backend providers too or just applicants? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Jeff Paul:@Jeff, thanks! A rare win/win. Katrin Ohlmer 2:+1 Jeff! That has been a big issue in the prevoious round Phil Buckingham:+1 Katrin Phil Buckingham: Periodic check in the form of an "audit " once a year Avri Doria:up and running with no comlaints/problems. agree that at time 0, all should go through the first testing. Paul:@Jeff, Seems fair. Terri Agnew:@Laura, we are unable to hear you, you are unmuted on the AC. Please check mute on your side Donna Austin, Neustar:Apologies for being late. Kurt Pritz:@Jeff: correct. Setting criteria has to be done very carefully and I should not have used the word "guarantee." We are try to improve resiliency but not guarantee it. Laura Watkins:Seems my mic is not working. I wanted to raise that there are some concerns with the term "accredited" as it has other connotations as Jeff has just mentioned. Perhaps there is another more neutral term that could be used? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree again Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:I'm sorry I don't have audio. This is why we wanted to understand the problems we were trying to solve before we started talking about the solution. Donna Austin, Neustar:There may be more than one solution to the problems we believe accreditation or certification would solve. Kurt Pritz:I agree that writing the criteria is an implementation issue. Developing criteria in other arenas has been a highly contentious process where industry participants try to write criteria that are well-suited to their operation. The criteria writing should be led by a strong independent party. Vanda:agree Kurt Paul:@Kurt - good advice. Vanda:yes. Jeff Neuman:@Donna - If you listen to the beginning of the call, I went through how I believe this is a win-win situation from applicants and beck end providers Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Jeff I note the referal to WT4 here, but would aappreciate a short articulation of the 'issues as identified by this WT" perhaps framed as a few simple questions, for us in WT4 to list in our WP and ensure we effectively deal with... Perhaps an AI Sara? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Avre - ICANN identified that the ability to test for multiple registry operators was a fail in the first round and something that should be remedied. For those RSPs that have been operating ROs from the first round they have been doing so in accordance with the requirements of the RA after going through PDT. There may be ways to adjust PDT to test for x number of registry operations and domains under management. Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:Apologies for joining this group late, has this group made a distinction between 1) a RSP demonstrating its ability to manage the critical registry functions (effectively what the application process was) and 2) the RSPs ability to actually manage the critical registry functions (what Pre-Delegation Testing was). Is the scope of this group limited to point 1 or does it extend to point 2? Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry Avri Laura Watkins:When we refer to the process of "Accreditation" are we inventing a new process for future rounds? Or was this something that took place as part of pre-delegation testing last time and the discussion is just about moving it to earlier in the process in the future? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):WP means Work Plan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):No Not yet to work on BUT to ensure we do address the secifics of anaything from this WT to WT4 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):just don't want thngs to slip through the cracks NOR have this group do more thna needed Paul:AI = Action Item WP= Work Plan CLO = Alfonso Bonilla Aragón International Airport :) Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:As the entity responsible for security and stability of the Internet, isn't ICANN going to be liable if a registry fails or compromises SSR in some way? Paul:Thanks Jeff. Jeff Neuman:@Donna - I dont believe that with a certification process carefully designed, no Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Sara, I'll review the earlier part of the call. Paul:All, I have to switch to phone only. Jeff Neuman:@Paul - we will miss you witty written banter Jeff Neuman:I believe it should be strictly cost recovery funded by the RSPs Donna Austin, Neustar:Sara, this assumes one solution and I'm not sure this is a question we need to get into at this point. Katrin Ohlmer 2:@ Jeff: I agree Avri Doria:cost recorvery is dangerous since that leaves so many costs up to interpretations Katrin Ohlmer 2:@Avri: The cost should be fixed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):FIXED COSTS IS OK where they are agreed and redictable Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Predictable Phil Buckingham:Yes -out of the auction proceeds or Fixed price contract with an independant third party Vanda:nice music around... Donna Austin, Neustar:You rapping away there Jeff Avri Doria:i did for a few seconds Terri Agnew:it ended so quickly I was unable to find which line it was coming from Cecilia Smith:It was DEFINITELY Jeff's music... Vanda:agree with Avri about costs.. Donna Austin, Neustar:I will, noting that I am currently on vacation so it will not be timely, but it's not the first time I've requested that we start with identifying the problems before jumping to solutions. Emily Barabas:Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… Jeff Neuman:No problem Donna. Just want to make sure your thoughts and comments are brought out Avri Doria:yes, everybody, lets not wait for the next call to do mmore work on this. Avri Doria:thank you good call Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Donna - identify the problem(s) first Emily Barabas:Next meeting: Tuesday 4 October at 3:00 UTC Kurt Pritz:Here are some problems we are trying to solve: (1) the application process was clunky and repetitive w/o any benefit for the extra cost; (2) little in the existing PDT criteria serves stability and resiliency, i.e., capacity in excess of activity or addressing threats; (3) the process for R.O. switching backend providers in unpredictable; Kurt Pritz:(4) Avri's point that the capacity for providing back end services is not tested Avri Doria:i think there may be enough in the previous docs for synthesis of the questions asked. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Sara and everyone... good call ... talk again soon... bye for now Avri Doria:yes safe to end. thanks Jeff Neuman:The other item I would like to get are the pros and cons identified by the Contracted Parties at the GDD Summitt Katrin Ohlmer 2:thank you everyone Laura Watkins:Thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Kurt Pritz:good job Sara Vanda:buy all Jeff Neuman:Can we please track those down. I know we did those on flip charts at the GDD Summit Steve Chan:@Jeff, yes, i can get those from GDD staff Steve Chan:or, i will try that is

1 0

New gTLDs, Work Track 1 - Third Meeting - Proposed Agenda
by Sara Bockey Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

Dear All, The 3rd meeting for Work Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach - will take place on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. 13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 21:00 London, 22:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/gs9ehqt Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldsubteams/ The proposed agenda is as follows 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Work Plan Schedule/Subject Area Prioritization (continued) 4. Accreditation Discussion (continued) 5. Application Support (if time permits) 6. AOB Best regards, Sara Bockey

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 06 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Dear Sub Team members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 06 September. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track 1 Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. In addition, please see the excerpted table from the Final Issue Report that was referenced during the meeting that shows topics where policy development may apply. This also is posted to the wiki on the Background Documents and Information page at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001980 along with the link to the Final Issue Report. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 06 September 1. Subject Area Work Plan: Discussion Notes: · Question: What do we mean by "Applicant Guidebook"? Answer -- Jeff Neuman: There are a couple of questions associated with this. They are listed in the Final Issues Report. Also on the Work Track 1 Sub Team topic page at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490732. · Prioritization: Policy vs. implementation. AGB would probably fall into implementation. Need to think about prioritization before deciding on the work plan. However, if there is no preference there is no reason to change the order. It was already decided to start with accreditation. · Question: Donna Austin -- Need to prioritize what is policy? Answer: Jeff Neuman -- Prioritize in terms of subjects. · Vanda Scartezini -- prioritize communication. · All topics may have policy and implementation aspects. Prioritize on policy versus implementation -- look at Final Issue Report. · Also look at clustering related topics., such as AGB. · Accreditation is a priority; clarity of the application process; leave systems and queuing for after other topics. 2. Prioritization of Work: Action Items: Christa and Sara will do a first pass on a draft of the prioritization. Discussion Notes: · Number 1 (to run concurrently): Accreditation -- think about pros and cons for RSPs. To what extent can we use the 2012 process? Also, support for applicants from developing countries (but applicant support may be ongoing because of dependencies with other topics) · Number 2: AGB. · Outreach to the community: Need to decide the questions first. Good to do in the near future. 3. Work Methods: Discussion Notes: Consider whether to use Google docs and or other tools.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 06 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> 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#nov> ** 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 06 September 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call held on Tuesday, 06 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/rRWsAw Christa Taylor:one moment Jeff Neuman:hello all Michael Flemming:Hello Paul McGrady:Good morning/afternoon/evening. vanda:hi everyone. Emily Barabas:Yes, everyone should be able to scroll Emily Barabas:Click the minus sign at the bottom of the window to zoom out, if needed Emily Barabas:A list of topics covered by this sub team: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490732 vanda:one of the main problems in our survey here is communication so I would liek to have some focus on that as one of the most relevant issue to succeed vanda:i am in a noise environment, but will participate writing in this chat Paul McGrady:@Jeff. Thanks for the clarity. Rubens Kuhl:Actually I'm in Adobe Connect, not Audio Only... Avri Doria:had audio problems and had to reboot. back now. Terri Agnew:@Rubens, I will update that in a moment Rubens Kuhl:@Terri, no rush. vanda:@rubens. yes, I can talk but with kids in a noise environment - will disturb the call Steve Coates:Apologies, my computer shut down. I'm back. Donna Austin, Neustar:Are we prioritising to decide what is policy? Phil Buckingham:I agree Rubenss - topics that will require a PDP/new policy will take longer , so I agree - to prioritise .identify topics on that basis . Jeff Neuman:Donna - prioritizing in terms of subjects Michael Flemming:I believe we are prioritizing the order as well as the time in which we will be looking at each individual topic. Once we reach each topic we will begin discussing about implementation or policy, perhaps. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):It's 0115 and the house is asleep I prefer to type if needs be Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I agree Michael Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Smaller groups of couerse means MOR meetings I assume ad you will still need to come back to the WT as a whole periodocaalaly and then to the ful WG Laura Watkins (Nominet):My mic didn't seem to be working. I have a process question - I'm not clear how the process will work in terms of going through the work items. For example - the first item on the list is "Accreditation programs" - how in depth will these discussions be? Will the group work on this to propose a solution or will the discussions simply identify if a PDP process is needed in that area? Terri Agnew:@Laura, I have sent you a private AC chat to help Donna Austin, Neustar:@Cheryl--fair points. Rubens Kuhl:Steve has his hand raised. Jeff Neuman:welcome back Steve Paul McGrady:@Steve Chan - couldn't we just color code them on our chart for clarity? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Great to have you back Steve vanda:accresditation services is another relevant point raised in our survey about gtlds here in LAC region. Steve Chan:I believe there is a chart in the final issue report as well, with check marks (as opposed to color coding Paul), to have a quick reference guide Steve Chan:However, this is my first day back, so my memory might be challenged :) Rubens Kuhl:Steve, is there an XLSX/OpenCalc/GoogleSheet version of it ? Donna Austin, Neustar:What do we mean by 'variable fees'? Is that the ongoing fee the registry operator pays? Paul McGrady:@Steve, welcome back. ICANNland missed you. Samantha Demetriou:One way to do this might be to set up a Google doc that lists the final report recommendations and the existing questions. That way people can add additional questions/items to be addressed and indicate if they are policy or implementation.From there we can prioritize the topics that have the most policy items that need to be decided. Julie Hedlund:All -- I will find the table and send it around. Sara Bockey:Here is the question posed for Variable fees Sara Bockey:Variable Fees: Should the New gTLD application fee be variable based on such factors as application type (e.g., open or closed registries), multiple identical applications, or other factor? Avri Doria:would be good, perhaps, to also be able to display that table. Phil Buckingham:CLO - Google docs - a good idea Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Sara Samantha Demetriou:Systems to me seem to be somewhat unique and almost entirely implementation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Well Phil, that can allow for more asymetric inut as well... As long as we also use the mailing lit to remind the wifer WT to make inout and nte any major ugrades of the Docs (or similar to Docs Wiki for example) Rubens Kuhl:The idea is to prioritize based on whether it looks like policy, not a final determination on whether it is or it is not. Avri Doria:In fact one of the outcomes of the policy & Implementation work, it was discovered that each issues has both elements in it, just the proportionality differes at different times in the project. At this point when we are reviewing the difference matters less. Rubens Kuhl:Prioritization only specifies order, not inclusion or exclusion. Avri Doria:we are already moving 4 tracks in parrlalel, more tracks becomes a complexity mightmare. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Tht is my concern Avri jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):There are lots of dependencies between the tracks - at least seen from the exterior of somebody unable to follow everything... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Can we have scroll control? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):THx Avri Doria:but having individuals take reposnsiblity for doing a first take and brining it back to the subteam can be useful Julie Hedlund:@CLO: It is unsynced. Phil Buckingham:Surely we have to identify policy issues first because they are going to take much longer , than an implementation , operational issues . We need to put in place a critical path / project manage this . Laura Watkins (Nominet):+1 jorge Kurt Pritz:Each item in the list has a policy and implementation aspect. We should decide the policy for a particular item first, then move on to any implementation advice we have. E.g., for accreditation, is our policy to have an accreditation program to: make the application process as cheap and fast as possible, ensure DNS stability and resiliency, encourage diversity, etc. When we decide that, we move on to implementation advice. \ Phil Buckingham:+ Kurt Rubens Kuhl:Kurt, the policy item here is whether technical competence needs to be shown beforehand or not... Rubens Kuhl:.... beforehand is what is written in policy now, but accreditation/certification could allow for selecting a technical provider after. Jeff Neuman:@rubens, that may be part of it, but I think the policy is also about increasing choice, competition, cheaper application fees, etc Jeff Neuman:you can select before or after, but pick from a list of those that are "pre-approved" Steve Coates:That sounds way too pragmatic. Let's make it more difficult. Steve Coates:Just kidding. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:You sure Steve ;-) jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):What will be looking at when talking about the AGB? Its contents or its format? Rubens Kuhl:@Jeff, you are right. Some people have read "increasing choice and competition" as a ban of accreditation programs, so we need this cleared out, indeed. Rubens Kuhl:We could call it "Clusters". Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:A "Work Prder" perhaps Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: Work Order Paul McGrady:How about "Issue Pace"? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:agreed Jeff jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):On applicant support it would probably be good to liaise specifically with the GAC WG on underserved regions vanda:i have it cheryl Kurt Pritz:Applicant Support will be somewhat dependent on what the application fees and variable fees are Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Starting and run in parallel yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:as HJeff said 'ending is another matter all together' Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jorge, it would be helpful to encourage member of the GAC WG to participate in the topic discussion jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):And the applicant fees may be dependent on whether we have categories... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Exactly Avri we can always take 'another run at things' esoecially where there are interdependencies jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Donna: "we" are trying - but a specific outreach (e.g. with questions ) could help to get their input Michael Flemming:Just one moment Kurt Pritz:We could start with policy reasons for having such a program. An accreditaion program for RSPs should be implemented because: (1) it will improve application processing efficiency; (2) it will improve DNS security, stability, resiliency; (3) it could improve diversity. Which one or more of these? jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Sounds good Kurt. How does it improve diversity? (just to better understand) Kurt Pritz:@ Michael: I think the members of this group ARE the community. Any community member who wanted to participate is welcome. I don't understand the need for the additional attempt at consutation to those that were already invited. vanda:@kurt + 1 Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH:@kurt: +1 Avri Doria:well we need schedules to give us timelines as goals to work toward. Michael Flemming:@Kurt, I would agree that constituincy comment requires rather a lot of work and should only be done as necessary. I agree with Avri in regards to needing to know what our questions are before drafting them, that is why I had doubts in regards to the drafted schedule. I think we only need to ask questions as necessary. Michael Flemming:@Avri, I understand and they are very much appreciated. Without those schedules, I wouldn't be able to ask such questions. Avri Doria:Michael, but constituency comments are a required part of the process before developing recommendations. Michael Flemming:Of course Avri Doria:i mean community comments Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Excellent point Donna vanda:I am finishing the survey here and will have more clear information about accreditation, but already can say services accredited list of services is considered very important for future application vanda:sorry will need to leave.. conflict calls. Avri Doria:true Donna, is it enough to say on an application - will use a certified provider. Terri Agnew:Next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Terri Jeff Neuman:great job Sara and Christa Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Has invte(s) been seny yet for the following calls? Michael Flemming:Yes, amazing job! Michael Flemming:Phil and I will deliver on Thursday. Avri Doria:and thanks to Sara and Christa for being the first of the subgroups to take the track further. Rubens Kuhl:Tks Sara, Christa, staff! Terri Agnew:@Cheryl, next call for this group will be sent shortly Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Sara and Christa Ashley Roberts:Thanks Sara ad Christa. Alexander Schubert:Bye everyone! Cecilia Smith:Thank you both! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Great start everyone Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH:thanks jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks and bye Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Talk agan soon Phil Buckingham:Well done Christa and Sara for kicking this off . Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye for now

1 0

[gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Second Meeting Proposed Agenda
by Sara Bockey Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Dear All, The 2nd meeting for Work Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach - will take place on Tuesday, 06 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. This will be the first meeting that Christa Taylor and I will be co-chairing and we apologize for the delay in circulating our proposed agenda. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Work Plan Schedule/Subject Area Prioritization 4. Work Methods 5. Accreditation Discussion 6. AOB Best regards, Sara Bockey

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 31, 2016

Aug. 31, 2016

All, This is a great discussion and I believe we should document all of these pros and cons for WT1. Terminology (certification vs. accreditation vs. something else) will be important as we go down this path, but for now I would encourage us to stick to the concept of a voluntary process to pre-evaluate a registry-services provider such that it would not require a “re-evaluation” every single time it was associated with a new TLD application. This is the concept that I think of when we talk about this subject. All of the other issues we will need to address as well. Are they under contract with ICANN? If so, what does that contract look like? If they are under contract, would that be more akin to the types of MoUs that they have with EBEROs, Escrow Providers, etc. or more like a contract that they have with registrars? Under what circumstances, if any, would they need to be re-evaluated? WT-1 now has this issue and we will re-circulate the notes that have the problems which we are trying to solve and benefits. The benefits of having a “pre-evaluation process” would include (a) having consistency in evaluation results, (b) improving competition by allowing other third parties to become RSPs, (c) presumably lower TLD application fees for registry operators (since that part of the evaluation would not have to be performed every time), (d) lessening overall TLD application processing time. We can post the other benefits we came up with. We also need to document the negatives that have been pointed out such that if we did establish this pre-approval process, we design that process in such a way to avoid the negatives. Hope that all makes sense. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 3:54 PM To: 'Austin, Donna' <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz>; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele(a)blacknight.com>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk(a)nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services We should consider whether “accreditation” might be the better concept – if we have a perpetually open round top levels may become the new second levels as new brands roll out, reducing the dependence on the registrar layer. I’m not wed to the idea, but I see back-end registry service providers becoming increasingly important in the ecosystem. “Accreditation” would not only speed evaluation, but could provide some level of buying comfort to a potential new registry (similar to what registrar accreditation does for the second level end user). For what it’s worth and not in any way dogmatic. Just thinking out loud. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy(a)paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:28 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services I agree with Michele that the choice of words is quite important, which is why I’m interested to understand what people mean when they say accreditation. There are many who believe that ‘accreditation’ will solve a number of problems, but I think that depends on what you mean by accreditation and the problems you’re trying to solve. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:30 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Rubens The choice of words, at least in my view, is quite important. Accreditation in ICANN-land infers creating contractual relationships that may not be desirable for anyone. Certification or “approval” suggests that the entity has met certain requirements either via some form of test or by stating that they’d do (or not do) certain things. Both options create a form of standard. As for the data – I disagree. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.host_&d=…> http://blacknight.blog/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DQQG…> http://www.blacknight.press<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.press&d=…> - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.technology.ie&d=DQQ…> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mneylon.social&d=DQMGaQ…> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__michele.irish&d=DQMGaQ&…> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Date: Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18 To: Michele Neylon <michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Em 30 de ago de 2016, à(s) 06:05:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> escreveu: What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider. Data is already stored at escrow provider, so the easier way for a registry to get its data is authorizing the escrow provider to allow a different backend to access data. One obligation that is more interesting to impose on backend providers is to cooperate with the transition, notably the DNSSEC transition. While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt. I'm neutral on wording. Rubens

2 1

Provision of back-end registry services
by Austin, Donna Aug. 29, 2016

Aug. 29, 2016

Hi All A working group of the RySG has been formed to consider a number of topics being discussed as part of this PDP. On Friday I posted the following email to the list, which resulted in quite a bit of discussion. I'm working through the ensuing discussion and will attempt to provide a summary for this group. Sara, I think RSP Accreditation will be discussed as part of WG 1 and request that this input be taken into account. I repost my email to this list for information and also to encourage more discussion on the topic. ___ As RSP Accreditation was identified as a high priority, and as Neustar is one of the leading RSP as a result of the new gTLD program, I'd like to start a discussion on the path forward. I've just finished listening to the recording from the GDD summit on the topic of certification of back-end registry providers. As some of you may recall, during that session Sean Kaine from Neustar requested that we step back from the solution, ie. RSP Accreditation and try to identify the problems we're trying to solve in order to be sure that we have the correct solution. Sean also acknowledged as part of his intervention that accreditation may well be the answer, but let's be sure we understand what problems we're trying to solve first. I acknowledge that many may consider this to be a dissenting point of view, but I would ask this group if we could at least have the discussion. I understand that many believe these discussions have been had before, but I would argue that those were largely absent the experience we have had since as a result of the implementation of the new gTLD program and 1000+ registry operators going live. I think it would also be helpful to define what we mean when we say 'accreditation'. It is possible that it means different things to different people and in this regard it would be helpful to have a common understanding. It may be that we come up with a few different versions of what 'accreditation' means and find that some of these are more palatable than others. I admit that I don't have a fully developed idea of what 'accreditation' actually means in this context, but I do expect that there are a number of ways that 'accreditation' could be achieved. Some of the concerns that Neustar has with accreditation are as follows: * The potential to create unnecessary layers of bureaucracy in order to achieve accreditation * ICANN being responsible for the development and implementation of any accreditation program-I think we'd all agree that ICANN does not have a good track record in this regard. * Ability to maintain product differentiation * Creating another contracted party within ICANN-if a contract is required and fees are to be paid to ICANN in order to be accredited then RSPs could potentially create their own stakeholder group within the GNSO, ie a third party in the CPH * What are the implications, if any, on the Registry Agreement? To help us move forward in the manner I'm suggesting, I've identified some of the problems I believe we're trying to solve acknowledging that this list is not exhaustive: * The RSP needs the ability to interact directly with ICANN with regard to technical issues. * Streamline the 2012 new gTLD processes for any future round: o Remove the need for the same RSP to undergo the same PDT for every registry operator o Streamline the application process as it relates to the technical requirements o Make provision for applicants to select RSPs after securing the TLD o Find a more efficient way to swap out RSPs Following the discussion at the GDD Summit, ICANN staff committed to synthesize the discussion, and come back to us with next steps. I don't believe this has happened, but based on some of the chat on our call earlier this week it does seem that some work that is going on in this regard. I think it would be helpful to our discussion to understand what the status of what that work is and where it's headed. Looking forward to everyone's thoughts. Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

1 0

First Meeting
by avri doria Aug. 17, 2016

Aug. 17, 2016

Hi, As announced, our first meeting is schedule for Tuesday 16 August at 15UTC. You should have all received an invitation already. The meeting will last 1 hour and as this is the first meeting, I will be chairing, hopefully for the last time. The Agenda for this first meeting: 0) Review Agenda 1) Discuss SOI and the like - All participants in the group must submit SOI, preferably before the first meeting. For the most part, members of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures group will have already done so, but anyone who has not done so is requested to take care of this. 2) Pick Leadership for the Track 1 Sub Team. This can be one person or several who share the responsibilities, it is up to the group. The requirement is for at least one person to take on the task. Responsibilities include: * Coordinating the efforts of the Sub Team * Communicating the status of the Sub Team to the rest of the leadership team and the full WG. This includes participating in a weekly leadership call to keep the work moving and coordinated. * Working with staff and the WG co-chairs as needed to get the work done, which includes developing the content for the full WG meetings and WG reports. * Acting with neutrality toward the Sub Team participants and the issues being dealt with within the group in the effort to help the group come to consensus on preliminary recommendations. All recommendation will be brought to the full group for discussion and possible approval as PDP WG recommendations. I suggest that there be a discussion on this list before the meeting where anyone who wishes to volunteer speaks up. Also feel free to nominate those who you believe would be good in the role. Note that that 2 co-chairs of the WG have disqualified themselves from this role. A list of Sub Team participants can be found at <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493239> The decision on Sub Team leadership is the first consensus decision the group needs to make. 3) Discussion on Sub Team meeting schedule. The current plan it to rotate all the Sub Team meetings between two time slots: 15UTC and 20UTC across all 5 days of the week. Each team will be expected to meet at least every other week, but will be able to meet more often if the Sub Team decides it is necessary. While scheduling outside these two time bands is theoretically possible, the current schedule of other meetings makes that challenging. It is also possible to add a third time band or to stick to a single 1 time slot as the Sub Team decides. 4) Walk through the work items for the Sub Team. These are found at <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490732> Among the first tasks of the Sub Team will be to decide: * how they want to work through the issues, * to look at prioritization of issues * to refine the schedule currently posted for these activities. The current schedule is found at: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001972/Policy%20Developm…> In this first meeting we will only talk through the work items for clarification, the work will start in earnest with the next meeting, but it would be good to keep these issues in mind. One note: Among the items on this Sub Teams list is: * Accreditation Programs: As there appears to be a limited set of technical service and Escrow providers, would the program benefit from an accreditation program for third party service providers? If so, would this simplify the application process with a set of pre-qualified providers to choose from? Are there other impacts that an accreditation program may have on the application process? As this conversation already has been discussed a bit in the full group as an issue that might be able to proceed in parallel with the work of the PDP WG, the group is invited to consider taking this up early in its schedule. 5) AOB - if there is time. Thanks and talk to you then avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

7 7

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 16 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 16 August. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track 1 Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 16 August 1. Leadership for the Track 1 Sub Team: See Sub Team participants at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493239. Action Items: Sara Bockey and Christa Taylor have volunteered to be Co-Chairs. 2. Discussion on Sub Team meeting schedule: Action Items: Staff will explore adding times that could work for members who are in APAC. Discussion Notes: · Current proposed schedule is Tuesdays alternating between 1500 and 2000 UTC, every other week. The next meeting is in 3 weeks. · Consider other times as they do not work with APAC. · Each team will be expected to meet at least every other week, but will be able to meet more often if the Sub Team decides it is necessary. 3. Work Plan/Schedule – See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001972: Discussion Notes: · Adjust the schedules so that we have something that is realistic. · Consider prioritization. · Consider whether some need to be added or grouped with others. · Letter from the Board to the GNSO Council. Question of whether to prioritize some items. Sent a note to Paul McGrady, Council Liaison, on how the Council wants to proceed. Council will discuss at its meeting on 01 September. 4. List of Topics -- See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490732: Discussion Notes: · Accreditation program -- consider whether to develop a parallel process/activity. · Discuss how to track topics to the work plan. Work plan schedule can be added to. · Suggestion to separate policy issues from implementation issues. · Applicant support programs -- may extend to capacity building programs. · Look at comments from CC1. · Question: There is an item from Work Track 2 marked for moving to WT1: "TLD Rollout: Was adequate time allowed for rollout of TLD? When should recurring fees due to ICANN begin? - Suggestion to move this topic to Track 1." We should agree or disagree, and if agree, incorporate it. See after the first discussion of Track 2.

1 0

WT1 Co-chairs
by avri doria Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Hi, We were luck enough to have Sara Bokey volunteer as a co-chair during the meeting. Since then it was pointed out that Christa Taylor had also volunteered to co-chair by marking her name with yellow in the signup. I missed that, though I do think someone mentioned it in the chart during the call. So I am very happy to announce that we have a group of volunteers for co-chair. On the assumption that there is no objection (please let the list know if there is one) I turn over the leadership of this WT1 to Christa and Sara. Thanks again, avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 15:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> 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#nov> ** 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 16 August 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the first call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call held on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/0QisAw Karen Yu:Hi all, this is Karen Yu from ZDNS joining. Steve Coates:I will buy drinks for the volunteer, at least twice. Rubens Kuhl:I got the impression that Christa Taylor volunteered when filing up the names for this work track. Christopher Dennett:Is there a way to have a rolling leadership? Sara Bockey:I've never chaired anything. would be willing to try cochairing with someone Donna Austin, Neustar:I do not Jon Nevett:Go Sara!!! Steve Coates:I'll 2nd Sara. Donna Austin, Neustar:object that is Laura Watkins (Nominet):As a newbie to being on a WG I don't feel I have enough background experience to take on this role. I am happy to help with drafting or coordinating inputs where I can. Laura Watkins (Nominet):No objections to Sara co-Chairing Sara Bockey:sure. Sara Bockey:I will need direction LOL Jeff Neuman:Sara - We will help you Sara Bockey:thank you jeff Ashley Roberts:Thanks Sara Jeff Neuman:Glad to see you join the leadership team :) Sara Bockey:audio? Jeff Neuman:@sara can you hear ICANN staff Sara Bockey:no Jeff Neuman:Audio is on Julie Hedlund:@ Terri -- can you check Sara's audio? Terri Agnew:@Sara, to active your mic, select telephone icon top tool bar and follow prompts Michael Flemming:yes, these hours are rather difficult for ALAC members Terri Agnew:OR, select audio tab /dial out Michael Flemming:anything before 17 utc is workable from here Rubens Kuhl:Besides the work items already listed for this work track, the one for work track 2 lists a few items in red, 3 of them suggested to move to WT1. Rubens Kuhl:They are: Rubens Kuhl:"TLD Rollout: Was adequate time allowed for rollout of TLD? When should recurring fees due to ICANN begin? - Suggestion to move this topic to Track 1." Rubens Kuhl:"Misc - Suggestion to add selection and guidance provided to New gTLD Program service providers. Was brought up in the context of objection service providers, so may be more appropriate for Track 3. Or if the topic is to be broadened to all service providers, perhaps Track 1." Michael Flemming 2:sorry, I meant apac hours Donna Austin, Neustar:the Council will have a discussion on 1 September Rubens Kuhl:GNSO Council will likely forward the question to the WG... Karen Yu: Agree with Michael on the schedule, this could be difficult for APAC participants. Karen Yu:Thank you Avri. Avri Doria:https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490732 Terri Agnew:Will add Carlos to apology list for today's meeting Kurt Pritz:How do these items tie to the items in the schedule we had up earlier. Each one of these items should map to an item listed on the schedule. It seems to mer that each item on the schedule, e.g., Application Fees, can be scheduled and addressed. I am not sure we can schedule or ever fully address a work item entitled, "is the AGB the right implementation of the GNSO policy." That item and other are not sufficiently defined in order to plan our work.\ Rubens Kuhl:I think that this, and all work tracks, should sort out policy issues from implementation issues so we can move faster on both kinds of issues. Rubens Kuhl:There is an item from Work Track 2 marked for moving to WT1: "TLD Rollout: Was adequate time allowed for rollout of TLD? When should recurring fees due to ICANN begin? - Suggestion to move this topic to Track 1." . We should agree or disagree, and if agree, incorporate it. Jeff Neuman:Thanks Rubens. I will make sure to address in the WT 2 meeting Sara Bockey:thanks all Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Thank you all. Jeff Neuman:Thanks! Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone. Have a great day! Ashley Roberts:Thanks Rubens Kuhl:Thanks all, congrats Sara! Rubens Kuhl:Bye... Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH:Bye ALl

1 0