October 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal Regulatory Issues
by Michelle DeSmyter Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 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 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 20 October 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/2SC4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 20 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Phil Buckingham:Hi Michelle , Steve , Im in ! Phil Buckingham:thanks . Should be an "interesting " next hour ! Jeff Neuman:Hello all Jeff Neuman:vtLD (Validated top Level domains) Gg Levine (NABP):NABP is participating Gg Levine (NABP):Absolutely! Jeff Neuman:.bank yes Jeff Neuman:.pharmacy, .ngo / .ong Jeff Neuman:.law Gg Levine (NABP):TLD in which regigrants must meet registry standards prior to use of the domain Alexander Schubert:.gay :-) Jim Prendergast:Jeff has them allmemorized Paul McGrady:On a flight now, so only able to contribute via chat today. Alexander Schubert:Not yet delegated Jim Prendergast:still in contention, isnt it? Alexander Schubert:Still in contention Steve Chan:CTAG Alexander Schubert:CTAG! Steve Chan:Community TLD Applicant Group Paul McGrady:@Jeff Neuman - I have missed a call or two due to a family issue. DId we decide to include the Terms & Conditions from the Guidebook into this group or will they be looked at in another group? Thanks! Jeff Neuman:We consider feedback from everyone Jeff Neuman:@Paul - Yes.....but have not looked at them yet Paul McGrady:Perfect! Thanks @Jeff. Phil Buckingham:kurt - can you speak up a little Kurt Pritz:pretty close Kurt Pritz:I am in a crowded spot. sorry Kevin Kreuser:justification is the right term, IMO, but I think it should be a high bar Jeff Neuman:@kevin - Why a high bar? Alexander Schubert:Do we talk Spec 5? Phil Buckingham:alexander - spec 5 later Alexander Schubert:So is this top level or second level? Jeff Neuman:@Alexander - both Alexander Schubert:Seemingly 2nd.... Alexander Schubert:BOTH? Alexander Schubert:Apples & Oranges? Jeff Neuman:We will need to consider both reserved names at the top level as well as those at the second level Kevin Kreuser:bc the justification for most changes requested to the RA in this round were not due to something special in the applicant or the category that the applicant lived, but instead were based on the business' own limitations. TM rights and for protections I think are an exception. Multiple agreements for registrars can also be difficult to implement Jeff Neuman:How are multiple registry agreements difficult for registrars? (I am not disagreeing, but want to flush this out) Jeff Neuman:@Kevin - If one registry agreement has a different indemnity provision than another....how would that affect registrars Jeff Neuman:(as an example) Kevin Kreuser:depends on what changes are permitted by category. if technical, which I hope would not be the case, could cause difficulties Kevin Kreuser:nevermind us, we're just chatting Jeff Neuman:Not sure why that is.....I will call in. Kurt Pritz:one part of the COI question might be whether the COI is stiil Kurt Pritz:required Kevin Kreuser:@Kurt, ICANN would welcome eliminating the COI itself, but is still going to want a way to fund EBERO Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Finally into the AC Been on the audio bridge only until now Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Someone should take a look at the transcript of the new gTLD session in Toronto. Many participants raised complaints and concerns about the COI. ICANN's responses seem unlikely to be different now, IMHO. Kurt Pritz:@Kevin. there are a lot of ways to skin that cat. For later substantive discussion Kevin Kreuser:absolutely Alexander Schubert:With reserved names we have to strictly distinguish between top and second level! Alexander Schubert:CWG Jeff Neuman:that was in 2006 Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Are you talking about the 2006 WG? Kevin Kreuser:@Kristina, ICANN is holding and managing LOIs and Data Escrow agreements for all of these TLDs. It's an administrative nightmare. I cannot imagine they wouldn't love to be rid of them, perhaps by way of insurance of some manner, taking a portion of the applicant fee and dumping into a pool, etc as an alternatives Steve Chan:FYI, the document is un-synced...as Michael just noted. Paul McGrady:Kevin, we went down the "insurance" path in Round 1 and it was rejected. Start ups are not the same risk footprint as .Brands. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Kevin: I think Paul McGrady has some views on ICANN as an insurer (although I was super sick in Dakar and could be misremembering). Kevin Kreuser:Understand re insurance, point was more I believe they would be open to exploring better alternatives Jeff Neuman:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_… Michael Flemming:Staff, could we make a note in the Notes to capture the discussion on COIs that is taking place in the chat so that we may use this as feedback and come back to this when we are ready to have more detailed discussion? Michael Flemming:please* Michael Flemming:A lot of constructive discussion. Thank you, everyone. Michael Flemming:Thanks! Jeff Neuman:We should also split the top level from second level Alexander Schubert:+1 Annebeth Lange:+ 1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):+1 Julie Hedlund:@Michael: I have copied it, but I'll note that it is redundant. The chat notes are captured separately by the Secretariat staff and is posted to the wiki. Alexander Schubert:And it Is split in the AG! Paul McGrady:@Kevin, lots can be done with the EBERO issue to drive out costs and uncertainty, thus reducing ICANN's involvement/risk. Alexander Schubert:Spec 5 is 2nd level, right? Michael Flemming:Yes Michael Flemming:Anything in the RA would refer to second level reservations Michael Flemming:...I believe Kevin Kreuser:some restrictions are at "all levels" Kevin Kreuser:country and territory, for exampel Jeff Neuman:I think we should take one by one Jeff Neuman:See what the policy recomendation was and then compare with what was done Steve Chan:Phil is discussing the existing Reserved Name Requirements (at that time) Annebeth Lange:And the Reserved Names report came in 2006 - not completely consistent with the AG Steve Chan:What is in the AC room is the recommendation table recommended for new gTLDs Michael Flemming:Yes, Phil is looking at the Roles of Reserved Names Table Jeff Neuman:The applicant Guidebook in Section 2.2.1.2.1 has the initial list of top-level reserved names Jeff Neuman:Then this section was added: 2.2.1.2.3 to cover red cross / olympics Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed Annebeth that out of Synch is important to note Julie Hedlund:See the table at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu… Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):May I suggest that we start with what was in the AG and only revert back to the Reserved Names WG recommendations and the 2000/2003 Reserved Name requirements, as needed? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):works for me Kristina Annebeth Lange:I agree Annebeth Lange:It has been a lot of discussion between the result of the Reserved Names WG recommendations and the result in the AG Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):+1 Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):+1 Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Is there anyone who thinks that we shouldn't have reserved names on the top level? Annebeth Lange:The AG should be the starting point here Kevin Kreuser:home Alexander Schubert:hiome? Alexander Schubert:Yap: home Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):4 Julie Hedlund:All: Just a time check. 2 minutes to the top of the hour. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):WT4 Heather Forrest:It seems to me that it would be helpful to have everyone in the group go back to the RNWG Report to understand the justifications reached by that group Jeff Neuman:@heather - yes please Annebeth Lange:And we have to remember that this was long time ago - before the AG that I think had input from more stakeholdergroups than RNWG Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Have to leave my next call is starting now Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye Paul McGrady:Thanks all! Annebeth Lange:Bye Alexander Schubert:Thanks! Jeff Neuman:@Annabeth - Agree, BUT we need to revise the policy so we need to understand the original policy Annebeth Lange:Absolutely, Jeff Heather Forrest:thanks everyone Robin Gross:thanks all, bye Alexander Schubert:Midnight :-) Robert Burlingame:Thank you. Bye. Annebeth Lange:Here too, ALexander Emily Barabas:Next call will be after ICANN57, invitation to be sent out

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 20 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 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 chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. See also the attached slides that are referenced below and posted on the wiki. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 20 October Action Items: 1. Base Registry Agreement: Michael Flemming will reach out to Validated TLD (vTLD), CTAG. When reaching out, should ask what particular accommodations are needed and why. 2. Reserved Names: Staff will pull out the different categories of names that might have resulted. AGB 2.2.1.2.1 -- reserved names, also the names in-eligible for delegation. Then try to draw a line from the recommendations to the AGB sections such as they exist. Discussion Notes: 1. Base Registry Agreement · Reached out to BRG, Geo TLDs (Sebastien Ducos). · At the current time we are explaining the arguments of single versus category. Asking for justification and everyone understands that doesn't mean we need a fully separate agreement, but could mean accommodations in the current agreement. We are reaching out to category-specific groups on their understanding. When we do get that feedback it should be specific and allow us to continue our discussion. Will indicate on the email list which groups we are reaching out to. 2. ICANN57 Teaser Questions [Reading questions 1, 2, 3 from page 4-5 of the attached slides.] · Question: Reserved Names -- At the top level and the second level? Answer: Both. · The questions seem to overlap what other work tracks might be considering -- is there coordination in relation to the questions? What are we intending to do with these?Answer: A lot of the other working tracks are look at similar issues and they will overlap in some ways, but these have our perspective. These questions are not to provide final conclusions, but it's an opportunity to solicit community feedback, and to encourage further participation. · Could add to the COI questions whether the COI is still required. · Could try to get feedback on other problems on the COI from other consultants. Copied from the Chat: Kevin Kreuser: @Kurt, ICANN would welcome eliminating the COI itself, but is still going to want a way to fund EBERO Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Someone should take a look at the transcript of the new gTLD session in Toronto. Many participants raised complaints and concerns about the COI. ICANN's responses seem unlikely to be different now, IMHO. Kurt Pritz: @Kevin. there are a lot of ways to skin that cat. For later substantive discussion Kevin Kreuser: absolutely 3. Reserved Names (See slide 6.) · Review the composition of the reserved names list. · Reserved Names Working Group (2006) -- look at the recommendations. Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate. · Look at excerpt of Issue Report -- 4.3.1 Reserved Names: 4.3.1.4 Rational for Policy Development [reading the section]. · 4.3.1.1 Explanation of Subject [reading from section]. · Look at a higher level what the policy states. Look at how reserved names came to the mix. · There were 30 recommendations in the final report of the Reserved Names Working Group. We should go through all of those. See: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm. [Reading from the Roles of Reserved Names Table -- existing Reserved Name Requirements (at that time)]. · Take them one-by-one, see what the policy recommendation was, and then compare what was done. · Rather than reading all of the recommendation, we take the first three recommendations, then we look at the AGB to see how it was implemented and any differentials, then discuss whether there is any justification to change them. · Suggest that we start with what was in the AG and only revert back to the Reserved Names WG recommendations and the 2000/2003 Reserved Name requirements, as needed? · Do we think the recommendation still hold up then are these the right names or should they be supplemented? Also look at the new structures to see if some of these are no longer relevant. · Possible resource: Staff can pull out the different category of names that might have resulted. AGB 2.2.1.2.1 -- reserved names, also the names in-eligible for delegation. Then try to draw a line from the recommendations to the AGB sections such as they exist. · Continue discussion at meeting after Hyderabad.

1 0

WT2 - 5th Meeting
by Michael Flemming Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

Dear All, I hope everyone is having a good week. My apologies for getting this out late, however we will be having our 5th meeting for the New gTLD SP PDP WG WT2 on 20 October 2016 at 20:000 UTC. The following is the planned agenda for our discussion. 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Base Registry Agreement: Current progress and reaching out to category specific groups. 4. ICANN57 Teaser Questions 5. Reserved Names 6. AOB: For any other business, I would ask at the beginning of the call that it be mentioned so we could allocate necessary time for the topic. Phil and I look forward to speaking with everyone at the meeting. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 06 October
by Julie Hedlund 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 06 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/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 06 October 1. Terms and Conditions of Applying for a TLD: Discussion around adding this topic Action Items: 1. Staff will provide a first cut of the comments on module 6 of the AGB. 2. Staff will look at the Requests for Reconsideration from the 2012 round, and IRPs from the 2012 round. Discussion Notes: Questions: · Is this in the scope of the PDP WG? · Does this belong in WT2? · Is this a policy aspect or an implementation of ICANN or hybrid · What reference material is there -- AGB Module 6: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/terms. · In the event of tackling this subject, what recommendations could be made from a policy standpoint? · Are the Terms and Conditions for described in the AGB enforceable? Jeff Neuman: · Became an issue recently when addressed in the court case involving .africa -- alleged fraudulent or willfull misconduct. · Serious questions raised whether the broad waiver or release of any and all claims is enforceable. · Case is on appeal. · Broad release seems to not be favored in California courts. · How to allow applicants to exercise their right to judicial review? · Jim Prendergast: I would also ask - did the community have input into the T&Cs or the ability to suggest changes to them? Seems like everyone was focused on modules 1-5. I’m not sure anyone every commented on module 6. · Jeff Neuman: Everyone could provide input but not sure how much ICANN accepted. Michael Flemming: · Seems to be an implementation aspect. · Need to look back at comments and how they were dealt with. · Rubens Kuhl: Re: whether in scope -- the list in the charter is a starting point and the WG can supplement the list provided the topic is directly related to new gTLD subsequent procedures, which it is. · Berry Cobb: Another vector for the group to monitor/consider is the changes to Request for Reconsideration and eventual release of the updated IRP as a result of the CCWG Accountability work. It did not specifically touch upon what these mean for subsequent rounds/procedures, but it will be changing in the future. · Michael Flemming: Do we need to change the charter? · Jeff Neuman: I don't think we need to go back to the Council for permission or to change the charter. · Michael Flemming: Take into consideration Requests for Reconsideration. We agree that this is in scope and we can add it to our issues. · Steve Chan: It is part of AGB so it is in scope. Not necessary to send anything to Council. · Jeff Neuman: We shouldn't engage in legal drafting of what we think the Terms and Conditions should be, but look at the policy. · Rubens Kuhl: What we could say at a policy level would be "Have T's&C's to reduce ICANN liability to the minimum level allowed by ICANN Bylaws, California law and US law". · Steve Chan: Look at comments received to the AGB and interpretation of those comments. · Rubens Kuhl: Also Requests for Reconsideration from the 2012 round and lawsuits. · Rubens Kuhl: Two stress tests I suggest to T&C is the TAS issues that occurred, (1) freezing the application process (2) data leak. 2. Base Registry Agreement: Continued high level discussion and what we have been discussing over the mailing list. Action Items: 1. Sub Team members should provide additional pros and cons. 2. Michael Flemming will send an email to the list asking for a volunteers to set up a sub team from this WT sub team for anyone who thinks there should be a separate agreement for a category. The sub team would go through the registry agreement provision-by-provision and say this is why we need a new brand agreement, because these provisions don't apply to the brand. Discussion Notes: Questions: · Does a single base agreement make sense for all types of registries? · Do we as a group support the notion of having separate agreements for separate categories? For categories -- see: the Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…. · Rubens Kuhl: I would also add "Sponsored TLDs", which although being a twin brother of Community TLDs, have different regulatory framework. · Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Question - Is reviewing 'categories' part of this WT? Or is it just if a single agreement makes sense? · Jeff Neuman: Overall categories is being considered in the full PDP WG. Pros and Cons re Single Base Agreement: See the Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k1HrFIjwzupuJqr33WmGmBUD45SQ5Cv1-vNP7ZR… (pros are for a single base agreement; cons are why it is good to have different agreements) · Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Another Consideration: 1 Size Fits All vs. 2 Sizes Fits All – Introducing version(s) of the Registry Agreement may just change the problem. Within categories of TLDs there will still be differing business models. · Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I have a clarifying question: Does "different base agreement" mean (a) a completely different base agreement for every category; (b) a standard base agreement with additional specifications that differ (like Specification 13); or (c) something else entirely? (If the answer is (c), please elaborate). Thanks. · Jeff Neuman: I don't think we are making a determination yet. · Michael Flemming: One idea is to have one agreement and then how it deviates for each category. · Rubens Kuhl: Note that we already have two different agreements at the 2012-round, and it's not based on specifications... it's the governmental and standard versions of the agreement. Spec 9 - Code of Conduct (not applied for exclusive use TLDs and for Brand TLDs) Spec 12 - Community TLDs Spec 13-Brand TLDs. · Jeff Neuman: Proposal -- Dealing with this issue in the abstract, which is hard to do. Set up a sub team from this WT sub team for anyone who thinks there should be a separate agreement for a category and go through the registry agreement provision-by-provision and say this is why we need a new brand agreement, because these provisions don't apply to the brand. · Michael Flemming: Have them make their case. · Jeff Neuman: Looking for specific areas that you feel don't apply to your category or group, or additional provisions that should be in there. · Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Question ‘What is the outcome of the ‘Scope of Work’? What is it that we working towards delivering?’ · Michael Flemming: Make the recommendation of whether or not there should be category-based agreements. Should come back to this discussion by a certain date. · Gg Levine (NABP): Wouldn't it be simpler to keep single base agreement and then fine-tune specs per catagory? Multiple specs might apply to applicants.. Doesn't make sense to have separate agreements. · Michael Flemming: I can send an email concerning Jeff's proposal. · Jeff Neuman: See if there is a volunteer from this group to move this forward. Give people 5 days to say if they want to participate. Schedule a call. · Michael Flemming: Rather allow 2 weeks. · Jeff Neuman: I can reach out to Martin/Cecilia (from the BRG) and relay this conversation.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 06 October 2016
by Terri Agnew Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 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 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 06 October 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-wt2 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 06 October 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call held onThursday, 06 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew: agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Tw_4Aw Alexander Schubert: Hello everybody :-) Alexander Schubert: 5: Reserved names. 2nd level or top level? Michael Flemming: Hello Alex and welcome. Michael Flemming: Both Michael Flemming: In a sense Michael Flemming: We will save that fun for last today :) jeff neuman: Not everyone gets your humor :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Hi there Sorry I had to wrap up another call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): My morning is all back to back calls it seems Terri Agnew: Welcome Cheryl, still plenty of time left LOL Alexander Schubert: Well, if you're going to apply for a prepreviously ineligible string - it's not fun! jeff neuman: I can provide a background on this jeff neuman: 3 Steve Chan: As noted, T&Cs are available as Module 6 of the AGB, but also available on the web here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/terms Jim Prendergast: I would also ask - did the community have input into the T&Cs or the ability to suggest changes to them? Seems like everyone was focused on modules 1-5. Im not sure anyone every commented on module 6. Rubens Kuhl: Jeff's audio is fading Rubens Kuhl: (at least for me) Berry Cobb: Another vector for the group to monitor/consider is the changes to RfR and eventual release of the updated IRP as a result of the CCWG Accountability work. It did not specifically touch upon what these mean for subsequent rounds/procedures, but it will be changing in the future. Rubens Kuhl: For me it seems it doesn't require a charter amendment in this case, but policy staff could enlight us on that... Berry Cobb: Request for Reconcideration. Berry Cobb: Yes Rubens Kuhl: What we could say at a policy level would be "Have T's&C's to reduce ICANN liability to the minimum level allowed by ICANN Bylaws, California law and US law". Rubens Kuhl: Reference material: AGB Module 6, RfRs from the 2012 round, IRPs from the 2012 round... Rubens Kuhl: + lawsuits from the 2012 round. jeff neuman: yes Rubens Kuhl: Two stress tests I suggest to T&C is the TAS issues that occurred, (1) freezing the application process (2) data leak... Rubens Kuhl: TAS was the application system used by applicants in the 2012-round Rubens Kuhl: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ… Rubens Kuhl: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k1HrFIjwzupuJqr33WmGmBUD45SQ5Cv1-vNP7ZR… Phil Marano (Mayer Brown): Another suggested stress test for the T&Cs: The threatened termination of a new gTLD application by ICANN based on rationale not established within the AGB, i.e. failure to meet a newly established interim milestone. Rubens Kuhl: I would also add "Sponsored TLDs", which although being a twin brother of Community TLDs, have different regulatory framework. Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Question - Is reviewing 'categories' part of this WT? Or is it just if a single agreement makes sense? Alexander Schubert 2: And there is applications fitting in 4 of these categories in the same time ...... Rubens Kuhl: Raymond, I believe it's WT1, and that we need to sequence our discussion on WT2 once the types discussion is settled. jeff neuman: Its the overall group, right Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Another Consideration: 1 Size Fits All vs. 2 Sizes Fits All – Introducing version(s) of the Registry Agreement may just change the problem. Within categories of TLDs there will still be differing business models. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I have a clarifying question: Does "different base agreement" mean (a) a completely different base agreement for every category; (b) a standard base agreement with additional specifications that differ (like Specification 13); or (c) something else entirely? (If the answer is (c), please elaborate). Thanks. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Thanks. Rubens Kuhl: Note that we already have two different agreements at the 2012-round, and it's not based on specifications... it's the governmental and standard versions of the agreement. Rubens Kuhl: What Jeff is saying. Rubens Kuhl: Spec 9 - Code of Conduct (not applied for exclusive use TLDs and for Brand TLDs) Spec 12 - Community TLDs Spec 13-Brand TLDs. jeff neuman: Any participant of this WT Julie Hedlund: @Jeff: Not sure I captured your word correctly. Rubens Kuhl: Just to complicate Jeff's idea, there are Community Brand TLDs... ;-) Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Question ‘What is the outcome of the ‘Scope of Work’? What is it that we working towards delivering?’ jeff neuman: Yes, scope of work is to make policy recommendations and to provide rationale for those recommendations Gg Levine (NABP): Wouldn't it be simpler to keep single base agreement and then fine-tune specs per catagory? Multiple specs might apply to applicants.. Doesn't make sense to have separate agreements. jeff neuman: Gg - Yes that could be one outcome jeff neuman: My goal is to take the abstract principle and make it more concrete Berry Cobb: I might suggest that you take a more targeted approach. Brands = Martin Sutton; Geos = RyO from a geo TLD; Community = RyOs that have gone through that. We know that these "categories" for lack of a better word exist today. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I would hope that the folks advocating for different agreements have a very good idea about what they do - and do not- want in a base agreement so it shouldn't take too long to articulate. Otherwise, we could be doing this for a long time jeff neuman: I agree with Kristina. These groups are not going to draft a new agreement now Berry Cobb: I'd also recommend that it be communicated that the default is a single agreement at this point and only looking for rationale on why the WT should consider different versions. Terri Agnew: Next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. jeff neuman: I can reach out to Martin/Cecilia (from the BRG) and relay this conversation jeff neuman: Cool. Thanks! Good Call. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks everyone... Thanks Michael... Talk again soon ... bye for now Alexander Schubert 2: bye

1 0

WT2 - 4th Meeting
by Michael Flemming Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear All, I hope everyone is having a good week. For the 4th meeting of the New gTLD SP PDP WG WT2 on 6 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC the following is the planned agenda for our discussion. 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Terms and Conditions of Applying for a TLD: Discussion around adding this topic. 4. Base Registry Agreement: Continued high level discussion and what we have been discussing over the mailing list. 5. Reserved Names: If we have time, begin looking at the questions we are asked. 6. AOB: For any other business, I would ask at the beginning of the call that it be mentioned so we could allocate necessary time for the topic. Phil and I look forward to speaking with everyone at the meeting. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

2 1

Work Track 2: Single Base Agreement
by Zylstra, Raymond Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear all, I wanted to start the discussion on a question that was raised about the Base Agreement just prior to the end of the 22 September call - the question of 'does a single base agreement make sense for all types of registries?' and the need to have different agreements for different categories of TLDs. I do not believe that the concept of multiple Registry Agreements is warranted. This is an important topic and I believe the discussion should be broader than simply answering the question as posed. Provided below are some issues I believe we should consider in order to respond to the question. * Predictability - This is something that is often talked about, and also applies in this case. As an end user should I expect the same service levels and requirements of TLDs as I navigate the internet? I would argue yes. It seems that we could end up in a situation where 2012 Registry Operators have very different obligations. * Level Playing Field - A level playing field is important for 2012 Applicants and Registry Operators and those future Applicants; introducing a different Registry Agreement for future Applicants may unfairly disadvantage those who have signed the 2012 Registry Agreement. * Status Quo - We currently have a Registry Agreement, albeit with additional Specifications, under which the various categories of TLDs can, and do, operate. While there are certainly situations where the Registry Agreement is not ideal, it is functional; there are things about it which we may not like, but they are not show stoppers. * Where Does the Problem Lie - As with many of you I have experienced many operational issues dealing with ICANN and their lack of understanding of the diverse business models for different TLDs. I don't believe that having a different Registry Agreement will solve that issue, rather it is a case of working with ICANN to resolve those problems, and I for one have had some success with this. * Lengthy Process - Without question the development of, and agreement to, multiple Registry Agreements has the potential seriously compromise the timelines for the commencement of subsequent new gTLDs. Further, on the call brands were singled out; however, I am confident that many Registry Operators could argue some form of unique requirement which they believe required a unique Registry Agreement. * Administrative Burden - The introduction of multiple Registry Agreements and dealing with these new agreements and the 2012 Registry Agreement will introduce massive overhead for ICANN, Registry Operators, Applicants, and service providers. I trust that the above makes sense and I look forward to your feedback. Regards, Raymond Zylstra<https://au.linkedin.com/in/raymondzylstra> Neustar Inc. / Director - Policy and Compliance Level 8, 10 Queens Road, Melbourne, Australia VIC 3004 Office +61 3 9866 3710 Mobile +61 416 177 615 / Raymond.Zylstra(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Raymond.Zylstra@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> Follow Neustar: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> / Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. ________________________________ The information contained in this email 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 email 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 us immediately and delete the original message.

6 9