November 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 28 November
by Steve Chan Nov. 29, 2016

Nov. 29, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 28 November. 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/uQ2bAw Best, Steve New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Monday, 28 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Apologies: On audio only: Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Recap from ICANN57 Subsequent Procedures Session on WT2 Issues 4. Reserved Names on the Top Level 6. AOB Notes/Action Items: 3. Recap from ICANN57 Subsequent Procedures Session on WT2 Issues - Single base agreement vs category-based agreements: recognize that there are different needs, but still up for debate whether separate agreements are needed, or those differences could be accounted for via specifications (or similar). - BRG, other groups to prepare feedback on specific needs of certain types of TLD category - Can ICANN handle operationally? - COI - Agreement that EBERO is needed, but can consider whether COI is the proper mechanism to support EBERO. - Reserved Names - Discussed briefly. Misc - Moving forward, allow for more consideration of background materials and provide a basis before delving into substantive discussion. Make topics more digestible as well (e.g., like only concentrating on top-level RNs today) 4. Reserved Names on the Top Level - ONLY looking at top-level today - Only revisit rationale if change is needed (or may be needed)? - ICANN/IANA names - additional ICANN names were added in AGB, does not include PTI, since it did not exist. LATNIC not included, but otherwise no changes. Should RFC6761 be added/integrated b/c of authorities granted via the IETF MoU and its management of protocols? - Consider whether new IANA names should be included (e.g., PTI) - Only English, so any reason to expand to any other languages? Acronyms in other languages may not be sensible, but perhaps EXAMPLE, INVALID, etc. ACTION ITEM: Staff to gather list of acronyms related to IANA transition - Symbols - why were hyphens not allowed (other than in 3rd and 4th positions for IDNs)? May be worth considering rationale here and determine if there is any technical (or other) reason otherwise to avoid hyphens. - Single Letters - Any additional research completed to allow for release of single letter TLDs in ASCII? ACTION ITEM: Investigate single character IDNs, find experts to provide analysis. - Single and Two Digits - AGB went further and required only letters. Can consider 1) ALL digits and/or 2) letters and digits. - No objections to continuing prevention of ALL digits. - Letters and digits - may introduce more UA issues, since numbers are not currently expected in code. Code was written specifically to avoid allowing entry of invalid TLDs (and not necessarily just lazy code). - Should it be up to the applicant to determine if the risk is worth it? - Kurt - There was a concern that a leading or trailing digit would be interpreted as the start as an IP address by some applications / browsers. That concern is demonstrable. It is less demonstrable that an interior digit would be interpreted somehow by an IP address. Could interior digits be considered separately? - Should digits be disallowed b/c of known code issues, which perpetuates the issue? [possible] ACTION ITEM: Ask for guidance around letters and digits (and other issues) from the UASG, SSAC, other experts. Two Letters - not allowed in policy and AGB. However, 2-char IDNs allowed unless a) visually similar to one-char label (and script) or b) visually similar to two-char ASCII combos. Tagged Names - Consistent between policy/AGB. Nic/Whois/www - Consistent between policy/AGB. Could consider adding RDDS (and/or RDS)? Roger Carney - they are technically different where "Most peopole see RDS as larger - Registration Directory Services, RDDS Registration Data Directory Services. RDDS being more specific to Data and RDS being more general about the system. It was a discussion in the RDS pDP WG" Geographic Names - Skipped for now while waiting for CWG-UCTN, GAC WG, etc. Geopolitical Names (including IDNs) - Consistent between policy/AGB. May be touched on by GAC Geo Names WG. Controversial Names - No list, but a dispute policy -> became the LPI objection process. Should make sure outcome of Limited Public Interest Objection is understood (from WT3). Declared Variants Strings Ineligible for Delegation String Requirements Name Collision (Reserved Names) 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

AC Chat, Attendance & Recording of New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 call on Monday, 28 November 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 28, 2016

Nov. 28, 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 Monday, 28 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<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/KJPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 November 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Monday, 28 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Rubens Kuhl:ICANN staff seems to also be considering how to kill COI. This topic come alongside Registry Service Provider accreditation/certification/*tion. Phil Buckingham:rubens Phil Buckingham:would you like to elaborate Rubens Kuhl:ICANN staff also seems to be bothered by COI, since they have to process a number of COI changes for existing registries. Jeff Neuman:Lets hold those thoughts on the COI Phil Buckingham:ok jeff Jeff Neuman:Focus of today is Reserved NAmes at the top-level :) Emily Barabas:Here is the Google doc: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… avri doria:shouldn't IANA names include the RFC6761 names? Steve Coates:What is RFC6761? Thx! Jeff Neuman:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_… Rubens Kuhl:.localhost is also the subject of an ongoing draft that even though seems to lack consensus at this point, will likely advance in one form or another. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_dr… Jon Nevett:Perhaps add a time stamp on it -- no new ones after 90 days before applications are filed or something avri doria:6761 is an ongoing discussion in the IETF and we are rying to find a way to make sure we don't step on each other toes in name allocation. Rubens Kuhl:I don't think ACs and SOs are widely recocgznied... but Internic is a widely known name, even though it doesn't exist anymore. Rubens Kuhl:Were hyphens allowed in the 2012 round ? Jon Nevett:would want it in the ICANN policy if possible Phil Buckingham:rubens - no they werent Jon Nevett:not rely on the IETF process -- thanks Steve Chan 2:@Jeff, sorry was mid-typing and didn't realize you were looking for a response from staff. I've captured your action item in the notes section. avri doria:well, not sue they would accept such a dependency. some are arguing that they should use second level like protocol.arpa. also resrciting ietf to neologisms (invented words). want to make sure thet the is not for global dns usage. Rubens Kuhl:There is a reason for not allowing -- (hyphen hyphen) at 3rd and 4th positions, but besides that, no technical reason to avoid hyphens in TLDs. avri doria:and the laison has notified the board of rfc6761 actions, but it never became an issue. Rubens Kuhl:So ab--cdef would be possibly not a good idea, but ab-cdef would be allowed. avri doria:Rubens i expect there is lazy code out there that any hypen catches. Rubens Kuhl:Lazy code means UA challenges, but that applies to all new TLDs... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed avri doria:yes, hyens at 3/4 were supposed to be a switch for which xn was just one flavor. Rubens Kuhl:No reason not to allow single-letter IDNs from scripts like Chinese. Rubens Kuhl:I can imagine UA challenges for ASCII single-letter TLDs, but that is not based on data. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed Rubins but our WT (4) should look for or call for some research or abstrac review frm opinion pieces published to date I guess Rubens Kuhl:Most TLDs today allow domains with only numbers, including one or two digits... avri doria:i think the reason to prohibit numbers at top level as again lazy code that would assume it was an address and ge t confused. Rubens Kuhl:But if we use IP address similarity as criteria, it should exclude one to three digits. I don't see a reason to, but that would make sense. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Shouldn't we leave up to an applicant to decide if it's willing to take on a universal acceptance issue? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):leave it Kurt Pritz:There was a concern that a leading or trailing digit would be interpreted as the start as an IP address by some applications / browsers. That concern is demonstrable. It is less demonstrable that an interior digit would be interpreted somehow by an IP address. Rubens Kuhl:Our experience in a TLD that forbids digits-only SLD is that it becames harder by the time to change such a rule. So the moment to look at this is now. avri doria:lazy code is the primary reason for UA issues. Kurt Pritz:Lazy code is the reason why digits in TLDs are read as IP addresses. Lazy code is the reason for name collisions. Michael Flemming 2:Understandable. Michael Flemming 2:Apply at your own risk TLD* Rubens Kuhl:The risk issue is different for a brand/exclusive use TLD than for an unrestricted TLD. Rubens Kuhl:Lazy code plus Good code for lazy users Steve Coates:I'm not sure I understand how code can be lazy. Kiran Malancharuvil 2:Can we ask the Universal Acceptance working group? Rubens Kuhl:The economics for dealing with it are problematic. Most users see those as externalities. avri doria:UA is such a nice euphemism Phil Buckingham:kiran - good idea Kiran Malancharuvil 2:I'm all about asking whatever experts will lend an ear and helping hand Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes we can ask UA /SSAC I assume under WT4 then? Greg Shatan:Alan, good idea Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Good idea - provided that the timing works. Rubens Kuhl:SSAC has a limited workload for each year, so if want something from them in 2017, we need to hurry up. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup avri doria:i think they did repor during the 2012 round policy period. we should check to see if there was a report. Rubens Kuhl:Just anedoctal evidence: the first Brand TLD was .hp suggested by HP to Jon Postel. Curious that it's not going to be allowed, likely ever. Michael Flemming 2:Good to go! Rubens Kuhl:To NIC and WHOIS, we might have to add RDDS. Rubens Kuhl:But why the policy allowed .web but not .www ? That looks inconsistent to me. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I will need to leave audio near the top of thw hour to take my next conference call I will stay in AC as long as I can to just before the top of the hour Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Good point Alan Roger Carney:RDDS and RDS are technically different Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):regardless srely bth shoild be reserve Roger Carney:Sorry looks like voice is not working Alexander Schubert 2:Geographic names; Applicant Guidebook 2.2.1.4.1: Alexander Schubert 2:Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this application round. Alexander Schubert 2:Which means these ISO 3166 Alpha 3 codes and territory names were not "reseved" - but rather just excempted from the 2012 round! Rubens Kuhl:Controversial names - no .trump . Roger Carney:Most peopole see RDS as larger - Registration Directory Services, RDDS Registration Data Directory Services. RDDS being more specific to Data and RDS being more general about the system. It was a discussion in the RDS pDP WG Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):There isn't one. But, geopolitical names have been raised in the GAC in connection with the GAC Geo Names WG. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Sorry I need to leve here now... Bye... onto to my next call Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Why wouldn't we put a placeholder on controversial names pending WT 3's discussion of the Limited Public Interest Objection? We could end up deferring to an objection that is eliminated. Rubens Kuhl:+1 to Kristina's suggestion. Phil Buckingham:@ Alexander - .vg is British Virgin Islands . They werent allowed to apply for .bvi Kiran Malancharuvil 2:Thanks all! Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Soory being late, I was held up. I look forward to read transcipts Jeff Neuman:Next CalL WE START SECOND LEVEL REGISTRATIONS :) Alexander Schubert 2:Bye! Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you all. Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group:take care Rubens Kuhl:Bye Bye all! Phil Buckingham:Thanks everyone for your constructive input

1 0

[Correction] WT2 - Nov 28th, Monday Meeting at 20:00 UTC
by Michael Flemming Nov. 28, 2016

Nov. 28, 2016

Dear All, My most sincere apologies as the last email had the date wrong. Please note the previous email I sent out about the agenda for the upcoming WT2 meeting. I am somewhat late in getting this out to everyone, but I wanted to share the agenda ahead of time of the meeting on 28 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. I have stopped trying to number the meetings at this point. The following is what we will be looking at on Monday. 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Recap from ICANN57 Subsequent Procedures Session on WT2 Issues 4. Reserved Names on the Top Level 6. AOB In advance of the meeting I would like to share with everyone the link to the notes from the session we held at ICANN. Adobe Connect Recording can be found here: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cxk/gnso-new-gtld-subse quent-procedures-pdp-working-group-face-to-face-meeting The notes on the wiki can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2016-11-03+New+gTL D+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+-+ICANN57+F2F For relevant background information for the upcoming discussion on Reserved Names on the Top Level, noting the short amount of time between now and the meeting, I would merely make reference to the following. Existing New gTLD GNSO Policy - Recommendation 5 Applicant Guidebook - Relevant areas of the AGB, but I believe that 2.2.1.2 is what we will mainly be looking at this time around. Jeff, If there is any other supporting background information for this upcoming meeting that I may be missing, could you please supplement that information? If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 1

WT2 - Nov 20th, Monday Meeting at 20:00 UTC
by Michael Flemming Nov. 25, 2016

Nov. 25, 2016

Dear All, I am somewhat late in getting this out to everyone, but I wanted to share the agenda ahead of time of the meeting on 20 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. I have stopped trying to number the meetings at this point. The following is what we will be looking at on Monday. 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Recap from ICANN57 Subsequent Procedures Session on WT2 Issues 4. Reserved Names on the Top Level 6. AOB In advance of the meeting I would like to share with everyone the link to the notes from the session we held at ICANN. Adobe Connect Recording can be found here: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cxk/gnso-new-gtld- subsequent-procedures-pdp-working-group-face-to-face-meeting The notes on the wiki can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2016-11-03+New+ gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+-+ICANN57+F2F For relevant background information for the upcoming discussion on Reserved Names on the Top Level, noting the short amount of time between now and the meeting, I would merely make reference to the following. Existing New gTLD GNSO Policy - Recommendation 5 Applicant Guidebook - Relevant areas of the AGB, but I believe that 2.2.1.2 is what we will mainly be looking at this time around. Jeff, If there is any other supporting background information for this upcoming meeting that I may be missing, could you please supplement that information? If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0