May 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2

Recordings, Attendance, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 25 May 2017
by Julie Bisland May 25, 2017

May 25, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p4zpsx6knty/<https://participate.icann.org/p4zpsx6knty/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4020b23172121acd…> 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-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GNTRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 25 May 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki Page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Michael Flemming:I received apologies from Jon Nevett and Susan Payne. Julie Bisland:noted, thank you Michael Flemming:Annebeth, it looks like you were able to join us. Jeff Neuman:@Michael - You received apologies, but were they really sorry? Michael Flemming:Welcome Michael Flemming:I think so Annebeth Lange:Hi Michael, yes, my other meeting was cancelled Phil Buckingham:I ve dropped . can I have another dialout please. Julie Bisland:yes, Phil, dialing now Phil Buckingham:thanks Julie Emily Barabas:we are now on slide 3 Phil Buckingham:julie - cant get a connection . will hang up . Try again please Julie Bisland:trying again now. Phil Buckingham:back in Emily Barabas:In CC2, the WG asked: 2.8.1 - Noting that the role of Contractual Compliance is to enforce the registry agreement and any changes to that role are beyond the scope of this PDP, the WG is not anticipating policy development related to this topic. The WG expects that any new contractual requirements would be made enforceable by inclusion in the base agreement. Do you agree with this approach? Emily Barabas:checking . . . Steve Chan:Maybe this one Michael? 2.1.3 - Should the entire application be incorporated into the signed Registry Agreement? Should portions of the application, explicitly identified, be incorporated into the signed Registry Agreement? If changes are made between applying and executing the Registry Agreement, how should this be handled? If changes are made after executing the Registry Agreement, how should this be handled? If changes like these are contemplated, how can the needs of the community to properly consider the contents of an application be weighed against an applicant’s need to make either minor adjustments or fundamental changes to their registry? Annebeth Lange:Is this also a question about entering into a contract between ICANN and a registry under certain conditions, and then after the delegation the registry changes the policy considerately? This was relevant in the first round in connection with for example community TLDs or certain geographical TLDs that needed support from a public authority. Annebeth Lange:Post-delegation was on the table in the first round. Annebeth Lange:+1, Avri Jeff Neuman:Really hard to hear Phil Jeff Neuman:uts just quiet Samantha Demetriou:I'm glad Steve brought that point up. I'm not sure we should be digging too deeply into pricing at all. In terms of certain predatory practices, such as trademarked terms being marked as premium names with premium pricing, we should probably also consider whether this is in the purview of our PDP or the RPM review PDP. Annebeth Lange:Impossible to hear Julie Hedlund:@All: Slides are unsynced so you can move them yourself. We are on slide 1. Christa Taylor:Impossible to hear Christa Taylor:yes! Annebeth Lange:Yes, Phil Buckingham:sorry everyone avri doria:y Emily Barabas:now on slide 3 Emily Barabas:Here is the question in CC2: Emily Barabas:2.7.1 The Applicant Guidebook specified timelines by which applicants had to complete the contracting (9 months) and delegation (12 months) steps of the process. However, this requirement only means that the contract needs to be executed and nic.TLD be delegated. Are these timeframes reasonable? Is there still a need for these requirements? Please explain. Rubens Kuhl:That extension was given due to Spec 13 taking time to be finalized. Jeff Neuman 2:This issue was not just about the timeline, but also whether there needs to be a delegation deadline and what purpose does it really serve Rubens Kuhl:So from the perspective of Spec 13 applicants, they had the same lenght of time to act. Jeff Neuman 2:After all, does delegation alone, without any use actually discourage squatting? There were MANY TLDs that were sold after delegation, but before what most of us would call actual use Trang Nguyen:I believe the RA also provides for applicants (beyond Spec 13 applicants) to request for extensions to sign the RA. Rubens Kuhl:Non-delegated TLDs could be cheapear to hold as inventory, since they could pay less or no fees to a registry service provider. Steve Chan:Section 4.3: §4.3 Termination by ICANN(b) ICANN may, upon notice to Registry Operator, terminate this Agreement if Registry Operator fails to complete all testing and procedures (identified by ICANN in writing to Registry Operator prior to the date hereof) for delegation of the TLD into the root zone within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date. Registry Operator may request an extension for up to additional twelve (12) months for delegation if it can demonstrate, to ICANN's reasonable satisfaction, that Registry Operator is working diligently and in good faith toward successfully completing the steps necessary for delegation of the TLD. Any fees paid by Registry Operator to ICANN prior to such termination date shall be retained by ICANN in full. Rubens Kuhl:@Trang, did any applicants or contracted registries requested such extension ? Rubens Kuhl:Possible purpose is to increase the hold cost in order to stimulate usage. Jeff Neuman 2:Delegation is when you pay fees Christa Taylor:When delegated Jeff Neuman 2:Except the YMCH fees were upon signing Jeff Neuman 2:TMCH Phil Buckingham:Michael , blog post by Christine Willetts - April 16 Rubens Kuhl:The TMCH fee was a single time USD 5,000 fee. So time doesn't factor into cost. Jeff Neuman 2:I am just saying that the TMCH fees were billed at signing Jeff Neuman 2:I guess my question is whether the community still has concerns about TLDs not being "used" Christa Taylor:If we move to continuous rounds, could it impact the concern of not being used? Phil Buckingham:Q should there be a requirement to launch after a set number on months / years after delegation ? Trang Nguyen:ICANN org tracks delegation dates so we can provide average amount of time that it took for TLDs to get delegated if that is helpful to this discussion. Jeff Neuman 2:"Warehousing" is very different than taking a long time to use Annebeth Lange:Jeff, +1. There is also the question of the definition of "use" avri doria:Agree we should ask for data. Greg Shatan:Jeff, agree but the length of time is part of the difference. I'm not suggesting the current timeframes were good or bad, too long or too short.... Trang Nguyen:ICANN org has received requests for extension for delegations and have granted them. Michael Flemming:Samantha we can hear you. Trang Nguyen:Same with contracting. We received requests for extensions (from Spec 13 applicants and non-Spec 13 applicants), and have granted extension Phil Buckingham:+1 Alan . I have "found " PDT Service Level Targets ( SLTs) Should have been 28 days target 2/10 were missed may 16- march 17 Trang Nguyen:We can provide average timeframe for contracting and delegation. Rubens Kuhl:http://newgtlds.icann.org/newgtlds.csv has some indications that could point to TLDs that went beyond expected delegation dates. Jeff Neuman 2:@Greg, for some brands the timeline was too short....for others too long. It also relates to how long ICANN took to evaluate the applications and get to the point of signing agreements. Many of the sponsors of the TLDs at brands were long gone from those companies by the time ICANN was ready to sign agreements. That severely impacted brands who originally did want to "use" the TLDs, but lost interest after the 3 or 4 years it took to get through the process Rubens Kuhl:There are a number of reasons to not being put into use... for instance, our TLDs are not being used due to lack of RAA2013 registrars in our target market. Annebeth Lange:I agree, Rubens. Jeff Neuman 2:And some brands got in because they actually wanted to use it :) Jim Prendergast:Should note that .brands are also the leading type of TLD resignations. Rubens Kuhl:Has CCT-RT looked into this angle ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am not surprised at that Greg Jeff Neuman 2:@Jim....true....but that could just mean that they know when they should get out ..... as opposed to others that should be getting out :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Jim , so why / what are the reasons why they "resigned " ? avri doria:it may be necessary to ammend a strict policy with a list of possible circumstances for getting an extension. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):makes sense to me Avri Rubens Kuhl:"nogotiation" Greg Shatan:Needs a tell-all book, Jeff! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good discussion today... Thanks everyone... Bye for now then... Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 01 June 2017 at 21:00 UTC. avri doria:bye Annebeth Lange:Seeyou, goodnight from Norway Greg Shatan:Buh-bye! Phil Buckingham:thanks Michael

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 25 May
by Julie Hedlund May 25, 2017

May 25, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 25 May. 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. Please also see the attached slides and the excerpts from the chat room below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 25 May 1. Discussion on Contractual Compliance Slide 2: Explanation of the Subject Slide 3: Questions and Concerns Related to the Subject -- Issues raised around how application representations can be better applied to the RA. Slide 4: Relevant Guidance Side 5: Rationale for Policy Development -- not in our mandate to make recommendation. WG is not anticipating policy develop on this topic. -- In CC2, the WG asked: 2.8.1 - Noting that the role of Contractual Compliance is to enforce the registry agreement and any changes to that role are beyond the scope of this PDP, the WG is not anticipating policy development related to this topic. The WG expects that any new contractual requirements would be made enforceable by inclusion in the base agreement. Do you agree with this approach? -- One more question that talked about making changes -- should the application itself be tied into the registry agreement? 2.1.3 - Should the entire application be incorporated into the signed Registry Agreement? Should portions of the application, explicitly identified, be incorporated into the signed Registry Agreement? If changes are made between applying and executing the Registry Agreement, how should this be handled? If changes are made after executing the Registry Agreement, how should this be handled? If changes like these are contemplated, how can the needs of the community to properly consider the contents of an application be weighed against an applicant’s need to make either minor adjustments or fundamental changes to their registry? -- One of the things that might be helpful (slide 3) questions raised in the public comment. Reasoning for why we should even consider this. -- There are so many issues that arise with respect to contractual compliance and the view of contracted parties would be different from non-contracted parties. What is the scope with this WG with regard to those issues. Which have to do with policy? We can't just brush by contractual compliance issues unless we decide what we are brushing by. -- First, the question that was posted in 2.1.3 -- it becomes far more relevant if we end up having categories in future applications with different terms associate with them and the lack of a registry to change those terms. In terms of what is within our scope if we feel that registries and registrars have to do something that is subject to compliance, but we also can make recommendations in terms of how to enforce things. -- In looking at this the contracts that people have do need to enforce the conditions under which a name was one -- whether all or part. The problem with getting there looking at audits and compliance as a black box. No idea of what they are finding now in registry and registrar compliance audits. How we couple in these together -- how complied with and how it is audited. -- Summary: 1) what issues to look at and talking about in this topic -- what data ICANN might be collecting in how they enforce the contracts 2) how to make the recommendations on enforcement to ICANN; 3) compliance data is a black box. -- While data is a concern, the concern is beyond just the data element to how they do what they do and how effective they are. May need to give recommendations on how to do it. Data is a window into something, and we need the data too to know what is going on. -- in a general direction -- how ICANN conducts compliance, how data is collected, and what data can be provided. -- May ask ICANN re: question about entering into a contract between ICANN and a registry under certain conditions, and then after the delegation the registry changes the policy considerately? This was relevant in the first round in connection with for example community TLDs or certain geographical TLDs that needed support from a public authority. -- Public Comments: Concerns on premium pricing. Such methods were used to abuse sunrise -- exclusive rights to trademark holders. (reference to INTA on behalf of IPC) -- Issues on predatory pricing that we need to examine, but separate that asking for definitive pricing in the application. We should take some of the concerns on predatory pricing and seeing how we can address them. -- These concerns weren't reflected in the contractual compliance section of the Issue Report. It would not be in contractual compliance's ability to enforce something that is not in the agreement. >From the chat: Annebeth Lange: Is this also a question about entering into a contract between ICANN and a registry under certain conditions, and then after the delegation the registry changes the policy considerately? This was relevant in the first round in connection with for example community TLDs or certain geographical TLDs that needed support from a public authority. Annebeth Lange: Post-delegation was on the table in the first round. 2. Discussion of TLD Rollout Slide 2: Explanation of the Subject [reading from the slide] -- Whether or not this was adequate time for the rollout of new gTLDs. Slide 3: Questions and Concerns Related to the Subject Slide 4: Relevant Guidance Slide 5: Rationale for Policy Development -- Question on this in CC2 so responses may be a good first step. Question: 2.7.1 The Applicant Guidebook specified timelines by which applicants had to complete the contracting (9 months) and delegation (12 months) steps of the process. However, this requirement only means that the contract needs to be executed and nic.TLD be delegated. Are these timeframes reasonable? Is there still a need for these requirements? Please explain. -- in reality in regards to the delegation timeline ICANN did issue notices to individuals that needed to execute the registry agreement. An extension request was offered to those applicants for an additional 9 months. -- Helpful to explore -- ask ICANN with regards to the delegation deadline in the registry agreement -- were there any TLDs that did request extensions to the delegation deadline and how many were terminated for not meeting the deadline. -- The question was not just about timelines. The issue is did the delegation requirement meet the goal, such as helping to prevent squatting? Not sure what purpose the delegation deadline serves right now. Need to go back to the principle that we wanted TLDs to be used when applied for. -- The goal was to prevent squatting. There were TLDs that weren't delegated -- was this an issue? -- Some applicants that were brands TLD wanted to apply for defense purposes. -- The issue of use and rollout timing -- there is clearly a policy consideration that TLDs are more like spectrum than second-level domains. There are ideas of innovation -- there are a lot of different justifications for not allowing warehousing of public domains. -- There was a policy in place -- if we can't find a justification for changing it, then it stays in place. There is data available and we are acting like it is something we can't ask for. We should ask for the data so we can have informed discussions. Have there been people who needed extensions? Where there TLDs that were terminated. Action Item: Get an official response. -- Consider the good-faith argument in applying for an extension. -- When an extension was granted it wasn't necessarily a 12-month bracket. -- Be careful in making any conclusions based on what happened in the last round. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: That extension was given due to Spec 13 taking time to be finalized. Jeff Neuman 2: This issue was not just about the timeline, but also whether there needs to be a delegation deadline and what purpose does it really serve. Rubens Kuhl: So from the perspective of Spec 13 applicants, they had the same lenght of time to act. Trang Nguyen: I believe the RA also provides for applicants (beyond Spec 13 applicants) to request for extensions to sign the RA. Rubens Kuhl: Non-delegated TLDs could be cheapear to hold as inventory, since they could pay less or no fees to a registry service provider. Steve Chan: Section 4.3: §4.3 Termination by ICANN(b) ICANN may, upon notice to Registry Operator, terminate this Agreement if Registry Operator fails to complete all testing and procedures (identified by ICANN in writing to Registry Operator prior to the date hereof) for delegation of the TLD into the root zone within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date. Registry Operator may request an extension for up to additional twelve (12) months for delegation if it can demonstrate, to ICANN's reasonable satisfaction, that Registry Operator is working diligently and in good faith toward successfully completing the steps necessary for delegation of the TLD. Any fees paid by Registry Operator to ICANN prior to such termination date shall be retained by ICANN in full. -- How do we want to define using a TLD? What is the concern with putting those TLDs that aren't being actively used on the spot? -- Many good reasons it might take quite some time for TLDs to be used. Brands entered this with somewhat of a feeling that they had a gun put to their head. For competive reasons people got in, for defensive reasons, so brands didn't have the commercial motivations in place. Rubens Kuhl: @Trang, did any applicants or contracted registries requested such extension ? Rubens Kuhl: Possible purpose is to increase the hold cost in order to stimulate usage. Jeff Neuman 2: Delegation is when you pay fees Christa Taylor: When delegated Rubens Kuhl: The TMCH fee was a single time USD 5,000 fee. So time doesn't factor into cost. Jeff Neuman 2: I am just saying that the TMCH fees were billed at signing Jeff Neuman 2: I guess my question is whether the community still has concerns about TLDs not being "used" Christa Taylor: If we move to continuous rounds, could it impact the concern of not being used? Phil Buckingham: Q should there be a requirement to launch after a set number on months / years after delegation ? Trang Nguyen: ICANN org tracks delegation dates so we can provide average amount of time that it took for TLDs to get delegated if that is helpful to this discussion. Jeff Neuman 2: "Warehousing" is very different than taking a long time to use Annebeth Lange: Jeff, +1. There is also the question of the definition of "use" avri doria: Agree we should ask for data. Greg Shatan: Jeff, agree but the length of time is part of the difference. I'm not suggesting the current timeframes were good or bad, too long or too short.... Trang Nguyen: ICANN org has received requests for extension for delegations and have granted them. Trang Nguyen: Same with contracting. We received requests for extensions (from Spec 13 applicants and non-Spec 13 applicants), and have granted extension Phil Buckingham: +1 Alan . I have "found " PDT Service Level Targets ( SLTs) Should have been 28 days target 2/10 were missed may 16- march 17 Trang Nguyen: We can provide average timeframe for contracting and delegation. Rubens Kuhl: http://newgtlds.icann.org/newgtlds.csv has some indications that could point to TLDs that went beyond expected delegation dates. Jeff Neuman 2: @Greg, for some brands the timeline was too short....for others too long. It also relates to how long ICANN took to evaluate the applications and get to the point of signing agreements. Many of the sponsors of the TLDs at brands were long gone from those companies by the time ICANN was ready to sign agreements. That severely impacted brands who originally did want to "use" the TLDs, but lost interest after the 3 or 4 years it took to get through the process Rubens Kuhl: There are a number of reasons to not being put into use... for instance, our TLDs are not being used due to lack of RAA2013 registrars in our target market. Jeff Neuman 2: And some brands got in because they actually wanted to use it :) Jim Prendergast: Should note that .brands are also the leading type of TLD resignations. Rubens Kuhl: Has CCT-RT looked into this angle ? Jeff Neuman 2: @Jim....true....but that could just mean that they know when they should get out ..... as opposed to others that should be getting out :) Phil Buckingham: + 1 Jim , so why / what are the reasons why they "resigned " ? avri doria: it may be necessary to ammend a strict policy with a list of possible circumstances for getting an extension. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense to me Avri

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Meeting May 25th at 21 UTC
by Michael Flemming May 25, 2017

May 25, 2017

Dear All, This agenda does come late, however, after discussion with staff and the leadership group, we have decided to change up the agenda for this week. Originally, we were going to be going over Vertical Integration more in depth. However, the data we have requested from GDD staff will take more time to receive. Therefore, we will be going over the following items instead. TLD Rollout Contractual Compliance These are issues that did not receive heavy concern in the Final Issue Report. Yet, they are items that we may want to go through. Therefore, we will be introducing these items and discuss how we want to approach them. I also realize that many of you may be on your way home from the INTA meeting. I wish all of you safe travels. If you do not expect to attend the meeting this week, then may I ask you to please reply to this email? If we have a large number of members unable to attend, then we may consider rescheduling this meeting as well. Please do let me know. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 1

Attendance / Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 18 May 2017
by Julie Bisland May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p1il6y9rj8d/<https://participate.icann.org/p1il6y9rj8d/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4020b23172121acd…> 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-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FtTRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 18 May 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Phil Buckingham:hi , im in - all working Michael Flemming:I am right here Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed you are Michael Flemming:We have 20 on, we should get started soon. Jeff Neuman:Lets go :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):morning Phil Michael Flemming:Phil, people can just raise their hands if they have a question. Jeff Neuman:Do we have control of the slides Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: They are unsynced. Julie Hedlund:-- Now... Kathy Kleiman:Is anyone else having trouble hearing Phil? Michael Flemming:Where are we? Julie Hedlund:Yes. Kathy Kleiman:It's as if he is muffled Julie Hedlund:Not on a particular slide -- asking about the meeting schedule -- meeting weekly at this time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we do Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):but it is a bit muffled Jeff Neuman 2:To sum up: We are meeting every week for the next 4 weeks Kathy Kleiman:I was wondering what information/data/studies exist to inform the very good questions being raised above? Jeff Neuman 2:Lots of topics to cover in WT2 Jim Prendergast:Ill do what I can but I know I have 1 or 2 conflicts Jeff Neuman 2:We are losing you Phil Jim Prendergast:maybe do a poll to all WT members since nto everyone is on the call? Jeff Neuman 2:yep Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):as long as my calendar gets booked I will comply Kathy Kleiman:yes Steve Chan:Here is the Google sheet that provides guidance on schedule of topics: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Karen Day (SAS):hear you fine, Phil Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Steve please Skype links to me the android AC doesn't support links that work Jeff Neuman 2:The leadership team has thought about this quite a bit and we agree that starting from scratch would not be a good idea. The train essentially has left the station on registry/Registry Cross-Ownership Steve Chan:@Cheryl, done. Please let me know if that works. Jeff Neuman 2:Essentially Registries were not allowed to own Registrars, but Registrars could own registries Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and the letters VI still make me shudder somewhat.. The WG was an "interesting experience" Jim Prendergast:very polite of you Cheryl "interesting experience" Jeff Neuman 2:Jon Nevett and I still had the best proposal in the Working Group :) Jim Prendergast:do we have any statistics on how many Vertically integrated Registries there are? Jim Prendergast:is that something ICANN tracks? Jeff Neuman 2:@Jim, that is a good question....we should collect that info Jeff Neuman 2:ICANN should have that from the certifications that are required to be filed every year from integrated entities Jeff Neuman 2:Trang? Michael Flemming:They do, I think. Michael Flemming:There are questions that ask about ownership. Trang Nguyen:I believe it should be possible to get this data. Will check. Rubens Kuhl:I'm not hearing Phil. Rubens Kuhl:Is it just me ? Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry):Did Phil drop? Sarah L:phones gone quiet? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):audio Alexander Schubert:he dropped Kathy Kleiman:yes Rubens Kuhl:On the audio bridge I can hear Jeff and some others. Phil Buckingham:so sorry i ve lost you . could I have another dial out . Karen Day (SAS):Phil, the A.C room will call you directly if you click on the phone icon Phil Buckingham:thanks Karen Julie Bisland:I'm attempting to call Phil Steve Chan:Here is the first link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Steve Chan:And the second link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Gg Levine (NABP):This approach makes sense. Jim Prendergast:good question Kathy Jon Nevett:Are these issues within the picket fence? Michael Flemming:Exactly what I was gonna say :) Kathy Kleiman:That would be great - tx you! Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry):Let's stick with complaints that Compliance determined had a foundation. Anyone can file a complaint with Compliance about anything. Michael Flemming:Well, I'd be interested to know if there wre any complaints filed in the first place. Jon Nevett:jeff, do you have an opinion about the picket fence? Rubens Kuhl:It's a stepped away mark. Alan Greenberg:VI was explicitly included within the picket fence if I recall correctly. Rubens Kuhl:Alan, if you want to respond to the current thread, please move ahead of me. I'm introducing a new thread. Christa Taylor:I believe VI was a PDP back at that time. If it wasn't in the 'picket fence' than it wouldn't have been a PDP Jon Nevett:I just checked and it's in the Picket Fence -- see Spec 1, Sec 1.2.6 Jeff Neuman 2: @Jon: I was just goiong to say that too: restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are affiliated. Rubens Kuhl:We call it registrar 9998 in RA lingo. Alan Greenberg:Spec 1, section 1.2.6. ConsensusPoliciesshallrelatetooneormoreofthefollowing: [...] restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are affiliated. Michael Flemming:It used to be 9999 Rubens Kuhl:9999 is the one for nic, www, whois etc. Michael Flemming:Ah, yes, you are correct. Christa Taylor:Page 18 of the scope discussed whether this would fall within policy development (picket fence) https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu… Kathy Kleiman:Depending on the presmise that major abuses have not taken place Kathy Kleiman:Are there registrars on the call? Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry):I don't think we can answer this without compliance data. Michael Flemming:Yes and we have not seen any problems but agree with Kristina on getting that data. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Kristina Rubens Kuhl:Kathy, are there non-VI registrars on the call ? They are more likely to oppose than the ones that are already VI. Steve Chan:CRA Report here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_topics… Rubens Kuhl:What I heard from folks at VI registries, that had a registrar but registry was their primary business, is that following the equal access was so complex they saw no advantage in being one. They in effect sold their registrar business sometime after. Phil Buckingham 2:MMX - right ? Steve Chan:That's it Julie Hedlund:No more slides Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Kathy Kleiman:good meeting - useful slides! Steve Chan:25 May, 1 Jun, 15 Jun Jeff Neuman 2:Thanks Michael Phil Buckingham 2:Contractual compliance , Global Public Interest TLD Rollout Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... bye for now then... avri doria:bye Trang Nguyen:Thanks, all! Bye! Phil Buckingham 2:Sorry . Thanks Jeff for stepping in

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 18 May
by Julie Hedlund May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 May. 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. Please also see the chat room notes at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64073994/AC%20Chat%20track…. As the notes were quite extensive they were not excerpted below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 18 May Meeting schedule: Suggest we have a call each week leading up to Johannesburg at this time. Agreed: Will meet each week at the same time for 4 weeks. See the schedule of topics at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O_NpWTXFMNHkJARveqCapEssRt1CaEqwWe8… See slide 13 -- Questions for Discussion -- Do we need to reopen VI issue? -- Do the mitigations of harm work? -- If we didn't mitigate these harms what do we need to do to change that? -- If we didn't realize the benefits what do we need to do? [Reading text on the slides. See the attached slides.] Slide 1: Introduction Slide 4: Origins of Vertical Separation Slide 5: Status Quo in 2007 Slide 8: Journey to the Current State Slide 9: Journey to the Current State, Cont. Slide 10: Registry Code of Conduct and Exceptions, cont. Slide 11: Registry Code of Conduct and Exceptions, Cont. Referenced Links: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting/ccer and https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting/spe…. Slide 12: Discussion Slide 6: Potential Concerns and Benefits of Vertical Integration Slide 12 -- Assumption -- VI is a reality despite no GNSO-developed policy on this subject. -- Poll on assumptions: Green checkmark if you agree, x if you don't agree. (8 checkmarks) -- Have there been any serious abuses? -- Get statistics of how many integrated entities. -- See if there are any complaints filed with compliance or otherwise relating to a VI entity. -- Check to see if that is one of the items that ICANN does audit. -- Are vertical integration issues within the picket fence? -- Would apply to registries that have already signed an agreement. Good question. Look at what ICANN staff found when they did the 2009 PDP. Don't think anyone here is saying we should not allow VI going forward. -- At the time the registry contract was proposed VI was added to be in the picket fence. That doesn't really alter what we say in the future. That was the one escape hatch. -- Comment on 2012 round -- limited to 100 domains that can be reserved for promotional development purposes and they must obey the RAA requirements. Two types of vertical integration. What we are seeing in Africa, South America, etc. (global south) new gLTDs are not getting traction. Although there is a requirement to only use ICANN-accredited registars there is no must-carry requirement. -- Contained in Spec 5 -- promotional operational names -- form of vertical integration. Slide 13: Questions for Discussion See CRA Report at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/crai-report-24oct08-en.pdf >From the chat: Jeff Neuman 2: The leadership team has thought about this quite a bit and we agree that starting from scratch would not be a good idea. The train essentially has left the station on registry/Registry Cross-Ownership Jeff Neuman 2: Essentially Registries were not allowed to own Registrars, but Registrars could own registries Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and the letters VI still make me shudder somewhat.. The WG was an "interesting experience" Jon Nevett: Are these issues within the picket fence? Michael Flemming: Exactly what I was gonna say :) Kathy Kleiman: That would be great - tx you! Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry): Let's stick with complaints that Compliance determined had a foundation. Anyone can file a complaint with Compliance about anything. Alan Greenberg: VI was explicitly included within the picket fence if I recall correctly. Rubens Kuhl: Alan, if you want to respond to the current thread, please move ahead of me. I'm introducing a new thread. Christa Taylor: I believe VI was a PDP back at that time. If it wasn't in the 'picket fence' than it wouldn't have been a PDP Jon Nevett: I just checked and it's in the Picket Fence -- see Spec 1, Sec 1.2.6 Jeff Neuman 2: @Jon: I was just goiong to say that too: restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are affiliated. Rubens Kuhl: We call it registrar 9998 in RA lingo. Michael Flemming: It used to be 9999 Rubens Kuhl: 9999 is the one for nic, www, whois etc. Michael Flemming: Ah, yes, you are correct. Christa Taylor: Page 18 of the scope discussed whether this would fall within policy development (picket fence) https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf Kathy Kleiman: Depending on the presmise that major abuses have not taken place Kathy Kleiman: Are there registrars on the call? Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry): I don't think we can answer this without compliance data. Michael Flemming: Yes and we have not seen any problems but agree with Kristina on getting that data. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Kristina Rubens Kuhl: Kathy, are there non-VI registrars on the call ? They are more likely to oppose than the ones that are already VI. Rubens Kuhl: What I heard from folks at VI registries, that had a registrar but registry was their primary business, is that following the equal access was so complex they saw no advantage in being one. They in effect sold their registrar business sometime after.

1 0

Agenda , WT2 Call 21.00 UTC 18 May 2017 ( later today) Vertical Separation & Vertical Integration
by Phil Buckingham May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

Hi Everyone, My apologises for the lateness in sending you all the agenda for today's call later at 21.00 UTC. I will be driving the call tonite, whilst Michael (Flemming) has a well earned break. Michael will be monitoring the chat and taking all the questions you may have or previously prepared for the open discussion for the last 30 minutes. I actively encourage as many of you as possible to attend, and for those of you that are observers certainly consider changing your status to a participant. Your comments from experiences gained during Round 1,with solutions and suggestions for Round 2 are always very welcome. The topic tonite is on Vertical Separation and Vertical Integration. It would be especially good to see and get comments and updates from those that were on the Vertical Integration WG , back in 2010-2011 with Jeff, Avri and myself and numerous others. Agenda First 30 minutes : 1: Introductions, SOI Updates 2: Meetings Times , o/s Topics ( pre Jo'Burg) 3: VI Summary & PDP Status 4: Origins of Vertical Separation 5: Status Quo in 2017 6: Potential Concerns and Benefits of VI 7: Journey to the Current Status 8: Registry Code of Conduct & Exemptions Second 30 mins 9: Open discussion highlighting actual Registry, Registrar examples, experiences of VS and VI. Use and mitigation via Spec 9, Spec 13. Please note that we intend to cover Specifications 9 & 13 re .brands in much more depth next week at the same time. Regards, Phil Phil Buckingham Co-Chair, WT2.

1 0