July 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 27 July 2017
by Julie Bisland July 27, 2017

July 27, 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, 27 July 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p1qdxotg8is/<https://participate.icann.org/p1qdxotg8is/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e2259dfccc4b8e68…> 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/knHwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 27 July 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 21:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Sara Bockey:Loud and clear for both of you Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):other than the hour for you Jeff Neuman:hello all Jeff Neuman:Guys, lets get started Paul McGrady:IPC call just ended. So others should be joining Jeff Neuman:Can we find out who the phone numbers belong to for the attendance record? Julie Bisland:who is ending in 5020? Liz Brodzinski:5226 is me Julie Bisland:thank you Liz Paul McGrady:Hi Julie I am ending in 5020 Julie Bisland:thank you, Paul :) Jeff Neuman:Rather than use the word "exemptions" I would say "flexibility" Jeff Neuman:Paul - Any examples of TLDs with different business models today that should have a different agreeement Alexander Schubert:So applicants can apply for eageneric term base gTLD, then keep it "closed" and (instead of allow registrations to happen) "lease" domains - without providing ANY protections to the "leasee"? Cause that what will happen. Alexander Schubert:.... a generic term based .... Jeff Neuman:@Paul - You make an assumption that the fees will be that high....decision has not been made yet. Paul McGrady:Will still need an "other" option to open, closed, etc. Paul McGrady:@Jeff - I'm making the high fees assumption because I've seen ICANN's financial statements... They need the $. Jeff Neuman:@Paul - lol Paul McGrady:But there can be many more models out there. Prior to the FIrst Round opening, I could have NEVER anticiapted the .sucks business model, but yet, here it is. Alexander Schubert:.book owned by Amazon and then SLDs "leased" to authors would mean the "users" of the domains are completely unprotected! Emily Barabas:documents are ready, Phil Emily Barabas:the document is unsynced Susan Payne:Alexander I don't think it's reasonable to raise hypotheticals using real examples of registry operators without making that absolutely clear. People may believe you are referring to an actual intended business model Alexander Schubert:(Sorry to Amazon for using that hypothetical example) Emily Barabas:The matrix currently displayed in the AC room is also available as a Google Doc: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Michael Flemming:Geographic names on the Top Level will not be discussed* Michael Flemming:We have the Second Level and everything else on the Top Level. Susan Payne:are others having difficulty hearing Phil or is it just me? Jeff Neuman:That issue is being discussed in WT4 Jeff Neuman:(Single character IDNs) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):beat me to it Jeff :-) Michael Flemming:We are on the Top Level right now. Jeff Neuman:Correct, we can decide from a policy perspective to allow a two character letter/number or number/letter combination Jeff Neuman:two numbers may be an issue technically as confusing with an ip address Alexander Schubert:I think ALL two letter combinations should be protected - the Internet user gets otherwise consfused why some two letter combinations are cc and some gTLD! "aa" for example can never be assigned to a nation - should still be protected! Jeff Neuman:@Phil - There are certain compromises that need to be made Jeff Neuman:HP can still get HPE Jeff Neuman:which is how they refer to themselves Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and what if the ISO list does allocate Hp? Jeff Neuman:I strongly believe we should honor the one recommendation from the CCWG-UCTN Alexander Schubert:I think the ccNSO will try to kill us all if a start grabbing the two letter namespace. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agreed Jeff Susan Payne:quite Alexander! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yep indeed Alexander Schubert:Volkswagen! Alexander Schubert:vw Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):for the record My personal opinion is almost the opposite Phil, letters and numbers combination 2 characters excepted of course as Jeff is articulating now Michael Flemming:My personal opinion: Alcoholics Anonymous, American Airlines = AA Michael Flemming:We have a lot of overlaps already, but the two letter reservation is a recommendation that has been in place for a long time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):correct as far as I know Jeff I am also not of course a technical expert Jeff Neuman:I cant lower my hand :( Michael Flemming:Its lowered Jeff Neuman:I think this is in our matrix Jeff Neuman:already Michael Flemming:Can anybody hear me? Michael Flemming:Did anybody hear me? Julie Bisland:no, i did not hear your, Michael Susan Payne:Michael,no I dont think so Michael Flemming:rebooting Jeff Neuman:not sure what you are referring to Phil Michael Flemming:+1 Julie Bisland:for attendance purposes, who has phone number ending in 9458? Emily Barabas:The full list of CC2 comments on reserved names can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Emily Barabas:see tab 2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):the Emily Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):should read thx Jeff Neuman:ignore my hand :) Jeff Neuman:consistency in rules is important as @Avri states Jeff Neuman:Other than the ones reserved by the IETF of course Paul McGrady:Was there a basis for reseving the others originally? Can we find it in the history? If not, no need to keep reserving them. Paul McGrady:@ Jeff RE: IETF, sounds good so long as there is a rationale. Would love to know if the "ICANN names" have any basis. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree with the IETF list as they've got rationale to do so Jeff Neuman 2:AS far as I can recall, there were no technical reasons for reserving the ICANN names. Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on 10 August 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks all, lots more to do obviously... bye for now then... Sara Bockey:thanks all avri doria:bye Alexander Schubert:TNX

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 Sub Team Meeting 27 July
by Julie Hedlund July 27, 2017

July 27, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 July. 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 documents and the excerpts from the chat room below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 July Top-Level Reserved Names: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHao6Hf1s8e… Second-Level Reserved Names: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8… 1. CC2 Comments: Registry Agreements: 2.1.1 on single vs multiple registry agreements -- To collect ourselves I want to engage to see if everyone thinks we are on the same page. This is where I think we are at -- what I felt was the majority opinion. Summary: -- Support for a model similar to what is currently in place: a single registry agreement with exemptions that allow for TLDs with different operational models. -- Also support for different registry agreements for different TLD categories, centered around a common, core base set of contractual requirements. -- The majority of responses has shown support for a single registry agreement that allows for different operational models. Discussion: -- What this doesn't say that there should be no presumption that the open registry model should be the default model. that people don't have to explain why they don't want to be in the base agreement. It should accommodate other business models. 1) There should be no presumption is everyone is an open model; 2) ICANN staff and Board should be open to listening about other models and incorporating other specifications. -- I wonder if we can delve into the above statement. The concern is that if we have thousands of applications how ICANN would enter into negotiations with every registry and not singling out any registry for different treatment. There could be business models that truly are unique that should be differentiated. If we are going to have flexibility we need to build in some guidelines. -- How will ICANN do it I guess $185,000 for the fee should allow ICANN to engage in good faith negotiations. I don't think it is disparate treatment to allow different models. -- We all understand that it is very difficult to give specific treatment because of the Bylaws, but there must be some way for ICANN to be flexible for different types of business models. -- I think we should have some option in the application process for the models that we know about that we create specific provisions for the spplicant should pick which model applies. We should brainstorm what type of business models that we can foresee. [Action to Jeff Neuman and Paul McGrady] -- Whenever we create some loophole or extra provisions people who would like to circumvent the protections for registrants they will us it. To do things that you can't do with an open TLD. Such as leasing domain names. -- The current models that we are exploring -- such as Brand TLD or closed TLD -- there are specific provisions that you can't do that. We are having them follow the same protections as for registries. This is something that exists today. We are exploring different avenues for other models as well. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Rather than use the word "exemptions" I would say "flexibility" Jeff Neuman: Paul - Any examples of TLDs with different business models today that should have a different agreement Alexander Schubert: So applicants can apply for eageneric term base gTLD, then keep it "closed" and (instead of allow registrations to happen) "lease" domains - without providing ANY protections to the "leasee"? Cause that what will happen. Alexander Schubert: .... a generic term based .... Jeff Neuman: @Paul - You make an assumption that the fees will be that high....decision has not been made yet. Paul McGrady: Will still need an "other" option to open, closed, etc. Paul McGrady: @Jeff - I'm making the high fees assumption because I've seen ICANN's financial statements... They need the $. Jeff Neuman: @Paul - lol Paul McGrady: But there can be many more models out there. Prior to the FIrst Round opening, I could have NEVER anticiapted the .sucks business model, but yet, here it is. Alexander Schubert: .book owned by Amazon and then SLDs "leased" to authors would mean the "users" of the domains are completely unprotected! Susan Payne: Alexander I don't think it's reasonable to raise hypotheticals using real examples of registry operators without making that absolutely clear. People may believe you are referring to an actual intended business model 2. CC2 Comments: Reserved Names: The full list of CC2 comments on reserved names can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tX… 2.2.1 -- Do you believe any changes are needed to the String Requirements at the top level as defined in section 2.2.1.3.2 of the AGB? -- Suggested changes to String Requirements: Valideus, INTO, RySG, NORID, BRG and Jannik Skou -- No changes are needed: Jannik Skou, Nominet, Afilias, and ALAC. -- The GAC pointed to comments it made regarding CC2 section 3.4 on String Similarity. Discussion: -- 1 and 2 characters were not allowed in ASCII and 1-character IDNs were not allowed. Respect the finding of the ccNSO CCWG on the use of country and territory names (UCTN) on 2-character strings. -- Not suggesting that we would overturn the CCWG determination, but that was about 2 letters, not about letter and number. Could have a recommendation guidance on letter + number combination. -- We are trying to be uniform in terms of 2 characters; we have consistent rules of no 2-letter-letter combinations because those are reserved for country codes. There is nothing technical that would stop a number-letter/letter-number combination, but there might be an issue with a number-number combination. -- In 2009 they said 2-characters were not allowed. -- Discussion on whether we should add any of the newer names, previously. -- Most comments didn't get into every category we had. We could put that in a similar type of matrix. Question: Comment from NORID -- protection for CENTR, just the same as GNSO, ccNSO. What do people think about that comment. Should we start protecting APNIC, LACNIC, etc.? Protecting regional names. Responses: -- We should not be protecting them, but nothing to keep them from applying and then reserving them. -- I don't see carving these out for them but also why we reserve the ones that we do. We need to distinguish why a few names are worthy of this kind of protection and others aren't. There is a balance that we have to find there. -- IETF has given a technical reason for why they are reserved. At one point ICANN did entertain the notion for dropping the ICANN names from the list. Unless we know of a technical reason I agree that we shouldn't keep them reserved. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Correct, we can decide from a policy perspective to allow a two character letter/number or number/letter combination Jeff Neuman: two numbers may be an issue technically as confusing with an ip address Alexander Schubert: I think ALL two letter combinations should be protected - the Internet user gets otherwise consfused why some two letter combinations are cc and some gTLD! "aa" for example can never be assigned to a nation - should still be protected! Jeff Neuman: @Phil - There are certain compromises that need to be made Jeff Neuman: HP can still get HPE Jeff Neuman: which is how they refer to themselves Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and what if the ISO list does allocate Hp? Jeff Neuman: I strongly believe we should honor the one recommendation from the CCWG-UCTN Alexander Schubert: I think the ccNSO will try to kill us all if a start grabbing the two letter namespace. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agreed Jeff Susan Payne: quite Alexander! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yep indeed Alexander Schubert: Volkswagen! Alexander Schubert: vw Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): for the record My personal opinion is almost the opposite Phil, letters and numbers combination 2 characters excepted of course as Jeff is articulating now Michael Flemming: My personal opinion: Alcoholics Anonymous, American Airlines = AA Jeff Neuman: Other than the ones reserved by the IETF of course Paul McGrady: Was there a basis for reseving the others originally? Can we find it in the history? If not, no need to keep reserving them. Paul McGrady: @ Jeff RE: IETF, sounds good so long as there is a rationale. Would love to know if the "ICANN names" have any basis. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree with the IETF list as they've got rationale to do so

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Call on 27 July Thursday at 21 UTC
by Michael Flemming July 27, 2017

July 27, 2017

Dear All, I am sending the agenda to our call on 27 July Thursday at 21 UTC. - Welcome - SOI Updates - CC2 Comments: Registry Agreements Discussion (continuation) - CC2 Comments: Reserved Names - AOB I look forward to speaking with all of you then. I ask that all of you please have a look at the CC2 Comments for Reserved Names. We may not get through everything tomorrow, but we will try to cover as much as possible. You can find the summaries document we will be using in the attachment. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 1

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 13 July 2017
by Julie Bisland July 13, 2017

July 13, 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, 13 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p2mn6hx71j0/<https://participate.icann.org/p2mn6hx71j0/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=b560bc8bdbc53ab3…> 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/XnHwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 July 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC Susan Payne:perhaps the lack of notice of the change is a factor! people do have other obl;igations too. I have to leave after 45 minutes Jeff Neuman:@Susan - Normally we wouldnt change the time like this, but the GNSO Council meeting was just scheduled for our normal time, so we had to scramble. Susan Payne:I was just responding to the comments on how few people had joined, that the short notice of the change probably has an impact Jeff Neuman:@Susan - i know, but I wanted to clarify in the chat since some may not listen to the recording and may only read the chat :) Emily Barabas:Just wanted to reinforce that any staff summary/synthesis documents are intended to help promote discussion, but will inevitably be subjective and incomplete. Emily Barabas:It is important for WT members to read all comments and use this review to inform deliberations. Emily Barabas:Complete comments are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Emily Barabas:Here is the complete text of the BRG comment: In its current form, the base RA is skewed towards traditional models and does not adequately reflect the new models introduced in the 2012 round. This can be a barrier for new entrants that operate distinctly different models. Where there is a significant difference between registry models and where these different models are a sizeable proportion of registry operators, the BRG recommends customised RAs to better reflect those models and their distinct nature. In this respect, the BRG favours a customised Registry Agreement (RA) for dotBrands, to reflect the distinct differences against a traditional open and commercial registry. A significant proportion of New gTLDs were dotBrands and we anticipate continued interest in future application windows. In the absence of a customised RA for dotBrands or other distinct and sizeable models, the BRG recommends the base agreement is stripped down to provide core provisions that are applicable to all, with the relevant spe Emily Barabas:Apologies if there is an error in the summary. Susan Payne:ah lovely thanks Emily Emily Barabas:specifications that define the model and variant provisions applicable to that model. The contracting parties associated with each defined model would be the parties responsible for negotiating and voting any changes to the related specification, while all registry operating under the RA would be responsible to negotiate and vote for any changes to the core base agreement. Emily Barabas:Correction now uploaded. Trang Nguyen:To add to what Kristina just said, there is also added complexity for ICANN compliance to enforce multiple versions of the contract as well. Sarah L Verisign:I realize my comment bucks the trend, but I would support increasing the ICANN compliance team and supporting negotiated contracts - I realize that this would increase the administrative burden however I support the concept of "contract negotiation" vs "contract acceptance" and dont see why contracts cant be negotiated seprately. Susan Payne:Hi Greg - yes I think that is what the BRG was thinking if there isn't a separate agreement altogether for certain registry types Trang Nguyen:Another consideration is whether multiple individually negotiated RAs would create additional burden for the community who might be interested in tracking contractual provisions of various TLDs. Jon Nevett:GDPR can be handled by the documented waiver process, no? Sarah L Verisign:@jeff, you can have elements of a contracts, like LOLs, that are not negotiable and others that are. We could agree which were negotiable and which were not, but having us all the same doesnt help us be innovative Jeff Neuman:@Jim - Thanks. Jeff Neuman:@Sarah - It would be interesting to see from ICANN legal which were the parts of the contract that were the most negotiated. Jeff Neuman:But from what I recall, it was more the legal boilerplate than the technical specs Susan Payne:sarah are you arguing that each individual registry should geta tailored agreement? I hadn't initially thought you were but now I'm not sure? Jeff Neuman:But, it would be great if we could draw a box around things needed for level playing field and those that have flexibility around technical solutions (while still having a minimum of requirements for stability/security, etc. Sarah L Verisign:@jeff - I am not sure there were any negotiable aspects, rather an expectation of acceptance - at least from what I am aware. @ susan, I am strying to suggestimechanism that could address Jeff's concern and still give us the ability to have differentialation. Greg Shatan:The Master/Schedule model would make this easier to manage. Typically, the Master is less negotiable than the Schedules or SOW. If the base agreement was truly the common core needed for virtually all registries, while the Schedules were more particular/negotiable that would make management much easier. Greg Shatan:The "Specification" model didn't really do this, since the Specs were a mixed bag of required and special elements. Emily Barabas:Full comment from Valideus: Categories become more relevant if there are different application criteria, obligations, or contractual provisions applied accordingly. Whilst we do not support multiple categories with different criteria, due to the complexity and lack of flexibility to develop and evolve business models that would likely result, the 2012 round did clearly establish a category of Brand TLDs, which we support. A number of Brands would have benefited from an application process and contractual provisions which better acknowledged the different drivers and priorities of a Brand TLD. Specification 13 goes some of the way here, but additional Brand-specific provisions or even a Brand-specific contract would be beneficial. An entirely separate contract for Brand TLDs requires careful consideration, however, as it has the potential to reduce the flexibility of registries. For example, if a registry operator did wish in the future to allocate names more widely, outside the limitations imposed by Specific Emily Barabas:iSpecification 13, it is a simple matter to remove the Specification from the contract. With a separate Brand contract the registry operator would need to enter into a replacement contract with ICANN. The same benefits and tailoring for Brand TLD might also satisfactorily be delivered by using the specification model. Susan Payne:Apologies, I have a standing meeting so need to drop Greg Shatan:"General Availability" Greg Shatan:Although I like "General Admission," since it nicely conjures up the mosh pit of GA.... John Laprise:I must also depart with apologies. Jon Nevett:no need Greg Shatan:Thanks, Michael! avri doria:thanks avri doria:bye Greg Shatan:Bye

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 13 July
by Julie Hedlund July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 July. 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, document, and the excerpts from the chat room below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 July Registry Agreement Introduction (Slide 3) -- Goal: To move towards deliberations and proposals for steps forward for the initial report. -- Schedule: 13 July -- review CC2 comments; 27 July -- work towards deliberations for Base Registry Agreement. -- Go over the comments and to see if we are moving towards certain positions. -- Develop preliminary recommendations and try to just consensus based on lack of objection. Trying to stay away from polls as results can be biased. Use the Working Group Guidelines concerning consensus. Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? (Slide 4) -- Only discussed one item with respect to the Base Registry Agreement: Single Registry Agreement vs. Multiple Registry Agreements. Looked at pros and cons. -- Possible Compromises: 1) scaled back "core" agreement with additional specifications per category; 2) single agreement with a more clear, structured, and efficient method for obtaining exemptions. CC2 Question (Slide 5) -- 2.1.1 -- Base Registry Agreement (also see attached summary document) -- Just wanted to reinforce that any staff summary/synthesis documents are intended to help promote discussion, but will inevitably be subjective and incomplete. It is important for WT members to read all comments and use this review to inform deliberations. Complete comments are available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tX… -- Jannik Skou, INTA, Nominet, BC, BRG, John Poole, Afilias, RySG, ALAC, and NCSG support a single base registry agreement with specific sections for different TLD types. -- Jim Prendergast and BRG support multiple registry agreements. Comments focused on high-level goals rather than mechanisms: -- RrSG: No new "on the fly" exemptions made or new TLD types classified once the application window is closed. (excerpt). -- RySG: Single registry agreement with clauses versus suite of registry agreements are the same concept -- neither model should be more or less effective in recognizing the different operational requirements of different TLDs. (excerpt) -- Valideus: Additional Brand-specific provisions or a Brand-specific contract would be beneficial. An entirely separate contract for Brand TLD requires careful consideration, however, as it has the potential to reducee the flexibility of registries. (excerpt). Discussion: -- BRG comments -- didn't think they were in favor of a single registry agreement. Preference is to have something more tailored, but if that wasn't the case then they would support some kind of a stripped down base agreement. Work out what the core is and then tailor based on addition, versus subtraction. Full BRG comment: In its current form, the base RA is skewed towards traditional models and does not adequately reflect the new models introduced in the 2012 round. This can be a barrier for new entrants that operate distinctly different models. Where there is a significant difference between registry models and where these different models are a sizeable proportion of registry operators, the BRG recommends customised RAs to better reflect those models and their distinct nature. In this respect, the BRG favours a customised Registry Agreement (RA) for dotBrands, to reflect the distinct differences against a traditional open and commercial registry. A significant proportion of New gTLDs were dotBrands and we anticipate continued interest in future application windows. In the absence of a customised RA for dotBrands or other distinct and sizeable models, the BRG recommends the base agreement is stripped down to provide core provisions that are applicable to all, with the relevant specifications that define the model and variant provisions applicable to that model. The contracting parties associated with each defined model would be the parties responsible for negotiating and voting any changes to the related specification, while all registry operating under the RA would be responsible to negotiate and vote for any changes to the core base agreement. -- The ideal of having potentially completely different registry agreements for each TLD -- would need separate approvals for each time, different negotiations, just the effort on the registry side would be huge. The systems and staff will be a huge resource allocation too. -- Would be an administrative nightmare to get registries to agree on multiple agreements and some might fall into more than one category. Introduces more complications than it settles. This seems to be a theme in the comments we've received. -- How ICANN prioritizes its spending and resources needs to be considered. -- Seems that the objections to completely separate registry agreements can be resolved by having a master agreement that is the common core and than have schedules based on type. Current agreement contains to many elements that are not common so we end up subtracting from the base registry agreement. Better than having registries opt out of what doesn't apply. -- Last round applicants were forced to accept what was essentially a franchise agreement. Having a single base registry agreement would stunt innovation. There are things, such as SLAs, that need to be negotiated. Variable pricing also and how you treat registrars. Also, GDPR. There needs to be flexibility and negotiation. -- The GDPR issue is a good one. How to accomplish that while making sure that general legal boilerplate items for fairness sake that everyone is on a level playing field while addressing required differences? Response: There does need to be a box around certain contractual/legal provisions, but avoid too many technical burdens that may not be necessary for some registry operations. -- You may have a closed brand registry you may have to weigh whether you want to open it up and if you were to do that it is easier if you have a specification or master schedule model. >From the chat: Trang Nguyen: To add to what Kristina just said, there is also added complexity for ICANN compliance to enforce multiple versions of the contract as well. Sarah L Verisign: I realize my comment bucks the trend, but I would support increasing the ICANN compliance team and supporting negotiated contracts - I realize that this would increase the administrative burden however I support the concept of "contract negotiation" vs "contract acceptance" and dont see why contracts cant be negotiated seprately. Susan Payne: Hi Greg - yes I think that is what the BRG was thinking if there isn't a separate agreement altogether for certain registry types Trang Nguyen: Another consideration is whether multiple individually negotiated RAs would create additional burden for the community who might be interested in tracking contractual provisions of various TLDs. Jon Nevett: GDPR can be handled by the documented waiver process, no? Sarah L Verisign: @jeff, you can have elements of a contracts, like LOLs, that are not negotiable and others that are. We could agree which were negotiable and which were not, but having us all the same doesnt help us be innovative Jeff Neuman: @Sarah - It would be interesting to see from ICANN legal which were the parts of the contract that were the most negotiated. Jeff Neuman: But from what I recall, it was more the legal boilerplate than the technical specs Susan Payne: sarah are you arguing that each individual registry should geta tailored agreement? I hadn't initially thought you were but now I'm not sure? Jeff Neuman: But, it would be great if we could draw a box around things needed for level playing field and those that have flexibility around technical solutions (while still having a minimum of requirements for stability/security, etc. Sarah L Verisign: @jeff - I am not sure there were any negotiable aspects, rather an expectation of acceptance - at least from what I am aware. @ susan, I am strying to suggestimechanism that could address Jeff's concern and still give us the ability to have differentiation. Greg Shatan: The Master/Schedule model would make this easier to manage. Typically, the Master is less negotiable than the Schedules or SOW. If the base agreement was truly the common core needed for virtually all registries, while the Schedules were more particular/negotiable that would make management much easier. Greg Shatan: The "Specification" model didn't really do this, since the Specs were a mixed bag of required and special elements. 2.1.2 Question (Slide 6) -- Restrictions pertaining to sunrise periods, landrush or other registry activities (also see attached summary document): -- INTA, John Poole, Valideus, and Jannik Skou support additional restrictions pertaining to sunrise periods, landrush or other registry activities. -- Nominet, BRG, Afilias, and RySG supporting maintaining the status quo with respect to restrictions. -- BC supports maintaining current restrictions but pursuing additional measures regarding "predatory pricing." Discussion: -- Re: INTA Comment "[ICANN] has refused to request and share such [reserved domain names] lists, which would allow brand-owners to police improper reservation of names -- not sure that ICANN has that authority. Could be a question back to INTA. -- Question: A lot of this section touches on pricing and what the registries can do. I think ICANN is explicit in that they do not regulate pricing in the new gTLD program. Does anyone know the genesis of that? Response: We should get more specificity, but there might be antitrust concerns at the root of this position. Whether they are well founded or correct is a different question. If this is the case that is open to review. -- Use a term other than "predatory pricing" in our final report.

1 0

Agenda for 13 July 2017 WT2 Call at 15 UTC
by Michael Flemming July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

Dear All, Please note the agenda for the WT2 call that will be held at 15 UTC today. 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. CC2 Comments: Registry Agreement 4. AOB Our plan forward is to go over the CC2 comments for the Registry Agreement in order to move forward to initial discussions on consensus, initial draft proposals and/or any other questions we may have for the feedback we received in CC2. I know there may not be enough time between the call and now for some of you, but I would encourage you to go over the CC2 comments in regards to the Registry Agreement as much as possible. For this discussion, staff have kindly prepared a summary of points that were made in CC2 comments in relation to questions asked on the Registry Agreement. The document is text to help organize discussion and each WG member is encouraged to read all CC2 comments in full in order to capture the whole argument. I look forward to discussing with everyone on the call. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

3 2