August 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 24 August 2017 21:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 25, 2017

Aug. 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, 24 August 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p2jt3esemjh/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<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 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/CBohB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 24 August 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2- Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 24 August 2017 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes someone did need to mute Michael Flemming 2:I will be right back in about a minute Phil Buckingham:@cheryl - sorry it was me . Had my speaker on . Muted now . Greg Shatan:I will be muted until I finish a work-related call. Emily Barabas:you are controlling the slides for everyone Phil Buckingham:you are in control Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):sorry network is dodgy atm I briefly dropped AC Phil Buckingham:you remember correctly - 27 occurences Steve Chan:Program Implementation Review Report: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Emily Barabas:Full comments are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Jeff Neuman:It would be good for people here to tell us their thoughts on exemptions for certain types of TLDs Jeff Neuman:y Gg Levine (NABP):yes Michelle DeSmyter:yes Phil Buckingham:yes hear you Steve Chan:Yes, and Michael, the slides are synced, so you're moving us all along together. Jeff Neuman:I need to restart Adobe. Keeeps freezing. Jeff Neuman 2:yes Alexander Schubert:Great: So if it is cheaper and easier to apply for a .brand - then people will apply for generic term based gTLDs as .brand; "play" single registrant registry - then distribute the domains in the same way like CentralNic right now distributes third level domains under ll.com! Alexander Schubert:We need to make sure that generic terms can NOT be applied for as brand TLD! Phil Buckingham:totally agree Alexander . So how do we do this ? so do we differentate ? Jeff Neuman 2:a lot of brands are terms in the dictionary Jeff Neuman 2:websters dictionary Robert Burlingame:Whether something is "Generic" or not depends entirely on the type of products or services for which that term is used. Alexander Schubert:Then we simply bury .brands! Jeff Neuman 2:many geographic terms are also dictionary terms....should we say that they should not qualify as geographic TLDs? Robert Burlingame:"Apple" is not a "generic" term for anything other than apples. Heather Forrest:It isn't ICANN's place to start treating different TMs differently Alexander Schubert:Plus brands WILL allocate domains to clients. ".facebook" might allow every user to have user.facebook! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agreed Heather Greg Shatan:Alexander why is that a problem? Greg Shatan:Assuming it is not "gaming." Alexander Schubert:We can't say brand TLDs are in ANY way different from other TLDs. There might not be classical registrants at brand gTLDs - but there might be "users" - and when the .brand fails; those users lose their "domain".... Gg Levine (NABP):@Alexander: Do you mean third-level domain registrants? Alexander Schubert:Where does the need stem from to grant "brands" any special conditions and exceptions..... Greg Shatan:Or do you just mean end-users? Alexander Schubert:Example: .twitter and the domain handle.twitter Greg Shatan:What is the domain handle.twitter an example of? Phil Buckingham:so the EBERO kicks in when the technical back end fails ? Phil Buckingham:+n 11111 Jeff Phil Buckingham:should be the other way around . Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good point Jeff Alexander Schubert:handle.twitter in a ".brand" gTLD would be subject to termination at any time - e.g. when the registry "fails". Jeff Neuman 2:but that would not trigger ebero Alexander Schubert:hmmmmm Gg Levine (NABP):@Alexander: yes, but the domain would still belong to the RO, yes? Phil Buckingham:lost my dial out . could I have another one please . Alexander Schubert:I think the consumer won't really understand the difference between a generic gTLD by a non-Brand (where the user is a registrant and enjoys many protections) and generic brand gTLD based domains..... Phil Buckingham:Good answer by Nominet . Q for ICANN How much are the current three EBERO contracted parties being paid per annum Jeff Neuman 2:@Phil - We should ask if the EBERO funding mechanism is public Jeff Neuman 2:Can we put that as an action item Julie Hedlund:Captured Jeff. Jeff Neuman 2:I do know it is a two prong payment system to EBEROs. There is a guaranteed annual fee paid by ICANN for EBEROs to be on standby and then in the case of an EBERO event, there are additional fees paid to EBERO providers Phil Buckingham:Thanks Julie . Will follow up . Phil Buckingham:Everything is better than what we have at present . Let put this in a matrix format . Would it be based on registrations/ DUMs ? Phil Buckingham:up to page 20 Trang Nguyen:ICANN agreements with EBERO providers are posted here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):nothing from me Trang Nguyen:They include fees Phil Buckingham:thanks Trang Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks Trang Robert Burlingame:Thank you everyone. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye ðŸ‘‹ Greg Shatan:Bye all! Phil Buckingham:thanks Michael

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 Sub Team Meeting 24 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 24, 2017

Aug. 24, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 24 August. 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 24 August – CC2 Responses on Registrant Protections Notes/Action Items: Action Items: 1. EBERO: Question: How much has ICANN paid EBERO providers since the program started? Answer from ICANN staff: ICANN agreements with EBERO providers are posted here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ebero-2013-04-02-en. They include fees. Notes: Full comments are available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tX… Slide 3: Introduction Slide 4: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? -- COI: Many complications and limitations identified with the COI. Alternative methods have been proposed. -- EBERO: little support for making changes at this time. 27 occurrences of going over the threshold and ICANN worked to resolve the issues without going to EBERO. -- Background screening: Explored different requirements. See: Program Implementation Review Report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf Slide 5: CC2 Question 2.3.1: Slide 6: Comments -- Excerpts -- ALAC: Current protections should remain. -- Afilias: EBERO should be sufficient as defined. Slide 7: Jim Prendergast recommended re-examining the entire EBERO concept. Slide 8: John Poole stated that registrant protections should be expanded and no registries should be exempt. Slides 9-11: Demys, Nominet, BRG, Valideus, and RySG recommended adjusting registrant protections to provide exemptions for closed TLDs. -- If everyone has the same WHOIS record how would we know if they have a trademark licensee using it? If there was an exemption there would be other ways that we could put in agreements for enforcement purposes. -- There are examples of generics being used as TLDs and not sure how you would measure what is a generic term. -- There are huge numbers of trademarks that aren't made-up terms. Most already exist in the language. Trademark law gives those brands very robust protections. Slide 12: Afilias and RySG suggested that in cases where the Registry Operator is different from the Registry Service Provider, the RO is failing financially but the technology is working fine, it should be possible for customers to remain with the existing RSP. -- Do we know if any downside if we say this is the rule? -- What is really interesting and the weird thing about the EBERO concept is that it is designed around technical failures, not financial. All of the triggers are technical. Maybe there should be a financial failure continuity program instead of EBERO. Slide 13: RySG, ALAC, and Jannik Skou provided additional comments regarding a potential RSP Program. Slide 14: CC2 Questions 2.3.2 Slide 15-17: Jannik Skou, Nominet, John Poole, RySG suggested alternatives to the COI model. -- Need to do some research on alternatives. There are options other than COI that were initially ruled out. Figure out how much ICANN has paid EBERO providers since the program started. Get an idea of the true costs. Could say that a fund should be set up for this purpose and suggest potential alternatives for filling the fund. Slides 18-19: RySG provided additional guidance for ICANN if the COI requirement remains in the future. Start at 2.3.3 Slide 20 on the next call. >From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Great: So if it is cheaper and easier to apply for a .brand - then people will apply for generic term based gTLDs as .brand; "play" single registrant registry - then distribute the domains in the same way like CentralNic right now distributes third level domains under ll.com! Alexander Schubert: We need to make sure that generic terms can NOT be applied for as brand TLD! Phil Buckingham: totally agree Alexander . So how do we do this ? so do we differentate ? Jeff Neuman 2: a lot of brands are terms in the dictionary Jeff Neuman 2: websters dictionary Robert Burlingame: Whether something is "Generic" or not depends entirely on the type of products or services for which that term is used. Alexander Schubert: Then we simply bury .brands! Jeff Neuman 2: many geographic terms are also dictionary terms....should we say that they should not qualify as geographic TLDs? Robert Burlingame: "Apple" is not a "generic" term for anything other than apples. Heather Forrest: It isn't ICANN's place to start treating different TMs differently Alexander Schubert: Plus brands WILL allocate domains to clients. ".facebook" might allow every user to have user.facebook! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agreed Heather Greg Shatan: Alexander why is that a problem? Greg Shatan: Assuming it is not "gaming." Alexander Schubert: We can't say brand TLDs are in ANY way different from other TLDs. There might not be classical registrants at brand gTLDs - but there might be "users" - and when the .brand fails; those users lose their "domain".... Gg Levine (NABP): @Alexander: Do you mean third-level domain registrants? Alexander Schubert: Where does the need stem from to grant "brands" any special conditions and exceptions..... Greg Shatan: Or do you just mean end-users? Alexander Schubert: Example: .twitter and the domain handle.twitter Greg Shatan: What is the domain handle.twitter an example of? Phil Buckingham: so the EBERO kicks in when the technical back end fails ? Phil Buckingham: +n 11111 Jeff hil Buckingham: should be the other way around . Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Jeff Alexander Schubert: handle.twitter in a ".brand" gTLD would be subject to termination at any time - e.g. when the registry "fails". Jeff Neuman 2: but that would not trigger ebero Alexander Schubert: hmmmmm Gg Levine (NABP): @Alexander: yes, but the domain would still belong to the RO, yes? Alexander Schubert: I think the consumer won't really understand the difference between a generic gTLD by a non-Brand (where the user is a registrant and enjoys many protections) and generic brand gTLD based domains..... Phil Buckingham: Good answer by Nominet . Q for ICANN How much are the current three EBERO contracted parties being paid per annum Jeff Neuman 2: @Phil - We should ask if the EBERO funding mechanism is public Jeff Neuman 2: Can we put that as an action item Jeff Neuman 2: I do know it is a two prong payment system to EBEROs. There is a guaranteed annual fee paid by ICANN for EBEROs to be on standby and then in the case of an EBERO event, there are additional fees paid to EBERO providers Phil Buckingham: Everything is better than what we have at present . Let put this in a matrix format . Would it be based on registrations/ DUMs ? Trang Nguyen: ICANN agreements with EBERO providers are posted here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ebero-2013-04-02-en Trang Nguyen: They include fees

1 0

Agenda for 24 August WT2 Meeting at 21 UTC
by Michael Flemming Aug. 23, 2017

Aug. 23, 2017

Dear All, Please note our agenda for the upcoming meeting this Thursday at 21 UTC. - Welcome - SOI Updates - CC2 Comments - AOB Please note this week we are undergoing Registrant Protections. It is estimated that we will be spending two meetings on this session. I ask you to please kindly review the attached slides we will be using for the meeting. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 10 August 2017
by Julie Bisland Aug. 11, 2017

Aug. 11, 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, 10 August 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p3uyaqnimna/<https://participate.icann.org/p3uyaqnimna/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=92ef84797cbc0a40…> 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/ygAhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 August 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 10 August 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:Hi Julie Michael Flemming:Thanks for the ial out Michael Flemming:I am awake now Julie Bisland:wonderful, good morning :) Michael Flemming:good morning, indeed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi all... morning Michael Michael Flemming:morning Cheryl Paul McGrady:Hey fellow nerds! Michael Flemming:Evening Paul! Phil Buckingham:Evening fellow nerds Paul McGrady:Ugh! Phil Buckingham:sorry Paul . Emily Barabas:this document will require you to zoom Emily Barabas:as you can see Emily Barabas:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHa… Phil Buckingham:2.2.3. regarding these SUDN which brands which would be affected ? do we have some examples Julie Bisland:Do we know who's number ends in -9458? Steve Chan:In some of the research that staff did, It could be the case that ICANN would be in the position of utilizing its own challenge mechanisms Julie Bisland:Reminder: please mute --some background noise and interference. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am on the keep the reservation list Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):case by case Phil Buckingham:@ Steve , are there other regional organisations that are currently NOT on the list ? Steve Chan:It had been suggested that the PTI names could also be included? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree with special use name reservations Steve Chan:For the PTI names, that could include: PTI, publictechnicalidentifiers and publictechnicalidentifier Steve Chan:Correct Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yep Paul McGrady:Thanks! Would like to understand the process. Phil Buckingham: Action item : Could staff get the list of SUDNs on RFC 6761 Paul McGrady:Thanks Cheryl! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):peer review Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Avri will have best answers Paul McGrady:Thanks Avri. Paul McGrady:I guess the takeaway is that there is more than one mechanism to get a new gTLD delegated. Steve Chan:Google doc for the document being presented is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Phil Buckingham:Thanks Avri . Could we therefore recommend that all SUDNs be @ the second level ? avri doria:yes, but withint the IETF it must be a for a non global DNS purpose. i.e there must be a technical or local reason. i can prepare a more detaild explanation of the process for a later meeting if people want as I do particpate in the IETF process. avri doria:Phil I have already personally mde that recommendation, but it just a personal suggestion, as the IETF has a role in the namespace ICANN can't make rules, and the current MOU does not stipulate that. and if there were a technical reason why a TLD was needed then they could still reserve one. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ðŸ‘ Greg Shatan:Agree with Paul on the issue and the overlap. Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 24 August 2017 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Steve Chan:@Michael, we have a pair of liaisons between theis WG and RPMs. I believe they are Susan Payne and Robin Gross, if memory serves. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye ðŸ‘‹ for now then avri doria:bye Phil Buckingham:Yes we are going to rotate calls in Sept weekly between 15.00 and 21.00 UTC every Thursday Julie Bisland:Thanks Phil!!

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 Sub Team Meeting 10 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 10 August. 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 themes document and the excerpts from the chat room below. In addition, see the matrix documents at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHao6Hf1s8e… and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8… Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 10 August -- CC2 Responses on Reserved Names: Action Items: ACTION: Re: Question 2.2.3 -- We can take that back for feedback on the next call to look into the specifics for this particular RFC 6761 and the list of SUDNs. ACTION: Re: Question 2.2.4 -- There should be affirmative outreach to the RPMs PDP on this. Take this to the leadership team. Notes: Question 2.2.2 - Do you believe any changes are needed to the list of Reserved Names at the top level as defined in section 2.2.1.2.1 of the Applicant Guidebook (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf? Please explain. -- Reviewing comments using matrix of reserved names at the top level: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHao6Hf1s8e… [Reading comments.] -- Cell 5-E - Special Use Domains - Everyone seems to be in favor of a role that these are reserved from use. But they should not correspond to brands. ICANN/IANA Names: -- Not reserved for technical reasons but so that third parties don't apply. -- Question of whether we need to add to this -- such as Centre (NORID comment). -- Any input on this -- either adding names or releasing them? -- In a brief bit of research staff did not why ICANN and IANA are reserved is that if they are reserved it puts ICANN and related organizations in the position of utilizing the challenge mechanisms that it is applying. Question 2.2.3: Do you think Special Use Domain Names should be added to the Applicant Guidebook section on reserved names at the top level to prevent applicants applying for such labels? -- A good example would be .onion. Most people would like to keep special use domain names should be reserved. -- Question: How did the IETF RFC 6761 come into being? Response: Understanding that it would have been approved by the IETF. The bottom-up consensus building process is extremely robust. The process for all of the special use names in IETF is going under review. There are two ways that things go through: 1) through the working group and if it is judged not to be an end run it goes into a last call as an Internet draft in the IETF community before becoming an RFC. What is being talked about is how to do better coordination. Also, what is being discussed is why people need top-level names for their special use names, rather than second-level. It is quite a lengthy process. We were notified when .onion was going through. Question 2.2.4: Do you believe that any changes are needed to a Registry Operator’s right to reserve domain names? If yes, what changes are needed and why? If not, why not? Reviewing comments using matrix: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8… Voluntary Reservations of 100 Names: -- Comments note the specific reservations talks about country and territory names while the 100 names may not be in these categories -- such as a city name. -- Need to look at the experience of geographic TLDs. -- Also from Nominet we have the mention of a closed .BRAND where the limit seems artificial. Voluntary Reservations of Additional Names: -- Perhaps there should be a cap - consider Valideus comment that how holders of TMCH-recorded marks might be given right of first refusal when the name is released. -- There should be affirmative outreach to the RPMs PDP on this. ACTION: Take this to the leadership team. >From the chat: Steve Chan: In some of the research that staff did, It could be the case that ICANN would be in the position of utilizing its own challenge mechanisms Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I am on the keep the reservation list Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): case by case Phil Buckingham: @ Steve , are there other regional organisations that are currently NOT on the list ? Steve Chan: It had been suggested that the PTI names could also be included? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree with special use name reservations Steve Chan: Correct Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yep Phil Buckingham: Action item : Could staff get the list of SUDNs on RFC 6761 Paul McGrady: Thanks Cheryl! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): peer review Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Avri will have best answers Paul McGrady: Thanks Avri. Paul McGrady: I guess the takeaway is that there is more than one mechanism to get a new gTLD delegated. Phil Buckingham: Thanks Avri . Could we therefore recommend that all SUDNs be @ the second level ? avri doria: yes, but withint the IETF it must be a for a non global DNS purpose. i.e there must be a technical or local reason. i can prepare a more detaild explanation of the process for a later meeting if people want as I do particpate in the IETF process. avri doria: Phil I have already personally mde that recommendation, but it just a personal suggestion, as the IETF has a role in the namespace ICANN can't make rules, and the current MOU does not stipulate that. and if there were a technical reason why a TLD was needed then they could still reserve one. Steve Chan: @Michael, we have a pair of liaisons between theis WG and RPMs. I believe they are Susan Payne and Robin Gross, if memory serves.

1 0

Agenda for 10 August 2017 WT2 Meeting at 21 UTC
by Michael Flemming Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

Dear All, Please find the agenda for this week's WT2 call. - Welcome - SOI Updates - CC2 Comments for Reserved Names - AOB This week we will be returning to reserved names and plan on addressing as much of the questions as possible. Primarily, we will be using the Top Level and Second Level matrices that we used before. For this, staff has kindly added an extra cell with the relevant CC2 answers. The approach will be to look at the questions in the reserved name theme document that collected a summary of CC2 comments, and then move to the matrices where comments are shown with the relevant category. The matrices are as below. Top Level Reserved Names - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHao6Hf1s8e… Second Level Reserved Names - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8… In order to facilitate effective discussion around the reserved names in the limited time we have, please understand that the CC2 comments provided in the matrices are a filtered version of the answers. There are other CC2 input and answers in their entirety below. All comments and discussion received will be considered in any deliberations. Public Comments - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/ I look forward to speaking with all of you this week. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 1