September 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call
by Julie Bisland Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 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, 28 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p8guf24g7vj/<https://participate.icann.org/p8guf24g7vj/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=96c8662b94871fcc…> 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/_xkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Liz Brodzinski:I hear you both! Michele Neylon:audio is loud and clear Karen Day:hello & happy Thursday/Friday everyone Julie Bisland:yes Michele Neylon:.office + .play are both trademarks though Alexander Schubert:Almost every premium keyword is trademarked in MULTIPLE TM registries! Jeff Neuman:.office itself is not a trademark that qualifies under Spec 13 Mike Rodenbaugh:I suspect Microsoft would disagree with that Jeff Neuman:The point is that we need to all understand and agree that the current rules are that if you have a valid trademark registration for a string that COULD have a generic connotation, but the trademark registration is for a use that is NOT for the use of the mark in connection with the potential generic connotation, that IS allowed as a closed gTLD Jeff Neuman:So the string apple, food, or any other term can be used as a closed TLD provided that the use of the TLD is consistent with the goods/services for which the string is trademarked Mike Rodenbaugh:There is NO definition whatsoever of "public interest" in ICANNland. It is whatever anyone wants to say it is on any given day and any given issue. Michele Neylon:Mike - yeah - it's a wonderfully fluffy term :) Mike Rodenbaugh:It's a ridiculously vague term Karen Day:IF you had a trademark REGISTRATION PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FILIING THE TLD APPLICATION ONLY. Mike Rodenbaugh:The so-called "rule against closed generics" is not one devised by the community. In fact, we came up with the opposite rule (that they should be allowed) in the run-up to 2012. Michael Flemming:Karen is correct. Michael Flemming:So pre-2012 Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sorry to be laye Cheryl Langdon-Orr:late Jim Prendergast:Is there standing GAC advice against closed generics? and where does overcoming that come into this. Mike Rodenbaugh:yes, so that GAC advice somehow became the new "rule" Michele Neylon:+1 Greg Alexander Schubert:The TM should be at least X years old (e.g. 5 years), and USED in at least X nations (not just registered, e.g. 25 nations). A simple 1 year old TM regisration is not good enough. Michele Neylon:the term is generic the usage in the case of apple isn't Michele Neylon:Apple using .apple doesn't bother me Kurt Pritz:The RPM Working Group uses the term "dictionary word" rather than "generic" Michele Neylon:IBM (for example) closing off .cloud just for their own use would bother me Trang Nguyen:@Jim, GAC category 2 advice says: "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal." Jim Prendergast:thx trang Mike Rodenbaugh:the Board then acted on this post 2012 applications Karen Day:@Alexander - and how will that foster innovation? Alexander Schubert:If a generic term is snacked up by a brand and "closed" - then it is inaccessable to the public. And that should not be! Michele Neylon:New TLDs to date haven't fostered much innovation unless you consider price gouging to be innovative Mike Rodenbaugh:@Alexander -- doesn't the same logic apply at the 2d level? Michele Neylon:the last innovative TLD I've seen was .tel and that was a roaring success Alexander Schubert:Industry giants will snoop up their industry related killer keywords - and shut them down. At about US $300k that is a STEAL! Michele Neylon:Alexander - exactly Mike Rodenbaugh:same thing has happened at 2d level Michele Neylon:and that bothers me Karen Day:@Michele that depends on your definition of success. For a brand, success has nothing to do with sales. Alexander Schubert:+1 Susan Payne:@Alexander I don't think thi si sthe place to unpick fundementals of TM law Susan Payne:companies can register TMs, they have to persuade the relevant TM office that it is valid and aceptable registration.That's it Jim Prendergast:http://domainincite.com/22114-loreal-is-using-closed-generic-ma… Susan Payne:and no-one is stopping you applying first for the purpose of running the TLD in a generic rather than a non-branded manner. There have been plenty of examples of that in round 1. Coach for example Jeff Neuman:Validated TLDs are not closed because they offer third party registrations Alexander Schubert:It is lawful to use a generic keyword for a TM - but not really advisable. Do it on your own risk. Don't tell the world that now that you use a generic term as a TM you need also to shut down the matching TLD. Doesn't fly with the general public, sorry. In TM law there are goods and service classes; in the DNS not! Therefore in the DNS generic keyword terms need to be accessable to the public! Jeff Neuman:That is very different than what we are talking about Mike Rodenbaugh:@Alexander the same argument can be made as to ..com? Greg Shatan:Maybe we need to clearly define "closed", if there's any doubt.... Alexander Schubert:Mike: Please specify! Mike Rodenbaugh:to be clear, I think it's a silly argument. why is DOTmakeup any worse to public interest than makeupDOTcom? Michele Neylon:Mike - I disagree - an entire TLD is the online equivalent of a country Mike Rodenbaugh:ok, then makeup.DE Michele Neylon:while a single domain is the equivalent of a bit of real estate Alexander Schubert:ICANN's mandate are TLDs - not the 2nd level namespace. Karen Day:Are we talking about GeneriPICs? Alexander Schubert:We are discussing the DNS evolution, on TOP-LEVEL! Michael Flemming:I Karen, I am not going to say no to that, but neither yes. Greg Shatan:@Alexander, I think Mike is saying we don't need any more regulation at the top level than there is at the second level, which is none. Karen Day:My question was to Michael - in the same way we are discussing GeoPICS Michael Flemming:Which Michael Karen Day:Thanks, Michael Michael Flemming:? Michael Flemming:Ok Karen Day:Flemming Mike Rodenbaugh:I see the public interest as the same. Frankly, generic.COM names are much more valuable than genericTLDs in many, many cases. Greg Shatan:Third parties have bought .makeup domain names. It's no more exclusive than .luxury. Mike Rodenbaugh:and nobody screams about that Susan Payne:@Jeff, the names aren't really free for L'oreal - they paid 185k for the registry Greg Shatan:So .makeup is a form of innovation.... Alexander Schubert:Greg: EXACTLY! That's why we ought to secure "equal access" - INSTEAD of enabling indsutry leaders to shut down generic keyword based namespaces. Greg Shatan:No one is "shutting down" anything. Mike Rodenbaugh:@Alexander you mean like CentralNIC with us.com, etc.? Kurt Pritz:@Michele: are you disagreeing with Jeff N's assertion that the restrictions on closed 'generics' can be gamed? Alexander Schubert:Mike: We can only regulate the top-level...... that's our only mandate. Mike Rodenbaugh:there is no mandate to regulate anything Michele Neylon:Kurt - I don't think so Alexander Schubert:Mike: We DO regulate the evolution of the DNS evolution, that's why we are in this call. Greg Shatan:ICANN is not a regulator. Mike Rodenbaugh:+1 GG Greg Shatan:Regulating innovation is an oxymoron. Jeff Neuman:ok, to clarify. Michele, you are saying as a general rule, you can not have an exclusive use TLD. However, you can have an exclusive use TLD, if you make it nearly impossible for every third party to register a name, but make it easy for you to register a name. For example, if I want .phone (and really just use it for myself), I cant say I am an exclusive use registry, but I can say that everyone else has to pay me $10,000,000 for a name, but I can give second level names to myself for free. Michele Neylon:Jeff - that's one way of summarising my thoughts Trang Nguyen:@Alexander, ICANN's stated Mission in its Bylaws specifically says that ICANN is not a regulator: "ICANN shall not regulate … For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority." Jeff Neuman:Overall the point is that the rule against closed generics to me (personally) does not make any sense when it can be so easily gamed. We have to choose one way or the other. If we allow closed generics, lets allow them. If we do not want to allow closed generics, then we need to make sure it is not gamed. Right now, we have huge inconsistencies Alexander Schubert:So when we deny ISIS to apply for .isis then that is ...... NOT "regulation"? Alexander Schubert:Maybe ISIS wants to "innovate"? Alexander Schubert:We do not want that - hence regulate the DNS in a way that thy can't do it. Mike Rodenbaugh:This was very widely and publicly debated prior to 2012 and there was no consensus to preclude 'closed generics'; so they were explicitly allowed. I have still never seen any real explanation as to harm caused by them. Alexander Schubert:Maybe the term "regulate" is wrong here - we issue "policies" Karen Day:Why any special objections other than what is already in place Michele Neylon:I don't think it's coming from my line anyway Karen Day:lots of beep beeps Julie Bisland:Reminder: please mute when not speaking :) Jeff Neuman 2:I personally believe an objection process needs to focu on the harms to end users (as opposed to harms to competitors, registrars, registrants, etc). Mike Rodenbaugh:before we consider an objection process, don't we need to agree on some substantive basis to object? Greg Shatan:Exactly, Mike. Greg Shatan:I want to clarify that I'm not "in favor of" closed generics. The question is whether there is an objective basis within ICANN's remit to restrict them. Jim Prendergast:Jeff - Im not so sure the ALAC would agree with your position on addressing registrants comments but they have to speak for themselves (and internet users) Michael Flemming:Just remember, everone, that today's call is for 90 minutes. Jeff Neuman 2:objections by competitors should not be "ignored"> They should be handled by existing competition laws with existing competition authorities Jeff Neuman 2:Its not about "domain names"..... avri doria:even if .cloud was takne for the private use of a meteorlogical sociaty? Michael Flemming:Steve, could we get the list of proposed cons up? Michael Flemming:I think Emily did a sheet for that. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:perhaps we need to proactivly engage with end users to do so, then Jeff .... not seeing a slew of their representatives in this call for example Steve Chan:@Michael, let me try and dig that up avri doria:even if .book was taken by the antique bookbinders of the world? Michael Flemming:I can send it to you. Greg Shatan:As a recovering antitrust lawyer, I don't. see an antitrust concern that would arise. Jeff Neuman 2:Harm in competition law is ONLY assessed after the harms are realized....not in order to prevent theoretical harms Michael Flemming:Greg, if I don't all on you after Jeff, please go ahead. Steve Chan:@Michael, I justed grabbed the document from the WIki Michael Flemming:Need to send a sheet to Steve Michael Flemming:ALright Michael Flemming:Nvm Steve Chan:Ready to go whenever you're ready Michael Flemming:I will stay here. Michael Flemming:Lets put it up Jon Nevett:Don't think Jeff correctly stated US competition law Karen Day:+1 Jeff Jeff Neuman 2:Greg said that better than I did Jeff Neuman 2:Having an advantage by virtue of having a TLD is not anticompetitive in and of itself Mike Rodenbaugh:Thanks for putting this doc up; some real good laughs in here. "The impact is greater" of TLDs over 2d level names? Mike Rodenbaugh:"search engines are likely to give priority...." Jeff Neuman 2:Mike - these are all drawn from comments we have received Jeff Neuman 2:NO value judgement by the WT leadership is exercized in putting this chart together Mike Rodenbaugh:"closed generics wil put entire cultural identities at risk"! Jon Nevett:I'm not taking a position on this issue at all, but US competition law will look at some conduct before it occurs avri doria:the problem with a rule is that is excludes names that would not be a competaative problem as well as those that might. Jon Nevett:neither here nor there, but that point was typed in the notes Jeff Neuman 2:Conduct yes......theoretical conduct no Greg Shatan:Antitrust authorities will block mergers before they happen. avri doria:ie. clouds for meteorologists and books for bookbinders Jon Nevett:yes theoretical -- happy to take it offline Jeff Greg Shatan:But that is a very specific legal construct under a specific arm of competition law. Jon Nevett:correct Greg -- the whole HSR process is pre-conduct Jeff Neuman 2:HSR is for business consolidations where the result of which is having true market power. avri doria:is no compromise postion possible? have we explored the middle space? Susan Payne 3:some of these proposed harms are ludicrous, so no Greg Shatan:I filed over 150 HSRs prior to "recovery". Julie Bisland:avri, cannot hear you Julie Bisland:no audio for you, Avri Michele Neylon:Can't decipher that noise Jon Nevett:@jeff just correcting the record -- you just went a bit too far in your statement -- no biggie avri doria:i was trying to speak. avri doria:will call in. Greg Shatan:And the economic/legal analysis to get a merger blocked is intense. Julie Bisland:ok, thank you avri doria:but there is alwasy a middle space, just have to look for it/ Mike Rodenbaugh:why aren't we looking specifically at the 'closed generics' that are now in the market? what harm has been caused by DOTmakeup? Gg Levine (NABP):Shouldn't the objector have to demonstrate harms? Julie Bisland:haha, you sound great Avri Phil Buckingham 2:..so how do we move this forward . do we say that every TLD is open unless ............ Jeff Neuman 2:@Phil - no we cant say that. That would be setting a policy that top level domains can only have one business model - that of selling second level domains Greg Shatan:I think we say every TLD is free to operate as it sees fit with regard to third party second level domains (or not), unless.... And the "unless" needs to meet a very high bar. Greg Shatan:But Jeff, if people and companies can't buy and sell any domain name they want, how will anyone make any money? Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@Avri good point there is often reaction to the who holds a generic name Jeff Neuman 2:@greg - I assume that was sarcasm Greg Shatan:From me -- yes. Mike Rodenbaugh:I've got lots more sarcasm where that came from Jeff Neuman 2:ICANN needs to be neutral. It can not make determinations based on "who" applied for a string. Greg Shatan:WTF is harm to the public interest? Mike Rodenbaugh:I wonder how every other cosmetics company has managed to stay in business despite L'Oreal owning and effectively closing DOTmakeup for so long now Susan Payne 3:@Mike - LOL Jeff Neuman 2:@Greg - arent you the chiar of that accountability subteam :) Greg Shatan:No, just the Jurisdiction subgroup.... Jon Nevett:@greg -- looking for a deal on .WTF? Mike Rodenbaugh:none of these purported harms are legitimate. period. Mike Rodenbaugh:where is the proof, based on what has happened in the market? Greg Shatan:@Jon -- LOL. Jon Nevett::-) Trang Nguyen:Implementation of GAC category 2 "exclusive access" advice is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… avri doria:that does opne the door to a middle postion. Susan Payne 3:it's because the GAC said "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal." Cheryl Langdon-Orr:it does @Avri... worth persuing... Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@ Greg, yes Innovation is a stated aim of new names programs, so pity to not allow for it ;-) Jeff Neuman 2:@Trang correct. But ICANN never evaluated those responses. It paints the picture that 100+ TLDs voluntarily withdrew their desire to be exclusive use application Jeff Neuman 2:but they did not. avri doria:e.g. require a CG to define and PI and subject it something equivlent to the giggle test. Jeff Neuman 2:They eventaully did when it became clear after months that ICANN was not going to approve their TLDs IF they insisted on staying closed Jeff Neuman 2:in essence ICANN sent the message "if you want to stay closed, you will not move forward in this round" avri doria:that is what i call the defacto policy Mike Rodenbaugh:@Jeff that is right, they withdrew beause they didn't want many years of delay or outright obstruction from GAC and Michele's army. they needed to get to market to recoup investment. (which seems funny now) Jeff Neuman 2:So faced with the choice, most said, ok we will say we are not exclusive use Karen Day:@Jeff that is 100% what happened. Karen Day:Told change you application language or go home and lose your money. Mike Rodenbaugh:yes, that is what happened Jim Prendergast:They made it perfectly clear by putting the prohibition into the contract Trang Nguyen:There were 189 applications that were mentioned in GAC category 2 advice. Trang Nguyen:Of those, here's a break-down: Trang Nguyen:139 indicated that the applied-for TLDs will not be operated as exclusive access TLDs; 12 indicated that the applied-for TLDs will be operated as exclusive access registries; 35 indicated that their applications currently state that the applied-for TLDs will be operated as exclusive access registries, but the applicants will not operate them as exclusive access registries. Mike Rodenbaugh:BTW the GAC list was very arbitrary.... there were many others that inexplicably were not included Michele Neylon:Amazon changed some of theirs for example Phil Buckingham:@ Trang - could we not put together a database . Exacly Mike Mike Rodenbaugh:and regardless of community policy development Cheryl Langdon-Orr:very true @m Kurt Pritz:@ Michele: but we have to differentiate ICANN missteps and creating an unworkable policy Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ichele, there was a lot of "pressures" in thee last round Julie Bisland:next WT2 call-- Thursday, 05 October 2017 at 20:30 UTC for 90 minutes :) avri doria:hard to tell Michele Michele Neylon:I'll just glare at my data retention waiver Michele Neylon:and how "easy" that was to get Jeff Neuman 2:Correct - but we need to make sure the record is accurately reflected Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye for now. Greg Shatan:Mike, thanks for chairing so many of these calls in your night! avri doria:bye

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 Sub Team Meeting 28 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 28 September. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The meeting recording and chat transcript are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/9hkhB. The slides are attached and the chat room excerpts included below for reference. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 28 September 2017 Continuation of CC2 Comments and discussion on Closed Generics: Slide 3: What is a "Closed Generic"? Slide 6: Key findings -- Several cases where a generic string may operate in an exclusive manner. Slide 7: Path Forward -- In order to move forward with policy, we must address several elements Slide 8: Path Forward -- Some Ideas: Discussion: -- Back to slide 6: Even though there is a rule against closed generics. If you have a trademark in a term and that is registered in a certain class of goods and services. Provided an entity uses that TLD in accordance with those goods and services then they can be under Spec 13 an exclusive use TLD. Apple, United, etc. -- On slide 6 -- some trouble with the nomenclature and citation of .apple. That is not a generic string. It is an arbitrary string. We are overusing the term "generic". The issue of a closed generic needs to be separated from a closed arbitrary string. Needs to be confined to something being used in the dictionary sense, such as .makeup. Be clear what a closed generic is and is not. -- The idea for putting it on slide 6 is to separate them. Yes, in some cases it could be seen as a generic string, because it is operating with a trademark it is not a closed generic. We need to propose some changes to language so there can be misconceptions. -- Ignore what it says on the slide and move beyond that. Maybe call it "dictionary words". The point that we are trying to get across that any word, distionary or not, can be used as an exclusive use registry if used in accordance with trademark registration goods and services description. -- Do want to look at the claim that by making certain decisions you are rendering an open TLD closed. All registry operators have policies and processes that they apply to registration. As long as you follow them you can register a domain name. Look at .bank, which is highly validated. That is highly vetted, which is different. Same with pricing. -- We could at least recognize and discuss if there could be a way to mitigate harms while allowing the exclusive operation of generic strings while having mitigation measures for strings that may pose harm to the public interest. -- When we say "defacto closed" we are not talking about .bank. You could have defacto ways to close your TLD. Any TLD that charges any third party the same amount that would be the same rules for everyone. But .makeup can say everyone is $10K except for the registry itself. Different from a validated TLD. -- Is there harm to the public interest by allowing a TLD that has a term that is used in a dictionary sense but sets retrictions for any other party than itself. If there is harm what is it and how do we mitigate it? -- In the case of an exclusive use domain no mattter how much money you have you can't get one. Charging more doesn't make a term exclusive, some are arguing. If you are talking about equal treatment that opens up another can of worms. >From the chat: Michele Neylon: .office + .play are both trademarks though Alexander Schubert: Almost every premium keyword is trademarked in MULTIPLE TM registries! Jeff Neuman: .office itself is not a trademark that qualifies under Spec 13 Mike Rodenbaugh: I suspect Microsoft would disagree with that Jeff Neuman: The point is that we need to all understand and agree that the current rules are that if you have a valid trademark registration for a string that COULD have a generic connotation, but the trademark registration is for a use that is NOT for the use of the mark in connection with the potential generic connotation, that IS allowed as a closed gTLD Jeff Neuman: So the string apple, food, or any other term can be used as a closed TLD provided that the use of the TLD is consistent with the goods/services for which the string is trademarked Mike Rodenbaugh: There is NO definition whatsoever of "public interest" in ICANNland. It is whatever anyone wants to say it is on any given day and any given issue. Michele Neylon: Mike - yeah - it's a wonderfully fluffy term :) Mike Rodenbaugh: It's a ridiculously vague term Karen Day: IF you had a trademark REGISTRATION PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FILIING THE TLD APPLICATION ONLY. Mike Rodenbaugh: The so-called "rule against closed generics" is not one devised by the community. In fact, we came up with the opposite rule (that they should be allowed) in the run-up to 2012. Michael Flemming: Karen is correct. Michael Flemming: So pre-2012 Jim Prendergast: Is there standing GAC advice against closed generics? and where does overcoming that come into this. Mike Rodenbaugh: yes, so that GAC advice somehow became the new "rule" Michele Neylon: +1 Greg Alexander Schubert: The TM should be at least X years old (e.g. 5 years), and USED in at least X nations (not just registered, e.g. 25 nations). A simple 1 year old TM regisration is not good enough. Michele Neylon: the term is generic the usage in the case of apple isn't Michele Neylon: Apple using .apple doesn't bother me Kurt Pritz: The RPM Working Group uses the term "dictionary word" rather than "generic" Michele Neylon: IBM (for example) closing off .cloud just for their own use would bother me Trang Nguyen: @Jim, GAC category 2 advice says: "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal." Jim Prendergast: thx trang Mike Rodenbaugh: the Board then acted on this post 2012 applications Karen Day: @Alexander - and how will that foster innovation? Alexander Schubert: If a generic term is snacked up by a brand and "closed" - then it is inaccessable to the public. And that should not be! Michele Neylon: New TLDs to date haven't fostered much innovation unless you consider price gouging to be innovative Mike Rodenbaugh: @Alexander -- doesn't the same logic apply at the 2d level? Michele Neylon: the last innovative TLD I've seen was .tel and that was a roaring success Alexander Schubert: Industry giants will snoop up their industry related killer keywords - and shut them down. At about US $300k that is a STEAL! Michele Neylon: Alexander - exactly Mike Rodenbaugh: same thing has happened at 2d level Michele Neylon: and that bothers me Karen Day: @Michele that depends on your definition of success. For a brand, success has nothing to do with sales. Alexander Schubert: +1 Susan Payne: @Alexander I don't think thi si sthe place to unpick fundementals of TM law Susan Payne: companies can register TMs, they have to persuade the relevant TM office that it is valid and aceptable registration.That's it Jim Prendergast: http://domainincite.com/22114-loreal-is-using-closed-generic-makeup-in-an-i… Susan Payne: and no-one is stopping you applying first for the purpose of running the TLD in a generic rather than a non-branded manner. There have been plenty of examples of that in round 1. Coach for example Jeff Neuman: Validated TLDs are not closed because they offer third party registrations Alexander Schubert: It is lawful to use a generic keyword for a TM - but not really advisable. Do it on your own risk. Don't tell the world that now that you use a generic term as a TM you need also to shut down the matching TLD. Doesn't fly with the general public, sorry. In TM law there are goods and service classes; in the DNS not! Therefore in the DNS generic keyword terms need to be accessable to the public! Jeff Neuman: That is very different than what we are talking about Slide 8 -- Consideration for a path forward: -- Need to document all the places where public interest was mentioned. Feedback on: -- Is the string considered generic? -- Will the TLD be operated exclusively? -- Is there evident of harm against the public interest? -- Are there any mitigation measures that could be introduced. Discussion: -- As far as predictability, to take one business model and say you can't do that doesn't allow registry operators to run their business in a way that they wish as long as it is not causing negative affects on the technical operational of the Internet. -- Concerned with the use of the word "public interest". Careful about using terms that validate themselves. -- Don't think you could ask a registry if what they are doing is against the public interest. -- What about having an objection procedure? One issue with objection procedures unless you have super deep pockets there was no way to access them. There was no clarity as to how the comments would be handled. An objection procedure would need to be more accessible. -- People need to remember that this issue was addressed in GAC advice and there were a very large number of people who objected. Opposing an application and challenging to get exemptions, there is no reason that can't be a two-way street. -- Part of the issue is where do we stop? We have a number of different objection processes already in place. We would need to set criteria. -- Need to consider if there are other models that are troublesome. Don't look at closed generics in a vacuum. Just one of the ways registries could be run in ways that people don't like. >From the chat: Mike Rodenbaugh: This was very widely and publicly debated prior to 2012 and there was no consensus to preclude 'closed generics'; so they were explicitly allowed. I have still never seen any real explanation as to harm caused by them. Alexander Schubert: Maybe the term "regulate" is wrong here - we issue "policies" Karen Day: Why any special objections other than what is already in place Jeff Neuman 2: I personally believe an objection process needs to focu on the harms to end users (as opposed to harms to competitors, registrars, registrants, etc). Discussion on Harms: -- Before we focus on objections we need to agree on a basis to object. Need focus on harms. If we are talking to harms to registrants because they can't register a name -- is that really what we need to protect? At the end of the day it is to look at harms to end users because a TLD is closed. If we focus on that and come up with what we want to protect the global community from. -- Disagree that objections from competitors should be ignored. If you look at terms such as "harm", it can be construed as many things. You need to allow organizations to voice their objections whether or not competitors. -- ICANN is not the place to deal with competition law. Competition law can only look after the fact and then take steps to address that. - If you have monopoly power there are lots of things you can't do. ICANN is a place where competitors get together. If there is collusive behavior there could be an issue. There is no guarantee of a level playing field and there does not appear to be a legal issue here. -- Those in favor or against closed generics, the arguments have not changed. -- Could the challenge procedure be based on the proposed harms? - Existing policy recommendations did not provide a clear direction, though it was generally understood. Is there somewhere in between no problem with closed generics and should be completely disallowed? Is there some way to handle the public policy concerns and still allow? Is there room for compromise? - If we're getting into the business of challenging business models, should it be limited to just closed generics? And just because there is this rule, doesn't mean we need to continue it. There should be benefit and harms analysis. -- NGPC in relation to closed generics, was concerned about generics that did not serve the public interest. - Who's responsibility is it to determine the validity of harms? Jeff: After GAC Advice, ICANN asked applicants how the registry would be in the public interest or not harm the public interest. The burden was on the applicant to demonstrate. What may be more appropriate is for the challenger to demonstrate that intended usage is against the public interest. -- There was the assumption that TLDs would support third party registrations, or created marketplaces for 2nd-level domains. THere should be more substantial harms than just foreclosing a possible marketplace. There should not be a public interest arguement that a 3rd party registrant model should be the preferred model. -- ICANN Bylaws - nothing about closed generics specifically. - ICANN asked applicants why exclusive access is in the public interest. No evaluation of response about substance of arguments. Insistence on maintaining closed generic meant being on hold and majority changed their exclusive use rules. -- Understanding the numbers provided by Trang. 174 have reluctantly indicated they will not operate as exclusive use. How about the 12? All but 5 withdrew. 1 signed Spec 13. Rest signed RA. -- Even if the exclusive use was in the public interest, didn't seem to be a factor. -- Just because past procedure had mistakes does not necessarily mean entire process was broken. >From the chat: Mike Rodenbaugh: before we consider an objection process, don't we need to agree on some substantive basis to object? Jeff Neuman 2: Harm in competition law is ONLY assessed after the harms are realized....not in order to prevent theoretical harms Susan Payne 3: some of these proposed harms are ludicrous, so no avri doria: is no compromise postion possible? have we explored the middle space? Cheryl Langdon-Orr: @Avri good point there is often reaction to the who holds a generic name Trang Nguyen: Implementation of GAC category 2 "exclusive access" advice is here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/gac-cat2-advice-19mar14… Jeff Neuman 2: @Trang correct. But ICANN never evaluated those responses. It paints the picture that 100+ TLDs voluntarily withdrew their desire to be exclusive use application Jeff Neuman 2: but they did not. Jeff Neuman 2: They eventaully did when it became clear after months that ICANN was not going to approve their TLDs IF they insisted on staying closed Jeff Neuman 2: in essence ICANN sent the message "if you want to stay closed, you will not move forward in this round" avri doria: that is what i call the defacto policy Mike Rodenbaugh: @Jeff that is right, they withdrew beause they didn't want many years of delay or outright obstruction from GAC and Michele's army. they needed to get to market to recoup investment. (which seems funny now) Jeff Neuman 2: So faced with the choice, most said, ok we will say we are not exclusive use Karen Day: @Jeff that is 100% what happened. Karen Day: Told change you application language or go home and lose your money. Mike Rodenbaugh: yes, that is what happened Jim Prendergast: They made it perfectly clear by putting the prohibition into the contract Trang Nguyen: There were 189 applications that were mentioned in GAC category 2 advice. Trang Nguyen: Of those, here's a break-down: Trang Nguyen: 139 indicated that the applied-for TLDs will not be operated as exclusive access TLDs; 12 indicated that the applied-for TLDs will be operated as exclusive access registries; 35 indicated that their applications currently state that the applied-for TLDs will be operated as exclusive access registries, but the applicants will not operate them as exclusive access registries.

1 0

Agenda for Meeting at 15 UTC September 28, 2017
by Michael Flemming Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

Dear All, Noting that our meeting last week was cancelled, I resend the agenda for this week's call. Please note that we will have our WT2 meeting at 15 UTC September 28, 2017. The agenda for this week is below. 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. Continuation of CC2 Comments and discussion on Closed Generics 4. AOB If you have any questions, then please feel free to reach out to me. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

5 4

Agenda for Meeting at 21 UTC September 21, 2017
by Michael Flemming Sept. 22, 2017

Sept. 22, 2017

Dear All, Please note that we will have our WT2 meeting at 21 UTC September 21, 2017. The agenda for this week is below. 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. Continuation of CC2 Comments and discussion on Closed Generics 4. AOB The Closed Generics discussion is one we have spent a lot of time on and we are hoping to move forward to a path forward for policy development. I ask that everyone who has a high interest in this discussion to attend this week. If you have any questions, then please feel free to reach out to me. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

2 3

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] **MEETING CANCELED** Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 21 September 2017 at 21:00 UTC
by Jeff Neuman Sept. 20, 2017

Sept. 20, 2017

All, I just wanted to send a note around about this. After it being brought to our attention that this call was scheduled during the Jewish High Holidays and that we had a request from several people who wanted to discuss the subject matter to reschedule the call, the Leadership team decided to cancel this call and move the topic of Closed Generics until the following week and to add an extra ½ hour to the call on September 28th. I apologize for not having realized this issue sooner and to give more notice to the group. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Bisland Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 4:48 PM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] **MEETING CANCELED** Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 21 September 2017 at 21:00 UTC ***CANCELED*** Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 21 September 2017 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 14:00 PDT, 17:00 EDT, 22:00 London BST, 23:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/yboa3yzc[tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_yboa3yzc&d=…> Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option below (also sent in the calendar invitation). Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew You're Invited. You've been invited to a GlobalMeet® phone only meeting. Have the meeting call you. Click the Connect Me link below. No need to dial-in. Connect Me [toolbar.conferencinghub.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__toolbar.conferencinghu…> Not at your computer? You can join by dialing one of the access numbers below. Mobile: tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825#<tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825> Access Number: 1-605-475-5604 Guest Passcode: 8650457825 Additional Access: USA: 1-605-475-5604 USA: 1-712-770-4203 USA: 1-719-457-6209 Canada, Calgary: +1 403 407 5793 Canada, Montreal: +1 514 669 5928 Canada, Toronto: +1 647 426 9172 Canada, Vancouver: +1 604 222 7836 Argentina, Buenos Aires: +54 (0) 11 5172 6003 Argentina (toll free): 0800 800 1223 Australia, Sydney: +61 (0) 2 8017 6064 Australia, Melbourne: +61 (0) 3 8687 0553 Australia, Brisbane: +61 (0) 7 3015 0535 Australia (toll free): 1 800 804 786 Austria, Vienna: +43 (0) 1 25302 1785 Austria (toll free): 0800 8866 3413 Bahrain, Manama: +973 1619 8739 Bahrain (toll free): 800 04212 Belarus (toll free): 8 820 0011 0341 Belgium, Brussels: +32 (0) 2 400 6928 Belgium (toll free): 0800 39279 Brazil, Sao Paulo: +55 11 4935 7169 Brazil, Rio de Janeiro: +55 21 4560 0072 Brazil (toll free): 0800 887 0233 Bulgaria, Sofia: +359 (0) 2 491 6045 Bulgaria (toll free): 00800 111 4950 Cambodia, Phnom Penh: +855 23 965 723 Canada (toll free): 1 855 950 3717 Chile, Santiago: +56 (0) 2 2666 0696 Chile (toll free): 171 800 835 783 China (national): +400 613 8103 China, Beijing: +86 10 5667 0003 China, Shanghai: +86 21 2039 7081 Colombia, Bogota: +57 1 508 8137 Colombia (toll free): 01 800 755 0102 Costa Rica (toll free): 800 542 5328 Croatia (toll free): 0800 805 940 Cyprus (toll free): 800 97424 Czech Republic, Prague: +420 225 986 554 Czech Republic (toll free): 800 701 532 Denmark, Copenhagen: +45 32 72 78 10 Denmark (toll free): 80 70 35 86 Egypt (toll free): 0800 000 0593 Estonia, Tallinn: +372 622 6551 Estonia (toll free): 800 011 1589 Fiji (toll free): 00800 3322 Finland, Helsinki: +358 (0) 9 2310 1677 Finland (toll free): 0800 772 236 France, Paris: +33 (0) 1 70 37 16 56 France (toll free): 0800 946 531 France (national): 0811 655 100 France (national): 0821 231 671 Georgia, Tbilisi: +995 32 2 050 778 Germany, Frankfurt: +49 (0) 69 2222 10612 Germany, Munich: +49 (0) 89 2030 31207 Germany (national): 01801 003 899 Germany (toll free): 0800 588 9170 Greece, Athens: +30 211 181 3824 Greece (toll free): 00800 128 913 Hong Kong: +852 3018 9111 Hong Kong (toll free): 800 901 787 Hungary, Budapest: +36 1408 8953 Hungary (toll free): 068 001 9673 Iceland (toll free): 800 9847 India, Delhi: +91 (0) 11 6641 1394 India, Bangalore: +91 (0) 80 6127 6710 India, Mumbai: +91 (0)22 6187 5028 India, Chennai: +91 (0)44 6688 6061 India (toll free): 1800 200 9415 Indonesia, Jakarta: +62 21 2188 9084 Indonesia (toll free): 007 803 321 8927 Ireland, Dublin: +353 (0) 1 526 9421 Ireland (national): 0818 270 271 Ireland (toll free): 1800 937 649 Ireland (national): 1890 907 630 Israel, Tel Aviv: +972 (0)3 721 7943 Israel (toll free): 1809 213 168 Italy, Milan: +39 02 3600 8006 Italy, Rome: +39 06 8750 0676 Italy (toll free): 800 146 094 Japan, Tokyo: +81 (0) 3 4560 1270 Japan, Osaka: +81 (0) 6 4560 2410 Japan (toll free): 0120 305 211 Japan (mobile): 0120 632 611 Japan (national): 0570 085 744 Kazakhstan (toll free): 8800 333 7554 Kenya, Nairobi: +254 (0)20 529 3581 South Korea, Seoul: +82 (0) 2 6007 0079 South Korea (toll free): 00798 6136 1454 Latvia, Riga: +371 6601 3627 Latvia (toll free): 8000 4418 Lithuania, Vilnius: +370 5205 5468 Lithuania (toll free): 8800 31449 Luxembourg: +352 2088 1749 Luxembourg (toll free): 800 28433 Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur: +60 (0) 3 7724 8010 Malaysia (toll free): 1 800 816 152 Mexico, Guadalajara: +52 33 4162 4504 Mexico, Mexico City: +52 55 8421 0326 Mexico, Monterrey: +52 81 4162 5648 Mexico (toll free): 01 800 733 4102 Morocco, Casablanca: +212 (0) 520 48 0022 Morocco (toll free): 0800 091 296 Netherlands, Amsterdam: +31 (0) 20 716 8345 Netherlands (toll free): 0800 020 2597 New Zealand, Christchurch: +64 (0) 3 974 2596 New Zealand, Wellington: +64 (0) 4 909 4674 New Zealand, Auckland: +64 (0) 9 929 1825 New Zealand (toll free): 0800 452 947 Nigeria, Lagos: +234 1 277 3944 Norway, Oslo: +47 21 00 48 15 Norway (toll free): 800 56081 Oman (toll free): 800 77265 Panama, Panama City: +507 8 335 913 Panama (toll free): 00800 223 1390 Peru, Lima: +51 (0) 1 700 9571 Peru (toll free): 0800 78102 Philippines, Manila: +63 (0)2 395 3426 Philippines (toll free): 1 800 111 013 99 Poland, Warsaw: +48 22 295 3570 Poland (toll free): 00 800 121 4356 Portugal, Lisbon: +351 21 316 4093 Portugal (toll free): 800 784 442 Qatar (toll free): 00 800 100 491 Romania, Bucharest: +40 (0) 21 529 3992 Romania (toll free): 0800 801 035 Russia, Moscow: +7 495 646 9181 Russia (toll free): 8 800 500 9241 Saudi Arabia (toll free): 800 844 6641 Saudi Arabia (toll free): 800 850 0219 Serbia (toll free): 0800 190 712 Singapore: +65 6622 1957 Singapore (toll free): 800 616 3192 Slovakia, Bratislava: +421 (0)2 3321 5498 Slovakia (toll free): 0800 002 002 Slovenia, Ljubljana: +386 1600 8695 Slovenia (toll free): 0800 81193 South Africa, Johannesburg: +27 (0)11 589 8321 South Africa (toll free): 0800 999 434 Spain, Madrid: +34 91 114 6653 Spain, Barcelona: +34 93 800 1946 Spain (toll free): 900 828 035 Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka: +94 720 910 333 Sweden, Stockholm: +46 (0) 8 5065 3956 Sweden (toll free): 0200 125 588 Switzerland, Geneva: +41 (0) 22 595 4795 Switzerland, Zurich: +41 (0) 44 580 7207 Switzerland (toll free): 0800 740 360 Taiwan, Taipei: +886 (0) 2 2650 7329 Taiwan (toll free): 0800 666 596 Thailand, Bangkok: +66 (0) 2104 0761 Thailand (toll free): 001 800 6136 1473 Tunisia, Tunis: +216 31 378 101 Turkey, Istanbul: +90 212 375 50 49 Turkey (toll free): 00800 4488 26642 Ukraine (toll free): 0800 500 896 UAE (toll free): 8000 3570 2662 UK (03): +44 (0)330 336 6002 UK (toll free): 0800 358 6385 UK (national): 0844 473 5010 UK (national): 0845 545 0015 USA /Canada (toll free): 1-866-398-2885 Uruguay (toll free): 0004 019 0152 Venezuela, Caracas: +58 212 720 2164 Venezuela (toll free): 0 800 162 7451 Vietnam, Hanoi: +84 4 4458 3312 Vietnam (toll free): 1800 9226

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 14 September 2017 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 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, 14 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording : https://participate.icann.org/p18nw3eloxp/ 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9hkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 September 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_9 hkhB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ 9hkhB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6T mF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCD hu0lujKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=m9SERfdwoFfC7OYAUL1PMT4uutjgecOFJpMWB8jgUt4&e=> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zm yci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lu jKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=m9SERfdwoFfC7OYAUL1PMT4uutjgecOFJpMWB8jgUt4&e= Jeff Neuman:Will we get to 15 participants? Michael Flemming:I'm only logged in on my phone so that must be an imposter me clo:sorry I am on my mobile phone we have lost landline phone lines it seems Michael Flemming:closed generics Michael Flemming:not registrant protection Justine Chew:Do we know if Jannik Skou represents any stakeholder group? Is his (potentially) the only comment from a non-commercial group? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin. com_in_jannikskou_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_ja nnikskou_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqs LT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6 _OCDhu0lujKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=7P8M-7KHhx0V1gwYTqvHlka9lz6RjFyVq44wSBjev9M&e=> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zm yci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lu jKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=7P8M-7KHhx0V1gwYTqvHlka9lz6RjFyVq44wSBjev9M&e= Emily Barabas:Jannik Skou SOI: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis play_gnsosoi_Jannik-2BSkou-2BSOI <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di splay_gnsosoi_Jannik-2BSkou-2BSOI&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6s Jms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsj Wv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lujKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=lqd0D43VH3fFcKNyAb-scHJQ B1XremYoXE9QTBz-zUw&e=> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zm yci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lu jKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=lqd0D43VH3fFcKNyAb-scHJQB1XremYoXE9QTBz-zUw&e= Justine Chew:Right, thanks. Then his is not a "community" comment. Justine Chew:@Jeff, yes that's what I wanted to get at. Thanks. Justine Chew:@Avri, thanks for the clarification. Heather Forrest:Norway Jim Prendergast:I agree we need to ask the GAC to clarify. I don't think anyone wants to try and interpret what the GAC says Heather Forrest:International law requires that jurisdictions protect signs 9including generic terms) that have acquired distinctiveness. Justine Chew:Yes, TM protection also based on classes of goods/service. Michael Flemming:yes distinctiveness Trang Nguyen:Implementation of GAC Category 2 Advice (exclusive access) can be viewed at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a pplicants_advisories_gac-2Dcat2-2Dadvice-2D19mar14-2Den <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_ applicants_advisories_gac-2Dcat2-2Dadvice-2D19mar14-2Den&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJ p6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqES Ge_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lujKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=q qu2ivanYpgfctUra76x5wU_C32cuItbRXSKNby4apE&e=> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zm yci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lu jKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=qqu2ivanYpgfctUra76x5wU_C32cuItbRXSKNby4apE&e= Heather Forrest:Yes - context is a significant part of consumer recognition Trang Nguyen:There were 12 applicants that stated that it was their intent to operate exclusive access registries. ICANN asked those applicants to provide a response for how the proposed exclusive registry access serves a public interest goal. Trang Nguyen:I can't recall how many of the 12 ultimately decided to stay exclusive access. Let me do some checking. Justine Chew:Fine balance between "changing goal-posts" and "moving forward with the times". Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):did everyone else just lose audio or just me? Michelle DeSmyter:Jeff, we are not able to hear you Justine Chew:Lost audio Jim Prendergast:hung up instead of unmuting Jim Prendergast:dialing back Jeff Neuman:Thanks Jim. Let us know when you are back in Michael Flemming 2:Our decisions can allow for paths that back track to 2012 applicants Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):no audio in Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):sorry Aug winds playing havock.... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hard to hear Michael Flemming 2:Thanks Jeff, gotta drop Trang Nguyen:Of the 12 that initially indicated they will operate as exclusive registries, 7 withdrew, 1 obtained a Spec 13 (FOOD), the remaining 5 signed the RA, which includes Spec 11. Spec 11 has a provision that says: "Registry Operator of a "Generic String" TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's "Affiliates" (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). "Generic String" means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others." Trang Nguyen:sorry about that copy/paste Trang Nguyen:Of the 12 that initially indicated they will operate as exclusive registries, 7 withdrew, 1 obtained a Spec 13 (FOOD), the remaining 5 signed the RA, which includes Spec 11. Spec 11 has a provision that says: "Registry Operator of a "Generic String" TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's "Affiliates" (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). "Generic String" means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others." Trang Nguyen:Sorry, that should say remaining "4" Trang Nguyen:The 4 are .GROCERY, .DVR, .DATA, .PHONE Justine Chew:@Trang, thanks, useful info. Emily Barabas:Full comment from NORID is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads heets_d_1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tXnl3qV0rc_edit-23gid-3D1963024039 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread sheets_d_1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tXnl3qV0rc_edit-23gid-3D196302403 9&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Z myci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0l ujKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=VZSMgalZMo--OttD8W15b-trWEbbjscQZ7aknhV_l4E&e=> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zm yci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lu jKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=VZSMgalZMo--OttD8W15b-trWEbbjscQZ7aknhV_l4E&e= Trang Nguyen:Safeway's GROCERY was withdrawn. The one that was delegated is from Wal-Mart. Heather Forrest:None, thank you Jeff Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Good night. Justine Chew:Thanks! avri doria:bye

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 Sub Team Meeting 14 September
by Steve Chan Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 14 September. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The meeting recording and chat transcript are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/9hkhB. Best, Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 14 September 2017 2. SOI Updates -- None -- Next plenary call on the 25 September. Note sent by Jeff re: replacement for Avri as she moves to the ICANN Board. Nominations needed by end of the next call. Description and suggested qualifications for co-chair versus vice-chair provided. 3. CC2 Comments: Closed Generics Slide 2 (Intro) -- Will discuss closed generics on 21 Sept meeting as well. Slide 4 (Recap) -- Recap of where we are now -- Requested to be discussed by NGPC. Unless consensus received to change, status quo remains. -- Support: business model innovation, consumer choice, free expression, avoids ICANN regulating business models, competition, word classification -- Against: harms competition, favors industry players, hunders free expression for potentional registrants -- There is no clear definition of who we are trying to protect (end-users, registrants, registrars, etc.) -- If path forward for some closed generics, circumstances will need to be defined while addressing public interest concerns Slide 5 -- Text of question Slide 6 (CC2 2.4.1) -- Hard to define generic. Change policy should prevent switching to open later (Jannik Skou) -- Too hard to define generics and ICANN should not be deciding what is a generic string (INTA) Slide 7 (CC2 2.4.1) -- Should not be blanket rule preventing, partly b/c difficult to define. Certain closed "generics" could be problematic and could be guarded against by objections measures (BC) -- Should be lifted to allow innovation (Afilias) Slide 8 (CC2 2.4.1) -- Unrestricted process migh allow for more utility. A more structured model could enhance security (Google) -- Objection measures provide adequate protections. Not a security or stability concern. Solidying the classic use case of selling domain names (RySG) -- Jim: Lots of cases of GAC concentrating on content and use (referencing Afilias comment). Maybe difficult to adhere to. Jeff: At least reducing focus on content and use could be helpful. Justine Chew: Do we know if Jannik Skou represents any stakeholder group? Is his (potentially) the only comment from a non-commercial group? Jeff: Some in the non-commercial support lifting (e.g., Milton Mueller) Avri: NC community split on issue. Emily Barabas: Jannik Skou SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Jannik+Skou+SOI[community.icann… Slide 9 (CC2 2.4.1) Support restricting closed generics -- Exclusive use should serve a public interest (GAC). Jeff: could be construed as allowing exclusive use if there is a public interest goal. Direct outreach to GAC might be needed. -- "True" generics should not be restricted for exclusive use. These words would not be accepted as a brand and received TM protection. Jeff: generic words can be trademarked if not used in their generic sense (e.g., apple). Heather Forrest: International law requires that jurisdictions protect signs 9including generic terms) that have acquired distinctiveness. -- Looking for triangular relationship. Connect term to a trader and to a good or service. Applicable to words that have more than one meeting. International law requires that this be recognized. Jeff: in TM law, context matters. Justine Chew: Yes, TM protection also based on classes of goods/service. Trang Nguyen: Implementation of GAC Category 2 Advice (exclusive access) can be viewed at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/gac-cat2-advice-19mar14… Trang Nguyen: There were 12 applicants that stated that it was their intent to operate exclusive access registries. ICANN asked those applicants to provide a response for how the proposed exclusive registry access serves a public interest goal. -- Jeff: applicants were allowed to provide response. Were any accepted? ACTION ITEM (Trang): will research to determine how many decided to stay exclusive and how many were allowed. Slide 10 -- Process was messy and open to improvement. Ban on closed generics should be maintained (Jim). Question of fairness of process for last round and going forward. There were those in 2012 round that had to withdraw or change their business plans. Need this backward looking component as future applicants could be advantaged. -- Jeff: Fairness argument is strong. If that could be addressed, is there an argument against closed generics otherwise? -- Avri: Not in scope to make decisions made in the past. If it's determined that rules should be changed, there is history of those changes being applied to the old. Focus should be on fair decisions going forward. Jeff: policy based on lessons learned. if, say starting from scratch, the WG would do it a certain way, but could acknowledge problems of fairness or other challenges. -- Impacts consumer choice and consumer confusion (ALAC) ACTION ITEM: get context of ALAC comment. -- Supports ban on closed generics for the foreseeable future (Nominet) Slide 11 (2.4.2) -- Text of question -- Michael: Is the current standard to restrict? Jeff: NGPC stated that exclusion was for the 2012 round, but did not specify about the future. There might not be a status quo in this case. Best case would be to get to a recommendation, but in absence of that, status quo could include policy and the way things were implemented. ACTION ITEM: Keep as an discussion topic if consensus recommendations are unachievable. Slide 12 -- If closed generics are retained, definition makes sense (NORID, RySG, ALAC) Slide 13 -- Not necessary to define if restriction lifted. (BC, Afilias, RySG) Slide 14 -- Restriction against closed generics should be maintained but exception to rule against closed generics.Some may qualify for Spec 9, but not Spec 13. -- Collisions, UA, TMs, service marks (John Poole) Slide 15 -- Brands are not "generic terms" or geo names. "True" generics should not be allowed to be closed (NORID) Trang Nguyen: Of the 12 that initially indicated they will operate as exclusive registries, 7 withdrew, 1 obtained a Spec 13 (FOOD), the remaining 4 signed the RA, which includes Spec 11. Spec 11 has a provision that says: "Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s “Affiliates” (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). “Generic String” means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others." Trang Nguyen: The 4 are .GROCERY, .DVR, .DATA, .PHONE ACTION ITEM: Examine how these 4 TLDs are being used. Slide 16 -- Questions for discussion on next call. -- Re: question 2. Spec 13 requires adherence to element of Spec 11. Is there a contradiction? Will review Spec 13 and 11 on the next call. >From the chat: Michelle DeSmyter: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Michelle DeSmyter: Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9hkhB[community.icann.org] Jeff Neuman: Will we get to 15 participants? Michael Flemming: I'm only logged in on my phone so that must be an imposter me clo: sorry I am on my mobile phone we have lost landline phone lines it seems Michael Flemming: closed generics Michael Flemming: not registrant protection Justine Chew: Do we know if Jannik Skou represents any stakeholder group? Is his (potentially) the only comment from a non-commercial group? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): https://www.linkedin.com/in/jannikskou[linkedin.com]/ Emily Barabas: Jannik Skou SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Jannik+Skou+SOI[community.icann… Justine Chew: Right, thanks. Then his is not a "community" comment. Justine Chew: @Jeff, yes that's what I wanted to get at. Thanks. Justine Chew: @Avri, thanks for the clarification. Heather Forrest: Norway Jim Prendergast: I agree we need to ask the GAC to clarify. I don't think anyone wants to try and interpret what the GAC says Heather Forrest: International law requires that jurisdictions protect signs 9including generic terms) that have acquired distinctiveness. Justine Chew: Yes, TM protection also based on classes of goods/service. Michael Flemming: yes distinctiveness Trang Nguyen: Implementation of GAC Category 2 Advice (exclusive access) can be viewed at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/gac-cat2-advice-19mar14… Heather Forrest: Yes - context is a significant part of consumer recognition Trang Nguyen: There were 12 applicants that stated that it was their intent to operate exclusive access registries. ICANN asked those applicants to provide a response for how the proposed exclusive registry access serves a public interest goal. Trang Nguyen: I can't recall how many of the 12 ultimately decided to stay exclusive access. Let me do some checking. Justine Chew: Fine balance between "changing goal-posts" and "moving forward with the times". Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): did everyone else just lose audio or just me? Michelle DeSmyter: Jeff, we are not able to hear you Justine Chew: Lost audio Jim Prendergast: hung up instead of unmuting Jim Prendergast: dialing back Jeff Neuman: Thanks Jim. Let us know when you are back in Michael Flemming 2: Our decisions can allow for paths that back track to 2012 applicants Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): no audio in Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): sorry Aug winds playing havock.... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Hard to hear Michael Flemming 2: Thanks Jeff, gotta drop Trang Nguyen: Of the 12 that initially indicated they will operate as exclusive registries, 7 withdrew, 1 obtained a Spec 13 (FOOD), the remaining 5 signed the RA, which includes Spec 11. Spec 11 has a provision that says: "Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s “Affiliates” (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). “Generic String” means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others." Trang Nguyen: sorry about that copy/paste Trang Nguyen: Of the 12 that initially indicated they will operate as exclusive registries, 7 withdrew, 1 obtained a Spec 13 (FOOD), the remaining 5 signed the RA, which includes Spec 11. Spec 11 has a provision that says: "Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s “Affiliates” (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). “Generic String” means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others." Trang Nguyen: Sorry, that should say remaining "4" Trang Nguyen: The 4 are .GROCERY, .DVR, .DATA, .PHONE Justine Chew: @Trang, thanks, useful info. Emily Barabas: Full comment from NORID is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tX… Trang Nguyen: Safeway's GROCERY was withdrawn. The one that was delegated is from Wal-Mart. Heather Forrest: None, thank you Jeff Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Good night. Justine Chew: Thanks! avri doria: bye Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

[CORRECTION] Re: Agenda for WT2 Call at 3 UTC on 14 September 2017
by Michael Flemming Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 2017

My apologies, this call is at 14 September 3 UTC. Not 13 September. Kind regards, ――――――――――――――――――――――――――― GMO Brights Consulting Inc. IP Solutions Department, New gTLD Team, Chief Michael Flemming Office: +81-3-5784 1069 / Mobile: +81-80-4951-5306 FAX: +81-3-5521-0117 / Mail: flemming(a)brightsconsulting.com Cerulean Tower, 26-1, Sakuragaoka-cho Shibuya-ku Tokyo 150-8512, Japan ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― Thank you for 21 years! Internet for Everyone ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― GMO INTERNET GROUP https://www.gmo.jp/en/ ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― This message may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the named addressee of this message please let us know by reply and destroy it without reading, using, copying or disclosing its contents to any other person. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Michael Flemming < flemming(a)brightsconsulting.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Please forgive if this email has been sent to you numerous times, but I am > sending just to make sure it gets to everyone in the group. > > Please note the agenda for next week's call at 3 UTC 13 September 2017. > > > - Welcome > > - SOI Updates > > - CC2 Comments: Closed Generics > > - AOB > > Please note as previously communicated that September begins our weekly > call schedule as adversed to our biweekly calls. This call will be held at > 3 UTC outside of our normal 21 UTC Thursday schedule because of another > call scheduled for 21 UTC Thursday next week. I know this is rather tough > on everyone, but please understand that WT2 has a lot of material to cover > and limited time to do it in. Our goal is to review all CC2 comments as a > second pass through the topics before ICANN60. We are scheduled to have > initial consensus/deliberations in time for the initial report for > Subsequent Procedures PDP in the coming months. As such, we must review all > material and come to initial proposals for the full WG to review. I thank > everyone for their understanding and cooperation. > > Also, I must apologise as I have a conflict next week and will be unable > to host, but I should be able to attend the majority of the call. Either > Phil or Jeff will host next week's meeting. > > We look forward to discussing with everyone and will endeavour to send out > the material as early as humanely possible. > > Kind regards, > > Michael Flemming > > ――――――――――――――――――――――――――― > GMO Brights Consulting Inc. > IP Solutions Department, New gTLD Team, Chief > Michael Flemming > Office: +81-3-5784 1069 <+81%203-5784-1069> / Mobile: +81-80-4951-5306 > <+81%2080-4951-5306> > FAX: +81-3-5521-0117 <+81%203-5521-0117> / Mail: flemming@ > brightsconsulting.com > Cerulean Tower, 26-1, Sakuragaoka-cho > Shibuya-ku Tokyo 150-8512, Japan > ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― > Thank you for 21 years! Internet for Everyone > ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― > GMO INTERNET GROUP https://www.gmo.jp/en/ > ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― > > This message may contain information which is privileged or confidential. > If you are not the named addressee of this message please let us know by > reply and destroy it without reading, using, copying or disclosing its > contents to any other person. >

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Call at 3 UTC on 13 September 2017
by Michael Flemming Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 2017

Dear All, Please forgive if this email has been sent to you numerous times, but I am sending just to make sure it gets to everyone in the group. Please note the agenda for next week's call at 3 UTC 13 September 2017. - Welcome - SOI Updates - CC2 Comments: Closed Generics - AOB Please note as previously communicated that September begins our weekly call schedule as adversed to our biweekly calls. This call will be held at 3 UTC outside of our normal 21 UTC Thursday schedule because of another call scheduled for 21 UTC Thursday next week. I know this is rather tough on everyone, but please understand that WT2 has a lot of material to cover and limited time to do it in. Our goal is to review all CC2 comments as a second pass through the topics before ICANN60. We are scheduled to have initial consensus/deliberations in time for the initial report for Subsequent Procedures PDP in the coming months. As such, we must review all material and come to initial proposals for the full WG to review. I thank everyone for their understanding and cooperation. Also, I must apologise as I have a conflict next week and will be unable to host, but I should be able to attend the majority of the call. Either Phil or Jeff will host next week's meeting. We look forward to discussing with everyone and will endeavour to send out the material as early as humanely possible. Kind regards, Michael Flemming ――――――――――――――――――――――――――― GMO Brights Consulting Inc. IP Solutions Department, New gTLD Team, Chief Michael Flemming Office: +81-3-5784 1069 / Mobile: +81-80-4951-5306 FAX: +81-3-5521-0117 / Mail: flemming(a)brightsconsulting.com Cerulean Tower, 26-1, Sakuragaoka-cho Shibuya-ku Tokyo 150-8512, Japan ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― Thank you for 21 years! Internet for Everyone ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― GMO INTERNET GROUP https://www.gmo.jp/en/ ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― This message may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the named addressee of this message please let us know by reply and destroy it without reading, using, copying or disclosing its contents to any other person.

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call
by Julie Bisland Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 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, 7 September 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p4ajs4794ia/<https://participate.icann.org/p4ajs4794ia/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=f0f4dcd59786ab91…> 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/LgEhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 7 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 07 September 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:Are we expecting a small turnout because of Irma and Harvey? Michael Flemming:Could I get slide control please? Michael Flemming:Thx Steve Chan:@Michael, slides are unsynced so everyone has control of their own slides Jeff Neuman:I wish i had a small violin emoji for Adobe Connect Jon Nevett:For the record, i object to 2 meetings per week Jon Nevett:there are 5 subgroups and many of us participate on most, if not all of them -- thanks! Steve Chan:We'll be starting on slide 20 Steve Chan:Note, you can review the ICANN org feedback on the Background Screening topic in the Program Implementation Review Report here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… on page 57 Greg Shatan:Sound went crazy for a while. Julie Bisland:yes, seems Michael's audio got suddenly loud Greg Shatan:Good Julie Bisland:excellent Kiran Malancharuvil:It's fine now Julie Bisland:it does sound good now Julie Bisland:thank you Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Emily Barabas:Welcome Alan. We are on slide 24 Alan Greenberg:Where are we in the slide deck? Alan Greenberg:Thanks! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):a point well made in my view Michael Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with Michael Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):then I am also from AP :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Very true Paul! Jeff Neuman:@Paul - was that an issue of non-enforcement or poor language on affiliates? Kiran Malancharuvil:Good point Paul. ICANN needs to be transparent about how they respond to these complaints and submissions. Jeff Neuman:or both Michael Flemming:I agree with that. Transparency but at the same time flexibility for dotBrands. (personal opinion) Alexander Schubert:How about the opposite approach: and impose EXTRA coast on Fortune 500 Corps? Paul McGrady:I'm for finding ways to lowering application fees for anyone we can - too much wheel spinning in this program. Heather Forrest:To the extent that we can rely on public information (stock exchanges, court decisions, etc) that is most efficient and transparent Michael Flemming:+1 Greg (personal opinion) Heather Forrest:Good question Jim - ICANN is getting a legal opinion. We should see if that's going to be addressed Kiran Malancharuvil:Re: GDPR, Consent with certainly play a role, as would public/legitimate interest. Greg Shatan:TMI, Cheryl. Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with Heather to make sure that ICANN includes that question in the GDPR readiness project Kiran Malancharuvil:That was Heather's suggestion, not mine. :) But I agree with her. Heather Forrest:No problem! Alexander Schubert:OBJECTION: The applicant for .chicago might turn that around and claim that ICANN would check them out - so the city doesn't have to do it...... Jon Nevett:probably should add PDDRP loss or two Greg Shatan:Yes, now that that's a thing. Kiran Malancharuvil:PICDRP should probably be included in the evaluation. Although I tend to agree that it shouldn't be defacto. Paul McGrady:The cybersquatting bar is useless if never enforced by ICANN. Paul McGrady:Needs to be enforced in the next round. Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 paul. I'm really disturbed to hear that evidence of cyberquatting was ignored. Kiran Malancharuvil:I also think ICANN should be looking into that proactively and should not wait for submissions. Michael Flemming:No, we love the feedback. Anyone is welcome. Jon Nevett:not if a good faith dispute Greg Shatan:Paul, don't you mean the anti-cybersquatting bar? :-) Kiran Malancharuvil:Paul is correct. They should look at everything and evaluate whether it impacts their potential obligations as an RO. And the community should set what that means so it's not a subjective evaluation. Paul McGrady:@Greg - yep. Upside down... Greg Shatan:@Michael -- randomly, like drug tests? Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks Michael. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye ð the now Alexander Schubert:Tnx Greg Shatan:Thank you!

1 0