March 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2

Recording, attendance & Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 21:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter March 30, 2018

March 30, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and Webex chat attached to this email. The p3 recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call held on Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 21:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-29mar18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-29mar18-en.mp3> 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/FxO8B Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Recording, attendance & Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 21:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter March 30, 2018

March 30, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Webex chat and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call held on Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 21:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-29mar18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-29mar18-en.mp3> 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/FxO8B Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 29 March 2018
by Julie Hedlund March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. 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 recording. Please see the link to the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dp4Jl8eVrdU75Nvmh9A999Fu0wUYOR5am80tQDG… Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 29 March 2017 Global Public Interest -- Review possible recommendations (last two pages in the Google Doc): “Mandatory PICs: The WT is considering a recommendation to grandfather the current mandatory PICS [Include Citation as to which ones are mandatory]. In addition, such mandatory PICS should be revisited to reflect the ongoing discussions between the GAC Public Safety Working Group and Registries as appropriate.” -- Why not grandfather the mandatory PICs? Why revisit them? -- Include a short sentence describing why the mandatory pics were added. “Voluntary PICs: The Work Track recommends continuing the concept of Voluntary Public Interest Commitments and asking Applicants to state any voluntary PICs in its application. In addition, the Working Group supports the ability of Applicants to commit to additional PICs in response to public comments, GAC Early Warnings and/ or GAC Advice. Except under limited circumstances, as set out in the Applicant Guidebook, such PICS may result in changing the nature of the application.” -- If a PIC is being offered and if cannot be withdrawn, then it does effectively become part of the application. “At the time a Voluntary PIC is made, the Applicant must set forth whether such PIC is limited in time, duration and/or scope such that the PIC can adequately be reviewed by ICANN, an existing Objector (if applicable) and/or the GAC (if the voluntary PIC was in response to a GAC Early Warning or GAC Advice).” -- When you specify a PIC you must specify that you are committing to something. In the last round only one group of PICs was explicitly listed as ones where you reserved the right to change them. But it wasn’t clear if a PIC was changeable at some point in the future. If a PIC is suggested in response to GAC advice then we don’t want it to be changed unilaterally. So this is an important clause and it has to stay. -- If a PIC is part of the application it is part of the reason the application was approved. It is possible that there would be a big switch for voluntary PICs that would put stakeholder minds at ease. A commitment that one could withdraw at discretion is hardly a commitment at all. This is ripe for gamesmanship if we don’t do anything about it. -- ICANN has a strong aversion to not tinker with people’s business plans – such as in the RSEP procedure. The RSEP could be a marvelous vehicle for withdrawing to a PIC. If there is a process for changing a PIC later it has to have a larger affect than just the security and stability of the Internet. Support keeping this provision and maybe make it stronger. -- Should there be a process to change PICs or have them reviewed? Could contemplate it. It would have to be a resilient process. Someone might even want to add a PIC. There is also the aspect of contract negotiation. ACTION ITEM: ADD: “The Work Track understands that there may need to be a process to change PICs.” “To the extent that a Voluntary PIC is accepted, such must be reflected in the Applicant’s Registry Agreement. Changes to that PIC may only be made after being subject to comment by the ICANN community. To the extent that the PIC was made in response to an Objection, GAC Early Warning or GAC Advice, any proposed material changes to that PIC must take into account comments made by the applicable Objector and/or the applicable GAC member(s) that issued the Early Warning, or in the case of GAC Advice, the GAC itself.” [No comments] “Although the Work Track has discussed highly sensitive strings and strings corresponding to highly regulated industries, the Work Track has not agreed upon any additional conditions to impose on Applicants other than those already imposed on applicable Registries during the 2012 round.” -- This came out of the comments raised in CC2 – such comparison of strings. New gTLDs that are similar to previous verified TLD should have similar conditions. The Work Track discussed this but didn’t agree on additional conditions. ACTION ITEM: ADD/MOVE: Need to add something asking for guidance. “The Work Track solicits input on how we recognize such a TLD and then identify what types of conditions we should put on them.” Move this bullet to the questions where we are soliciting input and add context. “The Work Track acknowledges the work of the CCT-RT on the issue of sensitive strings and will engage in future discussions to provide feedback on Recommendation 14 (cite the recommendation).” ACTION ITEM: MOVE: This last bullet might make sense as an element of deliberations and/or an outside input to the WG.

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Meeting
by Michael Flemming March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

Dear All, Please note that our agenda for the upcoming meeting at 21 UTC on 29 March 2018 will be the following items. - Welcome - SOI Updates - Global Public Interest - AOB Please find the link/attachments for documents that we will be referencing in the upcoming meeting. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dp4Jl8eVrdU75Nvmh9A999Fu0wUYOR5am80tQDG… We look forward to deliberating with everyone. Sincerely, Michael Flemming & Sophia Feng WT2 Co-Chairs

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Greg Shatan March 26, 2018

March 26, 2018

I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we *look* like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... Just my 2 cents, Greg On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> wrote: > It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more > broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an > Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting > applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission > first. The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion > of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular > region, and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the > Objection. Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be > resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to > the commencement of any substantive proceedings. > > > > It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given > that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years > regarding this arena. It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without > getting the geo names issues resolved first. Maybe no one wants another > Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the > varying interests are far apart? I would favor a new Objection process to > resolve this. At that point, the community may be able to accept some of > the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide). > > > > I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the > Objection, its application fee will be refunded. Just to be clear, the > process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the > same. > > > > Anne > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese* > > Of Counsel > > 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office > > 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax > > AAikman(a)lrrc.com > > _____________________________ > > Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP > > One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 > > Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > > lrrc.com > > > > > > *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman > *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM > *To:* cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange; > Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org > *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org; > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org > > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps > > > > Thanks Christopher. > > > > I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the > activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only > address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work > Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. > > > > To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to > apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic > names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., > then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic > names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is > recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. > > > > If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level > domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. > > > > In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on > two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will > address it at that point in time. > > Thanks. > > > > *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 <jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>* > > T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514> > > M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079> > > @Jintlaw > > > > *From:* cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM > *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr < > langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no>; > Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org>; Olga Cavalli < > olgacavalli(a)gmail.com>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com>; > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org > *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org; > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org; > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps > > > > Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: > > > > Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of > the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the > interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by > prior understandings reached in WT1-4. > > > > In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on > several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, > Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. > > > > Consequently, notwithstanding the *décalage* of the WT schedules, I > consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input > from the PDP as a whole. > > > > Regards > > > > Christopher Wilkinson > > > > > > > > On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> wrote: > > > > Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 > Members/Observers, > > > > You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out > cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We > wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we > are going from here. > > > > Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through > the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from > the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track > meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered > (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of > April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial > Report. > > > > ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 > Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into > one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and > working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the > report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, > our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order > starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, > Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, > Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the > substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first > week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled > in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks > to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for > public comment. > > > > This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that > we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on *April > 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd.* > > > > As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to > describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), > and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will > be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to > see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the > recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have > general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public > comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we > have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting > preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the > final report later this year > > > > *This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different > schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders.* > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. > > > > Best regards, > > > > *Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr* > > Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg > > > > ------------------------------ > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or > agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended > recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by > replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any > attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and > confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 >

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Rubens Kuhl March 25, 2018

March 25, 2018

Christopher, The work track 1-4 co-chairs have been noticing the possible inter-relationships throughout the process, and those have been addressed. Even for WT5, the overlap consisting of additional reserved names and some names requiring letters of support/non-objection was also always envisioned... something like a geo objection was not, but that is something that can be harmonised and integrated with the objection process, if's that what WT5 ends up suggesting. That can be even done by WT5 by taking what has already been proposed, like number of panelists and fees bearing, and then defining standing and principles specifically to that process. Even the possibility of adding more contractual requirements, if decided by WT5, can be dealt by with Geo PICs, something that was also foreseen... so I may be optimistic here, but I couldn't think of anything WT5 could come up with that wouldn't be easily integrated into the SubPro output.That doesn't prevent people's imagination to go beyond and actually find something that would be harder to harmonise... but considering the low likelihood, we can deal with it, if it happens, but only if it happens, instead of planning for something that likely won't happen. Rubens > On 25 Mar 2018, at 14:29, lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu wrote: > > Good afternoon: > > I have considerable empathy with the concerns expressed by Greg here below > I suggest that the current plan underestimates the inter-relationships between the Work Tracks, notably but not exclusively with WT5. > > Regards > > CW > > >> On 24 Mar 2018, at 05:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? >> >> An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. >> >> Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) >> >> Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... >> >> Just my 2 cents, >> >> Greg >> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: >> It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission first. The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular region, and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the Objection. Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to the commencement of any substantive proceedings. >> >> >> >> It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years regarding this arena. It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without getting the geo names issues resolved first. Maybe no one wants another Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the varying interests are far apart? I would favor a new Objection process to resolve this. At that point, the community may be able to accept some of the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide). >> >> >> >> I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the Objection, its application fee will be refunded. Just to be clear, the process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the same. >> >> >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese >> >> Of Counsel >> >> 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office >> >> 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax >> >> AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >> _____________________________ >> >> <image002.png> >> >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP >> >> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 >> >> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> >> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> >> >> >> >> >> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman >> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM >> To: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange; Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> >> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps >> >> >> >> Thanks Christopher. >> >> >> >> I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. >> >> >> >> To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. >> >> >> >> If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. >> >> >> >> In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> 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 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> >> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> >> @Jintlaw >> >> >> >> From: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> >> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps >> >> >> >> Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: >> >> >> >> Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. >> >> >> >> In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. >> >> >> >> Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Christopher Wilkinson >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, >> >> >> >> You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. >> >> >> >> Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. >> >> >> >> ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. >> >> >> >> This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. >> >> >> >> As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year >> >> >> >> This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. >> >> >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr >> >> Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> >> >> >> >> >> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4>

1 0

Response From ICANN Contractual Compliance Re: Vertical Integration
by Steve Chan March 24, 2018

March 24, 2018

Dear WT2 Members, On 22 February 2018, WT2 submit several follow-up questions to ICANN Org (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735941/Contractual%20Com…) related to vertical integration. Attached, please find a response from Contractual Compliance to the questions within its purview (note that the original questions and responses from May 2017 are also included in this document). The remaining questions will be responded to by GDD. The response can also be found on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/RT2AAw Best, Steve 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/

2 2

Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Jeff Neuman March 23, 2018

March 23, 2018

Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Jeff Neuman March 23, 2018

March 23, 2018

Thanks Christopher. I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. Thanks. 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: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

1 0

PLEASE READ - NEW SESSION INFORMATION ICANN61
by Terri Agnew March 14, 2018

March 14, 2018

Dear all, Due to security difficulties, (see Goran's blog <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo g_issues-2Dwith-2Dadobe-2Dconnect-2Dat-2Dicann61&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwl l3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTB s0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=fxijpUJu6LmmroHN9tH8OL-ro_yRzrp5RcsF-DsRnHY&s=_RqTDbLxF ZWrmTMt09Hldqs9KQbB7-Kg-pZFjJw0ink&e=> here[icann.org]) the Adobe Connect room facilities will no longer be available to ICANN61 participants. In order to minimize disruption, we have the following steps we encourage you to follow: 1. TO JOIN THE AUDIO * Audio streaming will be available for all open, public meetings. Links can be find on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/> https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * The audio bridge is available for those who would like to ask questions or comment over the telephone. Dial in details for open GNSO sessions can be found here: <https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B> https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B 2. TO ACCESS THE PRESENTATIONS * All presentations and documents which were to be shown in the AC room will be uploaded to the corresponding page on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/> https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * Presentations and documents will also be circulated via email on demand 3. ASKING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTING IN WRITTEN FORMAT * These will be handed via live management of email comments and questions by the Remote Participation Manager. Please see list of meeting room email addresses here: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350> https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350 We apologize for the inconvenience caused. We encourage participants who have not already done so to download the ICANN61 mobile app by searching for "ICANN61" in your app stores. Please do not hesitate to email us at <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org if you need a dial out specifying which meeting you would like to join and your preferred contact number. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our i <applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses /gnso> nteractive courses and visiting the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn so.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgM FAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUh becsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EH toX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=> GNSO Newcomer pages

1 0