- Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 - lists.icann.org

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

Aug. 25, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 24 August 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p2jt3esemjh/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/CBohB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 24 August 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2- Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 24 August 2017 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes someone did need to mute Michael Flemming 2:I will be right back in about a minute Phil Buckingham:@cheryl - sorry it was me . Had my speaker on . Muted now . Greg Shatan:I will be muted until I finish a work-related call. Emily Barabas:you are controlling the slides for everyone Phil Buckingham:you are in control Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):sorry network is dodgy atm I briefly dropped AC Phil Buckingham:you remember correctly - 27 occurences Steve Chan:Program Implementation Review Report: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Emily Barabas:Full comments are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Jeff Neuman:It would be good for people here to tell us their thoughts on exemptions for certain types of TLDs Jeff Neuman:y Gg Levine (NABP):yes Michelle DeSmyter:yes Phil Buckingham:yes hear you Steve Chan:Yes, and Michael, the slides are synced, so you're moving us all along together. Jeff Neuman:I need to restart Adobe. Keeeps freezing. Jeff Neuman 2:yes Alexander Schubert:Great: So if it is cheaper and easier to apply for a .brand - then people will apply for generic term based gTLDs as .brand; "play" single registrant registry - then distribute the domains in the same way like CentralNic right now distributes third level domains under ll.com! Alexander Schubert:We need to make sure that generic terms can NOT be applied for as brand TLD! Phil Buckingham:totally agree Alexander . So how do we do this ? so do we differentate ? Jeff Neuman 2:a lot of brands are terms in the dictionary Jeff Neuman 2:websters dictionary Robert Burlingame:Whether something is "Generic" or not depends entirely on the type of products or services for which that term is used. Alexander Schubert:Then we simply bury .brands! Jeff Neuman 2:many geographic terms are also dictionary terms....should we say that they should not qualify as geographic TLDs? Robert Burlingame:"Apple" is not a "generic" term for anything other than apples. Heather Forrest:It isn't ICANN's place to start treating different TMs differently Alexander Schubert:Plus brands WILL allocate domains to clients. ".facebook" might allow every user to have user.facebook! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agreed Heather Greg Shatan:Alexander why is that a problem? Greg Shatan:Assuming it is not "gaming." Alexander Schubert:We can't say brand TLDs are in ANY way different from other TLDs. There might not be classical registrants at brand gTLDs - but there might be "users" - and when the .brand fails; those users lose their "domain".... Gg Levine (NABP):@Alexander: Do you mean third-level domain registrants? Alexander Schubert:Where does the need stem from to grant "brands" any special conditions and exceptions..... Greg Shatan:Or do you just mean end-users? Alexander Schubert:Example: .twitter and the domain handle.twitter Greg Shatan:What is the domain handle.twitter an example of? Phil Buckingham:so the EBERO kicks in when the technical back end fails ? Phil Buckingham:+n 11111 Jeff Phil Buckingham:should be the other way around . Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good point Jeff Alexander Schubert:handle.twitter in a ".brand" gTLD would be subject to termination at any time - e.g. when the registry "fails". Jeff Neuman 2:but that would not trigger ebero Alexander Schubert:hmmmmm Gg Levine (NABP):@Alexander: yes, but the domain would still belong to the RO, yes? Phil Buckingham:lost my dial out . could I have another one please . Alexander Schubert:I think the consumer won't really understand the difference between a generic gTLD by a non-Brand (where the user is a registrant and enjoys many protections) and generic brand gTLD based domains..... Phil Buckingham:Good answer by Nominet . Q for ICANN How much are the current three EBERO contracted parties being paid per annum Jeff Neuman 2:@Phil - We should ask if the EBERO funding mechanism is public Jeff Neuman 2:Can we put that as an action item Julie Hedlund:Captured Jeff. Jeff Neuman 2:I do know it is a two prong payment system to EBEROs. There is a guaranteed annual fee paid by ICANN for EBEROs to be on standby and then in the case of an EBERO event, there are additional fees paid to EBERO providers Phil Buckingham:Thanks Julie . Will follow up . Phil Buckingham:Everything is better than what we have at present . Let put this in a matrix format . Would it be based on registrations/ DUMs ? Phil Buckingham:up to page 20 Trang Nguyen:ICANN agreements with EBERO providers are posted here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):nothing from me Trang Nguyen:They include fees Phil Buckingham:thanks Trang Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks Trang Robert Burlingame:Thank you everyone. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye ðŸ‘‹ Greg Shatan:Bye all! Phil Buckingham:thanks Michael

1 0

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

Aug. 24, 2017

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

1 0

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

Aug. 23, 2017

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

1 0

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

Aug. 11, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 10 August 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p3uyaqnimna/<https://participate.icann.org/p3uyaqnimna/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=92ef84797cbc0a40…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ygAhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 August 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 10 August 2017 at 21:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Michael Flemming:Hi Julie Michael Flemming:Thanks for the ial out Michael Flemming:I am awake now Julie Bisland:wonderful, good morning :) Michael Flemming:good morning, indeed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi all... morning Michael Michael Flemming:morning Cheryl Paul McGrady:Hey fellow nerds! Michael Flemming:Evening Paul! Phil Buckingham:Evening fellow nerds Paul McGrady:Ugh! Phil Buckingham:sorry Paul . Emily Barabas:this document will require you to zoom Emily Barabas:as you can see Emily Barabas:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHa… Phil Buckingham:2.2.3. regarding these SUDN which brands which would be affected ? do we have some examples Julie Bisland:Do we know who's number ends in -9458? Steve Chan:In some of the research that staff did, It could be the case that ICANN would be in the position of utilizing its own challenge mechanisms Julie Bisland:Reminder: please mute --some background noise and interference. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am on the keep the reservation list Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):case by case Phil Buckingham:@ Steve , are there other regional organisations that are currently NOT on the list ? Steve Chan:It had been suggested that the PTI names could also be included? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree with special use name reservations Steve Chan:For the PTI names, that could include: PTI, publictechnicalidentifiers and publictechnicalidentifier Steve Chan:Correct Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yep Paul McGrady:Thanks! Would like to understand the process. Phil Buckingham: Action item : Could staff get the list of SUDNs on RFC 6761 Paul McGrady:Thanks Cheryl! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):peer review Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Avri will have best answers Paul McGrady:Thanks Avri. Paul McGrady:I guess the takeaway is that there is more than one mechanism to get a new gTLD delegated. Steve Chan:Google doc for the document being presented is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Phil Buckingham:Thanks Avri . Could we therefore recommend that all SUDNs be @ the second level ? avri doria:yes, but withint the IETF it must be a for a non global DNS purpose. i.e there must be a technical or local reason. i can prepare a more detaild explanation of the process for a later meeting if people want as I do particpate in the IETF process. avri doria:Phil I have already personally mde that recommendation, but it just a personal suggestion, as the IETF has a role in the namespace ICANN can't make rules, and the current MOU does not stipulate that. and if there were a technical reason why a TLD was needed then they could still reserve one. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ðŸ‘ Greg Shatan:Agree with Paul on the issue and the overlap. Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 24 August 2017 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Steve Chan:@Michael, we have a pair of liaisons between theis WG and RPMs. I believe they are Susan Payne and Robin Gross, if memory serves. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye ðŸ‘‹ for now then avri doria:bye Phil Buckingham:Yes we are going to rotate calls in Sept weekly between 15.00 and 21.00 UTC every Thursday Julie Bisland:Thanks Phil!!

1 0

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

Aug. 10, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 10 August. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. Please also see the attached themes document and the excerpts from the chat room below. In addition, see the matrix documents at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHao6Hf1s8e… and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8… Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 10 August -- CC2 Responses on Reserved Names: Action Items: ACTION: Re: Question 2.2.3 -- We can take that back for feedback on the next call to look into the specifics for this particular RFC 6761 and the list of SUDNs. ACTION: Re: Question 2.2.4 -- There should be affirmative outreach to the RPMs PDP on this. Take this to the leadership team. Notes: Question 2.2.2 - Do you believe any changes are needed to the list of Reserved Names at the top level as defined in section 2.2.1.2.1 of the Applicant Guidebook (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf? Please explain. -- Reviewing comments using matrix of reserved names at the top level: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHao6Hf1s8e… [Reading comments.] -- Cell 5-E - Special Use Domains - Everyone seems to be in favor of a role that these are reserved from use. But they should not correspond to brands. ICANN/IANA Names: -- Not reserved for technical reasons but so that third parties don't apply. -- Question of whether we need to add to this -- such as Centre (NORID comment). -- Any input on this -- either adding names or releasing them? -- In a brief bit of research staff did not why ICANN and IANA are reserved is that if they are reserved it puts ICANN and related organizations in the position of utilizing the challenge mechanisms that it is applying. Question 2.2.3: Do you think Special Use Domain Names should be added to the Applicant Guidebook section on reserved names at the top level to prevent applicants applying for such labels? -- A good example would be .onion. Most people would like to keep special use domain names should be reserved. -- Question: How did the IETF RFC 6761 come into being? Response: Understanding that it would have been approved by the IETF. The bottom-up consensus building process is extremely robust. The process for all of the special use names in IETF is going under review. There are two ways that things go through: 1) through the working group and if it is judged not to be an end run it goes into a last call as an Internet draft in the IETF community before becoming an RFC. What is being talked about is how to do better coordination. Also, what is being discussed is why people need top-level names for their special use names, rather than second-level. It is quite a lengthy process. We were notified when .onion was going through. Question 2.2.4: Do you believe that any changes are needed to a Registry Operator’s right to reserve domain names? If yes, what changes are needed and why? If not, why not? Reviewing comments using matrix: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8… Voluntary Reservations of 100 Names: -- Comments note the specific reservations talks about country and territory names while the 100 names may not be in these categories -- such as a city name. -- Need to look at the experience of geographic TLDs. -- Also from Nominet we have the mention of a closed .BRAND where the limit seems artificial. Voluntary Reservations of Additional Names: -- Perhaps there should be a cap - consider Valideus comment that how holders of TMCH-recorded marks might be given right of first refusal when the name is released. -- There should be affirmative outreach to the RPMs PDP on this. ACTION: Take this to the leadership team. >From the chat: Steve Chan: In some of the research that staff did, It could be the case that ICANN would be in the position of utilizing its own challenge mechanisms Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I am on the keep the reservation list Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): case by case Phil Buckingham: @ Steve , are there other regional organisations that are currently NOT on the list ? Steve Chan: It had been suggested that the PTI names could also be included? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree with special use name reservations Steve Chan: Correct Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yep Phil Buckingham: Action item : Could staff get the list of SUDNs on RFC 6761 Paul McGrady: Thanks Cheryl! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): peer review Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Avri will have best answers Paul McGrady: Thanks Avri. Paul McGrady: I guess the takeaway is that there is more than one mechanism to get a new gTLD delegated. Phil Buckingham: Thanks Avri . Could we therefore recommend that all SUDNs be @ the second level ? avri doria: yes, but withint the IETF it must be a for a non global DNS purpose. i.e there must be a technical or local reason. i can prepare a more detaild explanation of the process for a later meeting if people want as I do particpate in the IETF process. avri doria: Phil I have already personally mde that recommendation, but it just a personal suggestion, as the IETF has a role in the namespace ICANN can't make rules, and the current MOU does not stipulate that. and if there were a technical reason why a TLD was needed then they could still reserve one. Steve Chan: @Michael, we have a pair of liaisons between theis WG and RPMs. I believe they are Susan Payne and Robin Gross, if memory serves.

1 0

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

Aug. 8, 2017

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

1 1

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

July 27, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p1qdxotg8is/<https://participate.icann.org/p1qdxotg8is/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e2259dfccc4b8e68…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/knHwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 27 July 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 21:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Sara Bockey:Loud and clear for both of you Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):other than the hour for you Jeff Neuman:hello all Jeff Neuman:Guys, lets get started Paul McGrady:IPC call just ended. So others should be joining Jeff Neuman:Can we find out who the phone numbers belong to for the attendance record? Julie Bisland:who is ending in 5020? Liz Brodzinski:5226 is me Julie Bisland:thank you Liz Paul McGrady:Hi Julie I am ending in 5020 Julie Bisland:thank you, Paul :) Jeff Neuman:Rather than use the word "exemptions" I would say "flexibility" Jeff Neuman:Paul - Any examples of TLDs with different business models today that should have a different agreeement Alexander Schubert:So applicants can apply for eageneric term base gTLD, then keep it "closed" and (instead of allow registrations to happen) "lease" domains - without providing ANY protections to the "leasee"? Cause that what will happen. Alexander Schubert:.... a generic term based .... Jeff Neuman:@Paul - You make an assumption that the fees will be that high....decision has not been made yet. Paul McGrady:Will still need an "other" option to open, closed, etc. Paul McGrady:@Jeff - I'm making the high fees assumption because I've seen ICANN's financial statements... They need the $. Jeff Neuman:@Paul - lol Paul McGrady:But there can be many more models out there. Prior to the FIrst Round opening, I could have NEVER anticiapted the .sucks business model, but yet, here it is. Alexander Schubert:.book owned by Amazon and then SLDs "leased" to authors would mean the "users" of the domains are completely unprotected! Emily Barabas:documents are ready, Phil Emily Barabas:the document is unsynced Susan Payne:Alexander I don't think it's reasonable to raise hypotheticals using real examples of registry operators without making that absolutely clear. People may believe you are referring to an actual intended business model Alexander Schubert:(Sorry to Amazon for using that hypothetical example) Emily Barabas:The matrix currently displayed in the AC room is also available as a Google Doc: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Michael Flemming:Geographic names on the Top Level will not be discussed* Michael Flemming:We have the Second Level and everything else on the Top Level. Susan Payne:are others having difficulty hearing Phil or is it just me? Jeff Neuman:That issue is being discussed in WT4 Jeff Neuman:(Single character IDNs) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):beat me to it Jeff :-) Michael Flemming:We are on the Top Level right now. Jeff Neuman:Correct, we can decide from a policy perspective to allow a two character letter/number or number/letter combination Jeff Neuman:two numbers may be an issue technically as confusing with an ip address Alexander Schubert:I think ALL two letter combinations should be protected - the Internet user gets otherwise consfused why some two letter combinations are cc and some gTLD! "aa" for example can never be assigned to a nation - should still be protected! Jeff Neuman:@Phil - There are certain compromises that need to be made Jeff Neuman:HP can still get HPE Jeff Neuman:which is how they refer to themselves Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and what if the ISO list does allocate Hp? Jeff Neuman:I strongly believe we should honor the one recommendation from the CCWG-UCTN Alexander Schubert:I think the ccNSO will try to kill us all if a start grabbing the two letter namespace. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agreed Jeff Susan Payne:quite Alexander! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yep indeed Alexander Schubert:Volkswagen! Alexander Schubert:vw Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):for the record My personal opinion is almost the opposite Phil, letters and numbers combination 2 characters excepted of course as Jeff is articulating now Michael Flemming:My personal opinion: Alcoholics Anonymous, American Airlines = AA Michael Flemming:We have a lot of overlaps already, but the two letter reservation is a recommendation that has been in place for a long time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):correct as far as I know Jeff I am also not of course a technical expert Jeff Neuman:I cant lower my hand :( Michael Flemming:Its lowered Jeff Neuman:I think this is in our matrix Jeff Neuman:already Michael Flemming:Can anybody hear me? Michael Flemming:Did anybody hear me? Julie Bisland:no, i did not hear your, Michael Susan Payne:Michael,no I dont think so Michael Flemming:rebooting Jeff Neuman:not sure what you are referring to Phil Michael Flemming:+1 Julie Bisland:for attendance purposes, who has phone number ending in 9458? Emily Barabas:The full list of CC2 comments on reserved names can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Emily Barabas:see tab 2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):the Emily Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):should read thx Jeff Neuman:ignore my hand :) Jeff Neuman:consistency in rules is important as @Avri states Jeff Neuman:Other than the ones reserved by the IETF of course Paul McGrady:Was there a basis for reseving the others originally? Can we find it in the history? If not, no need to keep reserving them. Paul McGrady:@ Jeff RE: IETF, sounds good so long as there is a rationale. Would love to know if the "ICANN names" have any basis. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree with the IETF list as they've got rationale to do so Jeff Neuman 2:AS far as I can recall, there were no technical reasons for reserving the ICANN names. Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on 10 August 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks all, lots more to do obviously... bye for now then... Sara Bockey:thanks all avri doria:bye Alexander Schubert:TNX

1 0

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

July 27, 2017

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

1 0

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

July 27, 2017

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

1 1

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

July 13, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p2mn6hx71j0/<https://participate.icann.org/p2mn6hx71j0/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=b560bc8bdbc53ab3…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/XnHwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 July 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC Susan Payne:perhaps the lack of notice of the change is a factor! people do have other obl;igations too. I have to leave after 45 minutes Jeff Neuman:@Susan - Normally we wouldnt change the time like this, but the GNSO Council meeting was just scheduled for our normal time, so we had to scramble. Susan Payne:I was just responding to the comments on how few people had joined, that the short notice of the change probably has an impact Jeff Neuman:@Susan - i know, but I wanted to clarify in the chat since some may not listen to the recording and may only read the chat :) Emily Barabas:Just wanted to reinforce that any staff summary/synthesis documents are intended to help promote discussion, but will inevitably be subjective and incomplete. Emily Barabas:It is important for WT members to read all comments and use this review to inform deliberations. Emily Barabas:Complete comments are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Emily Barabas:Here is the complete text of the BRG comment: In its current form, the base RA is skewed towards traditional models and does not adequately reflect the new models introduced in the 2012 round. This can be a barrier for new entrants that operate distinctly different models. Where there is a significant difference between registry models and where these different models are a sizeable proportion of registry operators, the BRG recommends customised RAs to better reflect those models and their distinct nature. In this respect, the BRG favours a customised Registry Agreement (RA) for dotBrands, to reflect the distinct differences against a traditional open and commercial registry. A significant proportion of New gTLDs were dotBrands and we anticipate continued interest in future application windows. In the absence of a customised RA for dotBrands or other distinct and sizeable models, the BRG recommends the base agreement is stripped down to provide core provisions that are applicable to all, with the relevant spe Emily Barabas:Apologies if there is an error in the summary. Susan Payne:ah lovely thanks Emily Emily Barabas:specifications that define the model and variant provisions applicable to that model. The contracting parties associated with each defined model would be the parties responsible for negotiating and voting any changes to the related specification, while all registry operating under the RA would be responsible to negotiate and vote for any changes to the core base agreement. Emily Barabas:Correction now uploaded. Trang Nguyen:To add to what Kristina just said, there is also added complexity for ICANN compliance to enforce multiple versions of the contract as well. Sarah L Verisign:I realize my comment bucks the trend, but I would support increasing the ICANN compliance team and supporting negotiated contracts - I realize that this would increase the administrative burden however I support the concept of "contract negotiation" vs "contract acceptance" and dont see why contracts cant be negotiated seprately. Susan Payne:Hi Greg - yes I think that is what the BRG was thinking if there isn't a separate agreement altogether for certain registry types Trang Nguyen:Another consideration is whether multiple individually negotiated RAs would create additional burden for the community who might be interested in tracking contractual provisions of various TLDs. Jon Nevett:GDPR can be handled by the documented waiver process, no? Sarah L Verisign:@jeff, you can have elements of a contracts, like LOLs, that are not negotiable and others that are. We could agree which were negotiable and which were not, but having us all the same doesnt help us be innovative Jeff Neuman:@Jim - Thanks. Jeff Neuman:@Sarah - It would be interesting to see from ICANN legal which were the parts of the contract that were the most negotiated. Jeff Neuman:But from what I recall, it was more the legal boilerplate than the technical specs Susan Payne:sarah are you arguing that each individual registry should geta tailored agreement? I hadn't initially thought you were but now I'm not sure? Jeff Neuman:But, it would be great if we could draw a box around things needed for level playing field and those that have flexibility around technical solutions (while still having a minimum of requirements for stability/security, etc. Sarah L Verisign:@jeff - I am not sure there were any negotiable aspects, rather an expectation of acceptance - at least from what I am aware. @ susan, I am strying to suggestimechanism that could address Jeff's concern and still give us the ability to have differentialation. Greg Shatan:The Master/Schedule model would make this easier to manage. Typically, the Master is less negotiable than the Schedules or SOW. If the base agreement was truly the common core needed for virtually all registries, while the Schedules were more particular/negotiable that would make management much easier. Greg Shatan:The "Specification" model didn't really do this, since the Specs were a mixed bag of required and special elements. Emily Barabas:Full comment from Valideus: Categories become more relevant if there are different application criteria, obligations, or contractual provisions applied accordingly. Whilst we do not support multiple categories with different criteria, due to the complexity and lack of flexibility to develop and evolve business models that would likely result, the 2012 round did clearly establish a category of Brand TLDs, which we support. A number of Brands would have benefited from an application process and contractual provisions which better acknowledged the different drivers and priorities of a Brand TLD. Specification 13 goes some of the way here, but additional Brand-specific provisions or even a Brand-specific contract would be beneficial. An entirely separate contract for Brand TLDs requires careful consideration, however, as it has the potential to reduce the flexibility of registries. For example, if a registry operator did wish in the future to allocate names more widely, outside the limitations imposed by Specific Emily Barabas:iSpecification 13, it is a simple matter to remove the Specification from the contract. With a separate Brand contract the registry operator would need to enter into a replacement contract with ICANN. The same benefits and tailoring for Brand TLD might also satisfactorily be delivered by using the specification model. Susan Payne:Apologies, I have a standing meeting so need to drop Greg Shatan:"General Availability" Greg Shatan:Although I like "General Admission," since it nicely conjures up the mosh pit of GA.... John Laprise:I must also depart with apologies. Jon Nevett:no need Greg Shatan:Thanks, Michael! avri doria:thanks avri doria:bye Greg Shatan:Bye

1 0