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

ICANN62: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Nathalie Peregrine June 6, 2018

June 6, 2018

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings’ team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN62 Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> Step 1 – Create a profile and your personalized ICANN62 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. 1. Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. 2. Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. * For Outlook calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/81449-moving-your-schedu…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> * For Google calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/1313-moving-your-schedul…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> and on the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ>) will provide audio streaming only Adobe Connect room microphones will not be enabled. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN62” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Panama to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://FB60497E-61D8-4FE9-BF9C-EB238191E416/gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

FW: [Gnso-next-gen-rds-lead] FW: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft
by Terri Agnew April 2, 2018

April 2, 2018

FYI From: Brian Winterfeldt <Brian(a)Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Brian@Winterfeldt.law> > Date: Monday, April 2, 2018 at 15:07 To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> " <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> > Cc: "internet(a)winterfeldt.law <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> " <internet(a)winterfeldt.law <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> > Subject: RE: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft Dear ICANN Community Leadership Colleagues: I write to follow up on my prior communication below to provide you with a formal invitation from the IPC and the BC to participate in a community-wide discussion regarding the proposed accreditation and access model for non-public WHOIS data, which was first circulated to the community during ICANN 61. The discussion will take place via ICANN-supported remote participation and/or audio bridge this Friday April 6, 2018 from 1400-1600 UTC. Please find the formal invitation attached with the pertinent participation details. Please distribute the invitation to your respective stakeholders and encourage broad distribution to encourage as much participation as possible in the discussion. Of course, please continue to channel written comments on the accreditation model proposal to <mailto:3amcomments@gmail.com> 3amcomments(a)gmail.com, with a copy to <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law. Thank you very much for your assistance and engagement with respect to this ongoing effort. Best regards, Brian _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> [winterfeldt.law] Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> brian(a)winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422 From: Brian Winterfeldt Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:24 PM To: <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org Cc: <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law Subject: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft Importance: High Dear ICANN Community Leadership Colleagues: As a follow-up to my statement on behalf of the IPC during Public Forum II at ICANN 61 in Puerto Rico with Steve DelBianco (from the BC), I am writing to again request your stakeholders' input and collaboration on the proposed Accreditation Model for access to non-public WHOIS data (Version 1.3). Our sincere hope is that this model will be implemented alongside the ICANN-developed Proposed Interim Model for GDPR Compliance. The Accreditation Model can be found here: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ipconstituency.org_ assets_docs_WHOIS-2520Access-2520Accreditation-2520Process-25201.3-255b1-255 d.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhp AMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ &s=ZVAEQxooXzT86rLVPfHTxmzU0WSDnjHfiAcifwTNcmk&e=> http://www.ipconstituency.org/assets/docs/WHOIS%20Access%20Accreditation%20P rocess%201.3[1].pdf[ipconstituency.org]. We welcome any questions or feedback on the proposed Accreditation Model, put forward as a strawman to facilitate broader community-wide efforts to develop an accreditation system proposal. We had hoped to convene a community-wide call swiftly after ICANN 61, but the absence of Adobe Connect has made facilitating community discussion and input difficult. However, with the stop-gap solutions being put into place, we hope to convene a call to discuss Accreditation Model development within the next week or so. Developing an Accreditation Model for access to non-public WHOIS data is a critical yet-to-be-developed element of the interim GDPR compliance model, and as Goran noted in his letter to DPAs, the community has achieved consensus that something must be finalized and implemented to assure the appropriate functioning of a gated/tiered/layered access WHOIS system. Again, we hope that the Accreditation Model proposal we are sharing can act as a starting point for the community to make quick progress in this respect. Please send any input on this matter to <mailto:3amcomments@gmail.com> 3amcomments(a)gmail.com as soon as possible, with a copy to <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law. This will help us make sure all the input provided is received and appropriately captured. Again, we hope to convene a community call to facilitate continued discussion on this issue next week, so we would love to receive your feedback ideally before the community session! Thank you for your input and timely engagement in this vital aspect of our ongoing work around GDPR and WHOIS! Best regards, Brian _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> [winterfeldt.law] Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> brian(a)winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422

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 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

Potential Topics for ICANN61 and Progress Document Update for WT2
by Michael Flemming March 4, 2018

March 4, 2018

Dear All, Thank you for attending the call on 1 March at 15 UTC. While we continue to build on our paths forward with the contributions from the last call, we wanted to take a moment to engage with everyone on two items. First of all, we need to pick a primary and secondary topic for ICANN61. With the time allowed for WT2 in the past, it has been efficient for us to spend the majority of our time on one topic. Therefore, we will keep one topic as our primary to engage with the community and plan for a secondary if we are able. The goal of this meeting will be to present our current proposed paths forward on said topic, rather than retracing the history of deliberations, and work towards further developments. Listed below are the few topics that have been proposed already. These topics are ones where we have reached substantial propositions but require more discussion to move forward. If anyone has any ideas, *please share* those topics in reply to this message. Topics: - Closed Generics - Virtual Integration As for the second item that we would like to share with the group, the document that we have been using for the Progress Document is being shifted into a different document that will allow for efficiency in organizing a first draft for the Initial Report. That is why we ask that if anyone has any suggestions or commentary on the existing material, then please share that on the mailing list in case we happen to miss it. We think the said document will be shared in due time, but please allow us some time to prepare it. We hope that everyone has a good weekend and look forward to seeing those of you who can make it to San Juan. Safe travels, Michael Flemming & Sophia Feng WT2 Co-Chairs

3 4

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 01 March 2018 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter March 1, 2018

March 1, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC Chat of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and Mp3 are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call held on Thursday, 01 March 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-01mar18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p93j4jtabf3/ 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-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FRO8B Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 01 March 2018
by Julie Hedlund March 1, 2018

March 1, 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/1TDzPUL5NlsgbnbnjVRMLCfRDz8AA37_LgeZtrXC… and excerpts from the chat room below. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 01 March 2017 Action Item: Inform the Work Track on the list that the following data would be useful to collect: a) How many TLDs have just nic.TLD delegated and b) Of those TLDs with just nic.TLD delegated, how many of them have either a spec 13 designation or a Code of Conduct exemption. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: No updates. 2. TLD Rollout & Contractual Compliance: Please refer to Sections starting on page 9 & 14: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDzPUL5NlsgbnbnjVRMLCfRDz8AA37_LgeZtrXC… a. TLD Rollout (4.3.6) Summary: -- 9-month delegation once they have approval. -- Asked (in CC2): “The Applicant Guidebook specified timelines by which applicants had to complete the contracting (9 months) and delegation (12 months) steps of the process. However, this requirement only means that the contract needs to be executed and nic.TLD be delegated. Are these timeframes reasonable? Is there still a need for these requirements? Please explain.” -- There is no requirement in terms of usage. Asked "An applicant granted a TLD string must use it within a fixed timeframe which will be specified in the application process. Is this okay or does it need to change?" Not much interest in the WG to define usage. High level agreement so far: -- The Work Track generally agreed that if delegation deadlines remain in place for subsequent procedures, the timeframes used in the 2012 round remain appropriate. -- Work Track members supported making a recommendation that the ICANN Organization should be responsible for meeting specific deadlines in application and delegation processes, noting that this issue may also be covered under the topic of Predictability. Next steps: The Work Track may want to further discuss or seek input on the following questions: -- Is a delegation deadline necessary in subsequent procedures? Is it an appropriate measure to prevent incidence of squatting/warehousing? -- Is the definition of “use” of a TLD from the 2012 round still appropriate or are adjustments needed? This will help the group determine whether to recommend keeping or editing Implementation Guideline I or to replace it with new Implementation Guidance. Discussion: -- Question: Do we have any idea how many TLDs only have NIC.TLD? Answer: Can easily find out. But harder to determine whether this means it isn't being used. -- Not sure there is any merit to say that you must have something more than NIC.TLD. Look at why are we allowing it. -- Be careful about making assumptions about those that only have NIC.TLD. Don't know were business plans might be in development. -- Is a deadline necessary? What problem is it trying to solve? -- Can we define "use" in a practical way? >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Perhaps some useful data we can get would be: (i) How many TLDs have just nic.TLD delegated and (ii) Of those TLDs with just nic.TLD delegated, how many of them have either a spec 13 designation or a Code of Conduct exemption b. Contractual Compliance -- The Issue Report did not raise any specific issues under this topic, but that concern was raised in public comment about some specific operational practices. High level agreement so far: -- Work Track members seemed to support recommending that Contractual Compliance publish more granular and meaningful data on the activities of the department and the nature of the complaints handled. Next steps: -- The WT/WG should determine to what extent the following issues are in scope for this particular topic, as the role of Contractual Compliance is simply to enforce contracts: “arbitrary and abusive pricing for premium domains targeting trademarks; use of reserved names to circumvent Sunrise; and operating launch programs that differed materially from what was approved by ICANN.” If in scope, for this topic or otherwise, the WT/WG will need to determine if it wants to make recommendations on these issues. -- The WG/WT may also want to seek additional input on how representations made by the applicant should be integrated into the Registry Agreement in subsequent procedures, noting that these discussions may be dependent on, or make sense to take place in the context of other conversations underway in the WG. Discussion: -- From the RPM PDP WG (concerns from Brand owners): Should there be any policies that would address IPR concerns, or is there a tool for Contract Compliance re: violating the spirit of the RPMs. Not talking about regulating pricing, but if pricing is used as a tool to circumvent RPMs. -- Think about the questions we can ask in the Initial Report to get more information, but avoid duplication work going on in the RPM. -- Our issue is not what goes into the TMCH. Our narrow issues are around the edges. Whether registries are pricing trademarks higher because they are trademarks or using that to circumvent the RPM. Are registries marks that they know are in the TMCH at a higher price, thus circumventing the RPM? Or because they have other purposes, but not in the trademark sense. We work with the RPM PDP WG to make sure we are coordinating and not duplicating work. -- Need to get a better sense of how wide-spread this practice is. -- Consider giving ICANN Compliance some way to sanction registries that are found to have committed fraud in relation to circumventing RPMs for trademark owners. 3. ICANN61 Meeting: Considering discussing Vertical Integration.

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Meeting
by Michael Flemming Feb. 27, 2018

Feb. 27, 2018

Dear All, Please note that our agenda for the upcoming meeting at 15 UTC on 1 March 2018 will be the following items. - Welcome - SOI Updates - TLD Rollout & Contractual Compliance - AOB Please find the link/attachments for documents that we will be referencing in the upcoming meeting. We look forward to deliberating with everyone. Sincerely, Michael Flemming & Sophia Feng WT2 Co-Chairs

1 1

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 22 February 2018
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 22, 2018

Feb. 22, 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/1TDzPUL5NlsgbnbnjVRMLCfRDz8AA37_LgeZtrXC… and excerpts from the chat room below. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 22 February 2017 Action Item: Seek clarification from BC on what "a product name of the Registry Operator" means in their CC2 comment to Question 2.6.2. Notes: 1. SOI Updates 2. Vertical Integration -- Progress document: compilation of all of the topics and to get feedback on the mailing list. -- Leading up to ICANN61 we ask WT members to make suggestions on the document. Page 13: Registrar Non-Discrimination (4.3.5) & Registry/Registrar Standardization (4.3.8) Next Steps: Further work necessary before recommendations: -- Sent questions on vertical integration to ICANN Compliance as a follow-up to the first response: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735941/New%20gTLD%20Subs… -- Seek clarification from BC on what "a product name of hte Registry Operator" means in their CC2 comment to Question 2.6.2. -- Re: comments for CC2 Question 2.6.3 -- WT should further discuss and seek inputs from teh group on whether the WG should address the full integration for Specification 13 .BRAND registries and any Code of Conduct exempt registries in this Vertical Integration Topic. -- Since there hasn't been input from the RrSG on this section we should get their input; we could put this in as a question to the community in the Initial Report and ask for comments. -- The issues that arose from an increase in variability of registries and their RRAs with registrars warrant additional WT consideration; but noting opposition to standardization across agreements. >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Spec. 13 is silent on the criteria that apply to those registrars, other than they have to have signed the 2013 RRA Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Don't we already have RrSG input - from CC2? Trang Nguyen: Section 5 of Spec 13 says: "Subject to the requirements of Specification 11, Registry Operator musteither (i) provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to all ICANNaccredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with the registryregistraragreement for the TLD; provided that Registry Operator mayestablish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to register names inthe TLD that are reasonably related to the proper functioning of the TLD, or(ii) designate no more than three ICANN accredited registrars at any point intime to serve as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD. " Emily Barabas: CC2 Comments: Emily Barabas: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tX… Trang Nguyen: ROs that are granted Spec13 also have the Code of Conduct exemption. Section 2 of the Code of Conduct says: "If Registry Operator or a Registry Related Party also operates as a provider ofregistrar or registrar-reseller services, Registry Operator will, or will cause suchRegistry Related Party to, ensure that such services are offered through a legalentity separate from Registry Operator, and maintain separate books of accountswith respect to its registrar or registrar-reseller operations." Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can we please check RrSG CC2 comments first? No need to ask if they've already answered. Emily Barabas: See 2.6 Emily Barabas: There is not a comment on this topic from RrSG Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): In that case, the most efficient thing would be for the WT to reach its views, and note in the Preliminary Report that we seek further input from the community. Jim Prendergast: is this a policy recommendation? Im not so sure that ICANN wants or should be in the business of dictating terms of contracts between parties that ICANN is not party to. Michael Flemming: Steve, do you have this page from the Issues Report? Steve Chan: You can see the excerpt for the relevant section here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735941/Section%204.3.8.p…

1 0

Recordings, AC chat & attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 22 February 2018
by Terri Agnew Feb. 22, 2018

Feb. 22, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Adobe Connect Chat and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording is listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p6ca2b8nhz5/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_wSfB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Meeting at 15 UTC on 22 February 2018
by Michael Flemming Feb. 21, 2018

Feb. 21, 2018

Dear All, Please note that our agenda for the upcoming meeting at 15 UTC on 22 February 2018 will be the following items. - Welcome - SOI Updates - Vertical Integration - AOB Please find the link/attachments for documents that we will be referencing in the upcoming meeting. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDzPUL5NlsgbnbnjVRMLCfRDz8AA37_LgeZtrXC… Please reference the section on Registrar Non-Discrimination (4.3.5) & Registry/Registrar Standardization (4.3.8).on page 11. We look forward to deliberating with everyone. Sincerely, Michael Flemming & Sophia Feng WT2 Co-Chairs

1 1

WT2 Progress Document
by Michael Flemming Feb. 16, 2018

Feb. 16, 2018

Dear All, Please find in the link below the WT2 Progress Document that attempts to capture all of our discussion points and provide paths forward for each individual topic. You will find in here the paths forward proposed for all of our recent meetings. That includes topics like Closed Generics, Registrant Protections, Base Registry Agreement, and all of the others. I invite all WT2 participants to comment and make suggestions to the wording and ideas for deliberations and paths forward. Feedback is strongly encouraged to be written as comments in the document or to be provided on the mailing list. We will use this document as our base for the initial report. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDzPUL5NlsgbnbnjVRMLCfRDz8AA37_LgeZtrXC… A big thanks to staff in assistance WT2 Co-Chairs to put this together. Sincerely, Michael Flemming & Sophia Feng WT2 Co-Chairs

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 01 February 2018
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 9, 2018

Feb. 9, 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 attached slides and excerpts from the chat room below. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 01 February 2017 1. SOI Updates: None. 2. Closed Generics Slide 3: Closed Generics -- Recap -- Discussed what a Closed Generic is and currently defined in the RAA. -- Why we are talking about this. -- Exceptions to Closed Generic Rule (Spec 13, strict criteria for registering a domain in an open TLD). -- Analyzed pros and cons. Slide 4 -- Closed Generics -- Recap, continued -- Addressed key aspects that contribute to possible paths forward. -- Found it difficult to address potential harms or merits without documented evidence. -- Found that if a Closed Generic could be considered in the public interest then it may be beneficial to allow for this to occur. -- Discussed the possiblity of allowing for a Closed Generic if we could allow for objections to an application or if we could keep the applicant in check. Slide 5: Closed Generics -- Path Forward -- Possible paths forward at this point. The extremes and in betweens. Bring policy up to date with the existing Registry Agreement that Closed Generics should not be allowed. Allow Closed Generics but require that applicants clearly demonstrate the Closed Generic serving a public interest in the application. This would require the applicant to reveal details about the goals of the registry. Establish an objections process for Closed Generics that is modelled on community objections. Allow Closed Generics but require the applicant to commit to a code of conduct. This would not require the applicant to reveal details about the goals of the registry but commit to annual self-audits that fall in line with the code of conduct in regards to Closed Generics. Establish an objections process for Closed Generics that is modelled on community objections. Allow Closed Generics with no regulation but establish an objections process for Closed Generics that is modelled on community objections. Discussion: -- If there is more than one applicant proposing a closed generic in the public interest then ICANN would have to determine who is the better applicant (proposal #2). -- Suggestion to combine #2 and #3. -- Taken competition off the table -- figured that ICANN doesn't want to decide what is competition, meaning we have not come to agreement on the harms or the merits. If we could find a way for a Closed Generic in the public interest then we could find a way to allow it. -- Distinguish between classes of cases. A non-community TLD can have registration eligibility restrictions. .BANK as an example -- not a closed generic in the sense that names are available to third parties, but there are stringent eligibility criteria. -- Restricted TLDs are not closed; a closed TLD is utilized only by the operator and its affiliates. Need to stick to our category and avoid scope creep/leap. Discuss really closed generics as our only remit. Try to settle in between #2 and #3. -- #2 -- require an applicant to reveal details about the goals of the registry. How can we phrase this to satisfied the need to offer details in the application so a third party can judge whether they need to file an objection. -- Question 18: Mission and purpose of the TDL -- could that be used for the details? -- There are passionate arguments on multiple sides of this issue and we have no consensus on a common path forward: We should put out possible options on which we would like comments from the community. Show how we have considered all the options. Goal for the initial report is to show that we have thought about all of the models without expressing a view so the public can provide feedback or new models/combinations. Make sure we cover all of the scenarios. -- Suggestion for #3 -- create 3a and 3b: would require the applicant to reveal details about the goals of the registry. Notice of intent and #2 and #3. A no-objection. Some kind of clear and substantive form -- missing a suggestion of the proof of notice to the community of competitors. Not ICANN's job. The registry is in the best position to provide the notice to their competitors. To #2 and #3 - clear disclosure of intent and proof of notification to competitors around the world to allow them to raise their concerns. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Julie: I object to that proposed change. -- Question 18 did an adequate job. Object to a particular category of applicant having to give notice. Concerns about how to implement it and expectations. -- Might be more productive to set out all the options separately, but ask in the Public Comment. -- Another option is the PICDRP. If we have the objection we will have a dispute resolution procedure. >From the chat: Alan Greenberg: Does 2 imply a panel to judge whether the proposal is indeed in the PI? christine farley: Have you considered an additional option that combines the requirements of #2 & #3? Jim Prendergast: not a comment speciifc to the possible paths forward but a larger one. My sense is if the broader community knew that this WT was charged with responding to to the NGPC on closed generics (among the many other topics we are working on as part of the PDP), we'd have a lot more participation. A lot more Jim Prendergast: Do we have any indication that the GAC objection to closed Generics has changed or softened? Michael Flemming: I do not believe we do Michael Flemming: Greg, I believe it wasn't .redcross but a different term. I can't recall at the current time what Jeff's example was. Greg Shatan: Restricted registries are not closed registries. End of discussion? Steve Chan: For reference, here is the Beijing communique: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf christine farley: Seems like there might be another option in Kathy's last comments. That is, allow closed generics only where the "generic" term does not describe applicant's goods or services. Steve Chan: In short, the GAC Communique states: "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal." Greg Shatan: Christine, I think at that point it is not a “generic” at all. Greg Shatan: Also, I believe that would not fall into the current definition of a “closed generic.” Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I think we're skipping the threshold question: Does anyone on the call believe that Q18 was insufficient and, if so, why and how should it be changed? Michael Flemming: Thats a good question Kristina Kathy Kleiman: +1 Christine - which seems to build on Greg's .BEAUTY example. How can they show it is not going to be a Closed Garden? Michael Flemming: It is, but can be considered in line with this. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Alexander: It seems to me that, if the opposition to closed generics is on competition grounds, then it seems likely that the potential objectors would be competitors. I must be misunderstanding your question. Jim Prendergast: on Q18 - (and20) I do think the arbitrary character limits placed upon those responses may have hurt applicants ability to fully describe their intentions/applications but no to the substance of the question Jeff Neuman: All we are trying to do now is list the potential options and put those out for public comment. Talking about the merits of these possible paths is fine, but lets make sure all of the options are listed to go out for comment christine farley: Greg, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the definition of a closed generic is that the term is a generic term and the registry is closed. Your point goes to what is a generic term. Is it generic in a lay sense, i.e., a dictionary term, or is it generic under trademark law, i.e. is it a term that functionally describes the applicant's business. Steve Chan: To Jeff's point, it might be useful to see if the number of options can be reduced? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Julie: I object to that proposed change. Julie Hedlund: @Kristina: Captured, thanks. Alexander Schubert: Instead of a formal "objection" we should rather have a public comment period! Julie Hedlund: Also, noted as a suggestion. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): So, if the applicant isn't in the industry, it doesn't have any competitors, right? Kathy Kleiman: Great, tx Jeff. Kathy Kleiman: Can you give an example, Kristina? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I don't have one. The discussion has been focused on the applicant's competitors in the industry. it logically follows that if the applicant isn't currently a participant in whatever the industry is, it can't have any competitors. Kathy Kleiman: To #2 and #3 - clear disclosure of intent and proof of notification to competitors around the world to alow them to raise their concerns.

2 1

Fwd: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] ****CANCELLED****Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 08 February 2018 at 21:00 UTC
by Michael Flemming Feb. 8, 2018

Feb. 8, 2018

Dear All, Please accept our apologies about the immediate canceling of this meeting. We were unable to prepare material in time due to a rather busy conflicting schedule. At the current time, we have the following material left to cover for WT2 before we need to provide our recommendations to the Full WG. - Vertical Integration (22 February at 15 UTC) - Contractual Compliance (Will schedule another meeting) - TLD Rollout (Will schedule another meeting) - Global Public Interest (Will schedule another meeting) Due to the Chinese New Year Holiday, we will only be able to hold an additional call the week of 1 March in order to meet deadlines. Sophia and I are endeavoring to get you the documentation for paths forward as soon as possible. These are the documents that will guide our discussion forward and seek to finalize our recommendations for the Full WG. We look forward to discussing with everyone again soon. Sincerely, Michael Flemming and Sophia Feng WT2 Co-Chairs On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Michelle DeSmyter < michelle.desmyter(a)icann.org> wrote: > ***********THIS MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED************* > > Dear All, > > > > The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – > Legal/Regulatory Issues will now take place on *Thursday, 08 February** 2018 > at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes.* > 13:00 PST, 16:00 EST, 21:00 London, 22:00 Paris CET > > For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y8umv8jy[tinyurl.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y8umv8jy&d…> > > > > > > Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ > > You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the > AC room, or use the Connect Me option below (also sent in the calendar > invitation). > > > > Thank you. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Michelle > > > > *You're Invited.* > > You've been invited to a GlobalMeet® phone only meeting. > > > *Have the meeting call you. *Click the Connect Me link below. *No need to > dial-in.* > > *Connect Me *[toolbar.conferencinghub.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__toolbar.conferencinghu…> > > > > > > > *Not at your computer? *You can join by dialing one of the access numbers > below. > > > > *Mobile:* > > tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825# <//16054755604,*,,8650457825> > > *Access Number:* > > 1-605-475-5604 <(605)%20475-5604> > > *Guest Passcode:* > > 8650457825 > > *Additional Access:* > > USA: > > 1-605-475-5604 <(605)%20475-5604> > > USA: > > 1-712-770-4203 <(712)%20770-4203> > > USA: > > 1-719-457-6209 <(719)%20457-6209> > > Canada, Calgary: > > +1 403 407 5793 <(403)%20407-5793> > > Canada, Montreal: > > +1 514 669 5928 <(514)%20669-5928> > > Canada, Toronto: > > +1 647 426 9172 <(647)%20426-9172> > > Canada, Vancouver: > > +1 604 222 7836 <(604)%20222-7836> > > Argentina, Buenos Aires: > > +54 (0) 11 5172 6003 <+54%2011%205172-6003> > > Argentina (toll free): > > 0800 800 1223 > > Australia, Sydney: > > +61 (0) 2 8017 6064 <+61%202%208017%206064> > > Australia, Melbourne: > > +61 (0) 3 8687 0553 <+61%203%208687%200553> > > Australia, Brisbane: > > +61 (0) 7 3015 0535 <+61%207%203015%200535> > > Australia (toll free): > > 1 800 804 786 > > Austria, Vienna: > > +43 (0) 1 25302 1785 <+43%201%20253021785> > > Austria (toll free): > > 0800 8866 3413 > > Bahrain, Manama: > > +973 1619 8739 <+973%201619%208739> > > Bahrain (toll free): > > 800 04212 > > Belarus (toll free): > > 8 820 0011 0341 > > Belgium, Brussels: > > +32 (0) 2 400 6928 <+32%202%20400%2069%2028> > > Belgium (toll free): > > 0800 39279 > > Brazil, Sao Paulo: > > +55 11 4935 7169 <+55%2011%204935-7169> > > Brazil, Rio de Janeiro: > > +55 21 4560 0072 <+55%2021%204560-0072> > > Brazil (toll free): > > 0800 887 0233 > > Bulgaria, Sofia: > > +359 (0) 2 491 6045 <+359%202%20491%206045> > > Bulgaria (toll free): > > 00800 111 4950 > > Cambodia, Phnom Penh: > > +855 23 965 723 <+855%2023%20965%20723> > > Canada (toll free): > > 1 855 950 3717 <(855)%20950-3717> > > Chile, Santiago: > > +56 (0) 2 2666 0696 <+56%202%202666%200696> > > Chile (toll free): > > 171 800 835 783 > > China (national): > > +400 613 8103 > > China, Beijing: > > +86 10 5667 0003 <+86%2010%205667%200003> > > China, Shanghai: > > +86 21 2039 7081 <+86%2021%202039%207081> > > Colombia, Bogota: > > +57 1 508 8137 > > Colombia (toll free): > > 01 800 755 0102 > > Costa Rica (toll free): > > 800 542 5328 <(800)%20542-5328> > > Croatia (toll free): > > 0800 805 940 > > Cyprus (toll free): > > 800 97424 > > Czech Republic, Prague: > > +420 225 986 554 <+420%20225%20986%20554> > > Czech Republic (toll free): > > 800 701 532 > > Denmark, Copenhagen: > > +45 32 72 78 10 <+45%2032%2072%2078%2010> > > Denmark (toll free): > > 80 70 35 86 > > Egypt (toll free): > > 0800 000 0593 > > Estonia, Tallinn: > > +372 622 6551 <+372%20622%206551> > > Estonia (toll free): > > 800 011 1589 > > Fiji (toll free): > > 00800 3322 > > Finland, Helsinki: > > +358 (0) 9 2310 1677 > > Finland (toll free): > > 0800 772 236 > > France, Paris: > > +33 (0) 1 70 37 16 56 <+33%201%2070%2037%2016%2056> > > France (toll free): > > 0800 946 531 > > France (national): > > 0811 655 100 > > France (national): > > 0821 231 671 > > Georgia, Tbilisi: > > +995 32 2 050 778 > > Germany, Frankfurt: > > +49 (0) 69 2222 10612 <+49%2069%20222210612> > > Germany, Munich: > > +49 (0) 89 2030 31207 <+49%2089%20203031207> > > Germany (national): > > 01801 003 899 > > Germany (toll free): > > 0800 588 9170 > > Greece, Athens: > > +30 211 181 3824 <+30%2021%201181%203824> > > Greece (toll free): > > 00800 128 913 > > Hong Kong: > > +852 3018 9111 <+852%203018%209111> > > Hong Kong (toll free): > > 800 901 787 > > Hungary, Budapest: > > +36 1408 8953 > > Hungary (toll free): > > 068 001 9673 > > Iceland (toll free): > > 800 9847 > > India, Delhi: > > +91 (0) 11 6641 1394 <+91%2011%206641%201394> > > India, Bangalore: > > +91 (0) 80 6127 6710 <+91%2080%206127%206710> > > India, Mumbai: > > +91 (0)22 6187 5028 <+91%2022%206187%205028> > > India, Chennai: > > +91 (0)44 6688 6061 <+91%2044%206688%206061> > > India (toll free): > > 1800 200 9415 <(800)%20200-9415> > > Indonesia, Jakarta: > > +62 21 2188 9084 <+62%2021%2021889084> > > Indonesia (toll free): > > 007 803 321 8927 > > Ireland, Dublin: > > +353 (0) 1 526 9421 <+353%201%20526%209421> > > Ireland (national): > > 0818 270 271 > > Ireland (toll free): > > 1800 937 649 > > Ireland (national): > > 1890 907 630 > > Israel, Tel Aviv: > > +972 (0)3 721 7943 <+972%203-721-7943> > > Israel (toll free): > > 1809 213 168 > > Italy, Milan: > > +39 02 3600 8006 <+39%2002%203600%208006> > > Italy, Rome: > > +39 06 8750 0676 <+39%2006%208750%200676> > > Italy (toll free): > > 800 146 094 > > Japan, Tokyo: > > +81 (0) 3 4560 1270 <+81%203-4560-1270> > > Japan, Osaka: > > +81 (0) 6 4560 2410 <+81%206-4560-2410> > > Japan (toll free): > > 0120 305 211 > > Japan (mobile): > > 0120 632 611 > > Japan (national): > > 0570 085 744 > > Kazakhstan (toll free): > > 8800 333 7554 > > Kenya, Nairobi: > > +254 (0)20 529 3581 > > South Korea, Seoul: > > +82 (0) 2 6007 0079 <+82%202-6007-0079> > > South Korea (toll free): > > 00798 6136 1454 > > Latvia, Riga: > > +371 6601 3627 > > Latvia (toll free): > > 8000 4418 > > Lithuania, Vilnius: > > +370 5205 5468 > > Lithuania (toll free): > > 8800 31449 > > Luxembourg: > > +352 2088 1749 <+352%2020%2088%2017%2049> > > Luxembourg (toll free): > > 800 28433 > > Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur: > > +60 (0) 3 7724 8010 <+60%203-7724%208010> > > Malaysia (toll free): > > 1 800 816 152 > > Mexico, Guadalajara: > > +52 33 4162 4504 <+52%2033%204162%204504> > > Mexico, Mexico City: > > +52 55 8421 0326 <+52%2055%208421%200326> > > Mexico, Monterrey: > > +52 81 4162 5648 <+52%2081%204162%205648> > > Mexico (toll free): > > 01 800 733 4102 > > Morocco, Casablanca: > > +212 (0) 520 48 0022 > > Morocco (toll free): > > 0800 091 296 > > Netherlands, Amsterdam: > > +31 (0) 20 716 8345 <+31%2020%20716%208345> > > Netherlands (toll free): > > 0800 020 2597 > > New Zealand, Christchurch: > > +64 (0) 3 974 2596 <+64%203-974%202596> > > New Zealand, Wellington: > > +64 (0) 4 909 4674 <+64%204-909%204674> > > New Zealand, Auckland: > > +64 (0) 9 929 1825 <+64%209-929%201825> > > New Zealand (toll free): > > 0800 452 947 > > Nigeria, Lagos: > > +234 1 277 3944 <+234%201%20277%203944> > > Norway, Oslo: > > +47 21 00 48 15 <+47%2021%2000%2048%2015> > > Norway (toll free): > > 800 56081 > > Oman (toll free): > > 800 77265 > > Panama, Panama City: > > +507 8 335 913 > > Panama (toll free): > > 00800 223 1390 > > Peru, Lima: > > +51 (0) 1 700 9571 > > Peru (toll free): > > 0800 78102 > > Philippines, Manila: > > +63 (0)2 395 3426 <+63%202%20395%203426> > > Philippines (toll free): > > 1 800 111 013 99 > > Poland, Warsaw: > > +48 22 295 3570 <+48%2022%20295%2035%2070> > > Poland (toll free): > > 00 800 121 4356 > > Portugal, Lisbon: > > +351 21 316 4093 <+351%2021%20316%204093> > > Portugal (toll free): > > 800 784 442 > > Qatar (toll free): > > 00 800 100 491 > > Romania, Bucharest: > > +40 (0) 21 529 3992 <+40%2021%20529%203992> > > Romania (toll free): > > 0800 801 035 > > Russia, Moscow: > > +7 495 646 9181 <+7%20495%20646-91-81> > > Russia (toll free): > > 8 800 500 9241 > > Saudi Arabia (toll free): > > 800 844 6641 <(800)%20844-6641> > > Saudi Arabia (toll free): > > 800 850 0219 <(800)%20850-0219> > > Serbia (toll free): > > 0800 190 712 > > Singapore: > > +65 6622 1957 <+65%206622%201957> > > Singapore (toll free): > > 800 616 3192 <(800)%20616-3192> > > Slovakia, Bratislava: > > +421 (0)2 3321 5498 > > Slovakia (toll free): > > 0800 002 002 > > Slovenia, Ljubljana: > > +386 1600 8695 > > Slovenia (toll free): > > 0800 81193 > > South Africa, Johannesburg: > > +27 (0)11 589 8321 <+27%2011%20589%208321> > > South Africa (toll free): > > 0800 999 434 > > Spain, Madrid: > > +34 91 114 6653 <+34%20911%2014%2066%2053> > > Spain, Barcelona: > > +34 93 800 1946 <+34%20938%2000%2019%2046> > > Spain (toll free): > > 900 828 035 > > Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka: > > +94 720 910 333 <+94%2072%20091%200333> > > Sweden, Stockholm: > > +46 (0) 8 5065 3956 > > Sweden (toll free): > > 0200 125 588 > > Switzerland, Geneva: > > +41 (0) 22 595 4795 <+41%2022%20595%2047%2095> > > Switzerland, Zurich: > > +41 (0) 44 580 7207 <+41%2044%20580%2072%2007> > > Switzerland (toll free): > > 0800 740 360 > > Taiwan, Taipei: > > +886 (0) 2 2650 7329 <+886%202%202650%207329> > > Taiwan (toll free): > > 0800 666 596 > > Thailand, Bangkok: > > +66 (0) 2104 0761 <+66%202%20104%200761> > > Thailand (toll free): > > 001 800 6136 1473 > > Tunisia, Tunis: > > +216 31 378 101 <+216%2031%20378%20101> > > Turkey, Istanbul: > > +90 212 375 50 49 <+90%20212%20375%2050%2049> > > Turkey (toll free): > > 00800 4488 26642 > > Ukraine (toll free): > > 0800 500 896 > > UAE (toll free): > > 8000 3570 2662 > > UK (03): > > +44 (0)330 336 6002 <+44%20330%20336%206002> > > UK (toll free): > > 0800 358 6385 > > UK (national): > > 0844 473 5010 > > UK (national): > > 0845 545 0015 > > USA /Canada (toll free): > > 1-866-398-2885 <(866)%20398-2885> > > Uruguay (toll free): > > 0004 019 0152 > > Venezuela, Caracas: > > +58 212 720 2164 <+58%20212-7202164> > > Venezuela (toll free): > > 0 800 162 7451 > > Vietnam, Hanoi: > > +84 4 4458 3312 > > Vietnam (toll free): > > 1800 9226 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 mailing list > Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 >

2 1

Agenda for WT2 Call at 21:00 UTC at Thursday, 08 February 2018
by Sophia Feng Feb. 7, 2018

Feb. 7, 2018

Dear All, Please note the agenda for the upcoming meeting of WT2 Call at 21:00 UTC at Thursday, 08 February 2018 Welcome SOI Updates Proposal on High Level Agreements and further deliberations Registrar Non-Discrimination AOB Looking forwards to discussing with you. best regards, Michael Flemming Sophia Feng

1 0

Recordings, AC chat & attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 01 February 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 1, 2018

Feb. 1, 2018

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, 01 February 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-01feb18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p4463awbd25/ 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/9wSfB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle -------------------------------

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Meeting at 15 UTC 1 February 2018
by Michael Flemming Feb. 1, 2018

Feb. 1, 2018

Dear All, Please note that this week we have a call scheduled for WT2. I know that a lot of individuals are traveling for a number of sessions and events being held throughout this week. Unfortunately, we are unable to reschedule the 1 February 2018 15 UTC call, so I invite individuals to comment and provide feedback over the mailing list. The topic for this week will be *Closed Generics*. As Sophia and I have highlighted in our emails over the last several weeks, we have been putting together documents that summarize, analyze, and offer paths forward for our topics in WT2. Already we have looked at the Registry Agreement, Registrant Protections, Reserved Names, and the Applicant Terms and Conditions. Documents have been circulated and shared with the group, but we have had very little feedback outside of our biweekly calls. I highly encourage participants to provide feedback on what we have highlighted and are proposing in these documents. The goal for these documents is to present to the overall WG what we are recommending as WT2. I hope those of you that can join us will do so this week to engage in our discussion on Closed Generics. Sincerely, Michael Flemming & Sophia Feng WT2 Co-Chairs

2 2