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

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

Aug. 8, 2017

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

1 1

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

July 27, 2017

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

1 0

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

July 27, 2017

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

1 0

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

July 27, 2017

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

1 1

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

July 13, 2017

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

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 13 July
by Julie Hedlund July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 July. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. Please also see the attached slides, document, and the excerpts from the chat room below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 July Registry Agreement Introduction (Slide 3) -- Goal: To move towards deliberations and proposals for steps forward for the initial report. -- Schedule: 13 July -- review CC2 comments; 27 July -- work towards deliberations for Base Registry Agreement. -- Go over the comments and to see if we are moving towards certain positions. -- Develop preliminary recommendations and try to just consensus based on lack of objection. Trying to stay away from polls as results can be biased. Use the Working Group Guidelines concerning consensus. Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? (Slide 4) -- Only discussed one item with respect to the Base Registry Agreement: Single Registry Agreement vs. Multiple Registry Agreements. Looked at pros and cons. -- Possible Compromises: 1) scaled back "core" agreement with additional specifications per category; 2) single agreement with a more clear, structured, and efficient method for obtaining exemptions. CC2 Question (Slide 5) -- 2.1.1 -- Base Registry Agreement (also see attached summary document) -- Just wanted to reinforce that any staff summary/synthesis documents are intended to help promote discussion, but will inevitably be subjective and incomplete. It is important for WT members to read all comments and use this review to inform deliberations. Complete comments are available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tX… -- Jannik Skou, INTA, Nominet, BC, BRG, John Poole, Afilias, RySG, ALAC, and NCSG support a single base registry agreement with specific sections for different TLD types. -- Jim Prendergast and BRG support multiple registry agreements. Comments focused on high-level goals rather than mechanisms: -- RrSG: No new "on the fly" exemptions made or new TLD types classified once the application window is closed. (excerpt). -- RySG: Single registry agreement with clauses versus suite of registry agreements are the same concept -- neither model should be more or less effective in recognizing the different operational requirements of different TLDs. (excerpt) -- Valideus: Additional Brand-specific provisions or a Brand-specific contract would be beneficial. An entirely separate contract for Brand TLD requires careful consideration, however, as it has the potential to reducee the flexibility of registries. (excerpt). Discussion: -- BRG comments -- didn't think they were in favor of a single registry agreement. Preference is to have something more tailored, but if that wasn't the case then they would support some kind of a stripped down base agreement. Work out what the core is and then tailor based on addition, versus subtraction. Full BRG comment: In its current form, the base RA is skewed towards traditional models and does not adequately reflect the new models introduced in the 2012 round. This can be a barrier for new entrants that operate distinctly different models. Where there is a significant difference between registry models and where these different models are a sizeable proportion of registry operators, the BRG recommends customised RAs to better reflect those models and their distinct nature. In this respect, the BRG favours a customised Registry Agreement (RA) for dotBrands, to reflect the distinct differences against a traditional open and commercial registry. A significant proportion of New gTLDs were dotBrands and we anticipate continued interest in future application windows. In the absence of a customised RA for dotBrands or other distinct and sizeable models, the BRG recommends the base agreement is stripped down to provide core provisions that are applicable to all, with the relevant specifications that define the model and variant provisions applicable to that model. The contracting parties associated with each defined model would be the parties responsible for negotiating and voting any changes to the related specification, while all registry operating under the RA would be responsible to negotiate and vote for any changes to the core base agreement. -- The ideal of having potentially completely different registry agreements for each TLD -- would need separate approvals for each time, different negotiations, just the effort on the registry side would be huge. The systems and staff will be a huge resource allocation too. -- Would be an administrative nightmare to get registries to agree on multiple agreements and some might fall into more than one category. Introduces more complications than it settles. This seems to be a theme in the comments we've received. -- How ICANN prioritizes its spending and resources needs to be considered. -- Seems that the objections to completely separate registry agreements can be resolved by having a master agreement that is the common core and than have schedules based on type. Current agreement contains to many elements that are not common so we end up subtracting from the base registry agreement. Better than having registries opt out of what doesn't apply. -- Last round applicants were forced to accept what was essentially a franchise agreement. Having a single base registry agreement would stunt innovation. There are things, such as SLAs, that need to be negotiated. Variable pricing also and how you treat registrars. Also, GDPR. There needs to be flexibility and negotiation. -- The GDPR issue is a good one. How to accomplish that while making sure that general legal boilerplate items for fairness sake that everyone is on a level playing field while addressing required differences? Response: There does need to be a box around certain contractual/legal provisions, but avoid too many technical burdens that may not be necessary for some registry operations. -- You may have a closed brand registry you may have to weigh whether you want to open it up and if you were to do that it is easier if you have a specification or master schedule model. >From the chat: Trang Nguyen: To add to what Kristina just said, there is also added complexity for ICANN compliance to enforce multiple versions of the contract as well. Sarah L Verisign: I realize my comment bucks the trend, but I would support increasing the ICANN compliance team and supporting negotiated contracts - I realize that this would increase the administrative burden however I support the concept of "contract negotiation" vs "contract acceptance" and dont see why contracts cant be negotiated seprately. Susan Payne: Hi Greg - yes I think that is what the BRG was thinking if there isn't a separate agreement altogether for certain registry types Trang Nguyen: Another consideration is whether multiple individually negotiated RAs would create additional burden for the community who might be interested in tracking contractual provisions of various TLDs. Jon Nevett: GDPR can be handled by the documented waiver process, no? Sarah L Verisign: @jeff, you can have elements of a contracts, like LOLs, that are not negotiable and others that are. We could agree which were negotiable and which were not, but having us all the same doesnt help us be innovative Jeff Neuman: @Sarah - It would be interesting to see from ICANN legal which were the parts of the contract that were the most negotiated. Jeff Neuman: But from what I recall, it was more the legal boilerplate than the technical specs Susan Payne: sarah are you arguing that each individual registry should geta tailored agreement? I hadn't initially thought you were but now I'm not sure? Jeff Neuman: But, it would be great if we could draw a box around things needed for level playing field and those that have flexibility around technical solutions (while still having a minimum of requirements for stability/security, etc. Sarah L Verisign: @jeff - I am not sure there were any negotiable aspects, rather an expectation of acceptance - at least from what I am aware. @ susan, I am strying to suggestimechanism that could address Jeff's concern and still give us the ability to have differentiation. Greg Shatan: The Master/Schedule model would make this easier to manage. Typically, the Master is less negotiable than the Schedules or SOW. If the base agreement was truly the common core needed for virtually all registries, while the Schedules were more particular/negotiable that would make management much easier. Greg Shatan: The "Specification" model didn't really do this, since the Specs were a mixed bag of required and special elements. 2.1.2 Question (Slide 6) -- Restrictions pertaining to sunrise periods, landrush or other registry activities (also see attached summary document): -- INTA, John Poole, Valideus, and Jannik Skou support additional restrictions pertaining to sunrise periods, landrush or other registry activities. -- Nominet, BRG, Afilias, and RySG supporting maintaining the status quo with respect to restrictions. -- BC supports maintaining current restrictions but pursuing additional measures regarding "predatory pricing." Discussion: -- Re: INTA Comment "[ICANN] has refused to request and share such [reserved domain names] lists, which would allow brand-owners to police improper reservation of names -- not sure that ICANN has that authority. Could be a question back to INTA. -- Question: A lot of this section touches on pricing and what the registries can do. I think ICANN is explicit in that they do not regulate pricing in the new gTLD program. Does anyone know the genesis of that? Response: We should get more specificity, but there might be antitrust concerns at the root of this position. Whether they are well founded or correct is a different question. If this is the case that is open to review. -- Use a term other than "predatory pricing" in our final report.

1 0

Agenda for 13 July 2017 WT2 Call at 15 UTC
by Michael Flemming July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

Dear All, Please note the agenda for the WT2 call that will be held at 15 UTC today. 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. CC2 Comments: Registry Agreement 4. AOB Our plan forward is to go over the CC2 comments for the Registry Agreement in order to move forward to initial discussions on consensus, initial draft proposals and/or any other questions we may have for the feedback we received in CC2. I know there may not be enough time between the call and now for some of you, but I would encourage you to go over the CC2 comments in regards to the Registry Agreement as much as possible. For this discussion, staff have kindly prepared a summary of points that were made in CC2 comments in relation to questions asked on the Registry Agreement. The document is text to help organize discussion and each WG member is encouraged to read all CC2 comments in full in order to capture the whole argument. I look forward to discussing with everyone on the call. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

3 2

- Topics for Discussion at ICANN59
by Steve Chan June 22, 2017

June 22, 2017

Dear WT2 Members, During the work track’s meeting on 15 June, members were asked which topics they felt would be most productive to discuss at ICANN59. The topics raised by participants, in order of preference, include: Closed Generics (2 requests) Vertical Integration (2 requests) Registrant Protections (1 request) Registry/Registrar Standardization (1 request) For those that were unable to participate, or those that did not provide a selection, please let the WT2 co-leads know if you have a preference for topics to discuss at ICANN59. As a reminder, you can find the topics that WT2 is considering here: https://community.icann.org/x/FwSbAw Please provide your selection by 23:59 UTC on 20 June 2017. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   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 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 15 June
by Julie Hedlund June 16, 2017

June 16, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 15 June. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. Please also see the attached slides, documents, and the excerpts from the chat room below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 15 June Action Items: 1. Topics for Johannesburg: Staff will pull out the top 4 topics from the chat room and send them to the list so others can comment. Topics that were suggested were: vertical integration (2), closed generics (2), registrant protections (1), registry/registrar standardization (1). 2. There seem to be clarifying question for Compliance but not sure if those have been formulated. We might need help on how to formulate those questions. Michael Flemming will help to formulate them. 1. Topics for ICANN59 Johannesburg -- We are tasked with having 2 topics at ICANN59. I think we have 45 minutes for discussion. Suggested topics from the chat room: Susan Payne: vertical integration Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Registrant Protections Gg Levine (NABP): Registry/registrar standardization Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Vertical integration; and closed generics Paul McGrady 2: Closed generics Discussion: -- I don't think it is reasonable that we would have a helpful discussion in 45 minutes. -- The question that we've already discussed is whether there would be one registry agreement or multiple registry agreements. This would be a chance to enage further on the questions. -- I think applicant terms and conditions falls into the same category that we wouldn't have time to get into the topic. -- Suggest that you have us type our number 1 topic into the chat and ask staff to do a quick count. >From the chat: Susan Payne: can you remind me what registrant protections covers? Paul McGrady: +1 Kristina. We won't even get it introduced in that timeframe Steve Chan: @susan, in brief, things like EBERO, COI Phil Buckingham: kristina, what topic would u like to do one perhaps we could get concensus on at jo burg ? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I get it. But I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion of whether we should have different base agreements until everyone has read and understood the existing RA. And we'll use the entire 22 minutes just getting through the questions. Susan Payne: ah yes, thanks Steve, I was having a mental block 2. Vertical Integration Slide 2 -- Introduction -- Not starting from scratch. We are returning to this. Our goal is to work on modifications that allow the realization of the benefits of vertical integration. Slide 6 -- Recap of last call on vertical integration -- Origins of VI -- Status quo in 2007 -- Potential concerns and benefits of VI -- Journey to the current state -- Registry code of conduct and exceptions Slide 7 -- Continuing the VI discussion -- received some data back from compliance based on questions [see the slide] -- Responses from Compliance (see the attached document) [reading from the document] Discussion: -- If we are going to have any further discussion of the topic we need to go back to Compliance with follow-up questions. Such as 1b -- were there 1000 complaints against registry operators? Were there 100 complaints -- we need to know what percent were covered by those complaints. If we are going to act on it we need complete data. -- 1b -- said they processed less than ten complaints. The metrics page shows about 110 in regards to code of conduct. We are still waiting on data on how many registries are integrated. A more detailed response would very much help. -- A little trouble interpreting the results, perhaps lack of familiarity. Talked to Compliance staff. The number of code of conduct complaints is a relatively high number, but the issue for the complaint is less than 10. Complaints that are specific to vertical integration are less then 10 and all have been ameliorated. -- Can't get names of registry operators subject to the complaints, but can get numbers. -- The reason we are looking at 2017 data is that is the most recent audit but also when you had the most registries contracted with ICANN. Whether or not complaints are driven by just one registry I think there is room for us to develop possible concerns on vertical integration if there is evidence of those concerns. -- The data we are getting back from contractual compliance is how we need to move forward. >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): The Affiliate definition is in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement. Phil's summary of it was correct, but incomplete Susan Payne: is it just me or are the answers to 1a and b rather vague and open to interpretation? has anyone actually be found to be in breach Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Kristina Susan Payne: yes agree Kristina Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Susan: Not that I'm aware of, but Compliance should be asked that. Steve Chan: @Susan, Kristina, no, breaches. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I think that there may be more data that we could ask for that Compliance can provide: how many registry operators are vertically integrated; of that number, how many are within the same corporate family; how many complaints were there against ROs (overall - regardless of whether due to vertical integration); of the complaints referenced in the 1.b answer, how many ROs were those complaints against Steve Chan: The less than 10 complaints I believe is for all time, not just a period of time. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Steve: Really? That's 10 in 4 years. Steve Chan: Happy to confirm Kistina, but that's my understanding. Susan Payne: I think it would also be helpful to know how many registries if any have required to conduct remediation in some way. I think "no breaches" means no formal breach notice but there may have been action require Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Steve: And, to be clear, I'm not doubting the answer, I'm pleasantly surprised Steve Chan: @Susan, I believe the answer is less than 10 complaints where remediation was required. Steve Chan: Of course, if we have follow up questions for Contractual Compliance, staff is happy to ask on the WT's behalf. Susan Payne: @Steve, yes I assume so. but it could actually be zero, which would be quite informative 3. CC2 Comments for WT2 Topics -- see document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tX… and attached PDF. -- It is really important that we discuss these comments but we need to take the responsibility to read them. -- Shouldn't specifically be singling out one comment and having a detailed debate about it. We need to read all of the comments and then have a conversation about issues raised as a whole. >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can we agree that we'll each read the CC2 comments so we don't need to have Phil (or Michael) read them out? Jeff Neuman: Is the question you are asking whether all TLDs should be able to have 1 -3 registrars Jeff Neuman: As a PDP Working Group, we do have to respond to all the comments as to how we considered them. But we do not need to read all of the comments aloud. Susan Payne: you might also want to switch registrar, so for the period you switch you would have to have two. limiting just to one would be very restrictive Rubens Kuhl: It also comes down to bargaining power in the contract: having more than one gives a brand more negotiating power in the table. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I respectfully disagree with Phil. I'd like to see us use the 45 minutes in Joburg to work through the comments rather than hone in on one point made by one Commenter on one subpart Jeff Neuman: Lets see if we can group the issues into categories of types of comments Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Jeff Kiran Malancharuvil: Agree with grouping the issues into categories and represnting various groups of views for discussion. Much easier

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 15 June 2017
by Julie Bisland June 16, 2017

June 16, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p3o7u6zn6k2/<https://participate.icann.org/p3o7u6zn6k2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=aef002f837ee5497…> 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/ExLfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 15 June 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Paul McGrady:Here we are again... Michael Flemming:Great to have you Paul! Julie Hedlund:Slides are now unsynced. Susan Payne:can you remind me what registrant protections covers? Paul McGrady:+1 Kristina. We won't even get it introduced in that timeframe Steve Chan:@susan, in brief, things like EBERO, COI Phil Buckingham:kristina , what topic would u like to do one perhaps we could get concensus on at jo burg ? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I get it. But I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion of whether we should have different base agreements until everyone has read and understood the existing RA. And we'll use the entire 22 minutes just getting through the questions. Susan Payne:ah yes, thanks Steve, I was having a mental block Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Phil: I think vertical integration would be one. Michael's listing of the potential topics is a good idea. Steve Chan:Answered in brief, not in detail! Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Can we take this to the email list? Phil Buckingham:thanks Kristina . i tend to agree . Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Paul's idea is fine, too Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):better idea Paul Phil Buckingham:Great idea , Paul - thanks . Steve Chan:If you take it to the list, those that are not on this call would also be able to participate. Susan Payne:vertical integration Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Registrant Protections Gg Levine (NABP):Registry/registrar standardization Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Vertical integration; and closed generics Paul McGrady 2:Closed generics Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Given Steve's point, perhaps Steve could identify the top 4 subjects identified here and take to the list so folks not on the call can "vote" Steve Chan:Unless there is objection to Kristina's suggestion, staff is happy to execute. Michael Flemming:Let us go with Kristina's suggestion. Michael Flemming:yes Paul McGrady 2:come through soft and a bit fuzzy Susan Payne:fine Paul McGrady 2:Oops. I turned up my volume, now he is fine... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):The Affiliate definition is in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement. Phil's summary of it was correct, but incomplete Susan Payne:is it just me or are the answers to 1a and b rather vague and open to interpretation? has anyone actually be found to be in breach Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Kristina Susan Payne:yes agree Kristina Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Susan: Not that I'm aware of, but Compliance should be asked that. Steve Chan:@Susan, Kristina, no, breaches. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I think that there may be more data that we could ask for that Compliance can provide: how many registry operators are vertically integrated; of that number, how many are within the same corporate family; how many complaints were there against ROs (overall - regardless of whether due to vertical integration); of the complaints referenced in the 1.b answer, how many ROs were those complaints against Steve Chan:The less than 10 complaints I believe is for all time, not just a period of time. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Steve: Really? That's 10 in 4 years. Steve Chan:Happy to confirm Kistina, but that's my understanding. Susan Payne:I think it would also be helpful to know how many registries if any have required to conduct remediation in some way. I think "no breaches" means no formal breach notice but there may have been action require Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Steve: And, to be clear, I'm not doubting the answer, I'm pleasantly surprised Steve Chan:@Kristina, :) Steve Chan:@Susan, I believe the answer is less than 10 complaints where remediation was required. Steve Chan:Of course, if we have follow up questions for Contractual Compliance, staff is happy to ask on the WT's behalf. Susan Payne:@Steve, yes I assume so. but it could actually be zero, which would be quite informative Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Can we agree that we'll each read the CC2 comments so we don't need to have Phil (or Michael) read them out? Jeff Neuman:Is the question you are asking whether all TLDs should be able to have 1 -3 registrars Jeff Neuman:As a PDP Working Group, we do have to respond to all the comments as to how we considered them. But we do not need to read all of the comments aloud. Susan Payne:you might also want to switch registrar, so for the period you switch you would have to have two. limiting just to one would be very restrictive Rubens Kuhl:It also comes down to bargaining power in the contract: having more than one gives a brand more negotiating power in the table. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I respectfully disagree with Phil. I'd like to see us use the 45 minutes in Joburg to work through the comments rather than hone in on one point made by one Commenter on one subpart Jeff Neuman:Lets see if we can group the issues into categories of types of comments Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Jeff Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with grouping the issues into categories and represnting various groups of views for discussion. Much easier Steve Chan:Nope, that's it Paul McGrady 2:Next step: beer Steve Chan:you're more generous than i was thinking michael. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now safe travels to those who are attending JNB meeting Kiran Malancharuvil:Coffee for michael Kiran Malancharuvil::) Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks all! Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Paul: Not fair to those of us who have several more hours to go . . . .Safe travels everyone. Jeff Neuman:Beer at 7 am.....breafast of champions Susan Payne:bed for me Heather Forrest:Bye all Phil Buckingham:bed for me

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Call on 6/15 at 21 UTC
by Michael Flemming June 14, 2017

June 14, 2017

Dear All, Please note our agenda for the upcoming meeting at 21 UTC on 6/15 for WT2. - Welcome - SOI Updates - Topics for ICANN59 Johannesburg - Vertical Integration: Continuing the Discussion - AOB Please note that for this upcoming meeting we will be going over the questions and answers we submitted to ICANN Contractual Compliance that provides input in regards to complaints submitting relating to Vertical Integration. Also, for those attending this call, who did not attend our May 18th call, I kindly ask you to please review the notes from the previous call on Vertical Integration at the following link. https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-05-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… I look forward to speaking with everyone. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Meeting June 1st at 21 UTC
by Michael Flemming June 2, 2017

June 2, 2017

Dear All, I hope you are doing well. This is the agenda for our call today at 21 UTC for WT2. This week we will be discussing the Global Public Interest and reflecting on how the Public Interest Commitments weigh in on this. We will also be considering other aspects about how we public interest should be baked into policy. 1. Welcome 2. SOI 3. Global Public Interest 4. AOB I look forward to discussing with everyone today. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

2 2

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 01 June 2017 at 21:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter June 2, 2017

June 2, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 01 June 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-01jun17-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-01jun17-en.mp3> Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p8kqs7yp2y8/ 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/ChLfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 01 June 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2- Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 01 June 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Steve Chan:Slides are unsynced Phil Buckingham 2:unsynced Steve Chan:Everyone can control themselves Jeff Neuman:@Steve - that is debateable Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Steve Chan:@Jeff, I have more faith in our WT members that you :) Michelle DeSmyter:yes Phil Buckingham 2:clear as a bell Jim Prendergast:Julie and Micele - I need to leave adobe but am dialed in as well thx Kathy Kleiman:Hi All . Kathy Kleiman:Is there a link to this document? Steve Chan:Doing it now... Kathy Kleiman:Great tx - a bit easier to read :-) Steve Chan:Slides available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Jeff Neuman:ugh - my computer is going crazy. my hand is NOT raised. Steve Chan:You can find the "public interest" Wiki here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Jeff Neuman:I am going to log out then back in. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jim: GAC "requested" them Kiran Malancharuvil:Who is speaking right now? I didn't catch a name. Jeff Neuman 2:i can answer Michael Flemming:Jim Pendergast Kathy Kleiman 2:When people say PIC, could they say Mandatory and Voluntary? Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks Michael. Phil Marano:GAC Beijing Communique Phil Buckingham 2: is there a list somewhere ? Jeff Neuman 2:list of what? Rubens Kuhl:Actually, some registries considered including PICs that contradicted parts of the agreement they didn't like, like sunrise protection only for brands. Rubens Kuhl:Fear of the GAC / Fear of the GAC / I have constant fear that something's always near Rubens Kuhl:Having such a list in a PIC allows people that dislike it to challenge it in a PDDRP. So for any stakeholders, it's better than being listed as a Registry Service. Jeff Neuman 2:Should we come up with a new name for these then? Rubens Kuhl:One of the PICs is the obligtion of only using ICANN-Accredited Registrars. So calling it public interest is pushing the term public interest very hard. Jeff Neuman 2:Just TLD Commitments Kathy Kleiman 2:And perhaps GAC Commitments Rubens Kuhl:Some PICs tried to address ALAC or IO concerns... Kathy Kleiman 2:@Alan: can you give some examples? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Has anyone reached out to Tony Harris to let him know that we're discussing Spec. 11? I've been in several meetings where he has expressed concern about the "must use ICANN-accredited registrars" requirement, and I think his input here on this issue would be valuable. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):To clarify: It's been in open sessions at ICANN meetings. Kathy Kleiman 2:@Alan: I may have missed a term. Did you say the "Category 1" Comments -- meaning highly regulated strings such as banking? Michael Flemming:*PICDRP*, for the notes Phil Marano:“The Panel notes that PIC (3)(a) of Specification 11 imposes no obligation on Respondent as the Registry Operator itself to avoid fraudulent and deceptive practices.” See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_uploads_… Jeff Neuman 2:Thanks Phil. Do you want to speak to that? Kiran Malancharuvil:The PICDRP functionality may be for WT3, but there is a LOT to be learned about the PICs generally from the PICDRP result. Kiran Malancharuvil:And there have been multiple, filed, only one made it to the panel. Jeff Neuman 2:@Kiran - Right......when we talk about how the dispute process works, that is for WT3. But the PICs themselves (which are the subject of the dispute) is for us in WT2 Rubens Kuhl:I think this is being discussed in the vertical integration topic, isn't it ? Jeff Neuman 2:correct Jeff Neuman 2:@alsn - correct Jeff Neuman 2:alan Jeff Neuman 2:by the time the next window opens, everyone should be on the 2013 RAA Jeff Neuman 2:not sure we need that going forward Kurt Pritz:Now that new TLDs are in use: Can anyone point to a potential abusive behavior that was prevented by a PIC? (I.e., has there been an abuse in a TLD (that didn’t receive Type 1 GAC Advice) that might have been replicated by a GAC Advice Type 1 TLD?) - or - Can anyone point to an abuse by a GAC Advice Type 1 TLD that could be avoided by enhanced PIC Specs? If the answer to both of these is no, we should question the benefit of having the PIC Specs. Jeff Neuman 2:@aLAN - tHEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE picS...THEY CAN JUST BE IN THE BASE AGREEMENT Jeff Neuman 2:Sorry for ALL CAPS Jeff Neuman 2:oops Rubens Kuhl:Or become resellers of Tucows... ;-) Alan Greenberg:Jeff, certainly. Don't much care where they are. Since this was inserted after the fact, someone thought it was convenient to put it in a pic. I don't much care. avri doria:but nothing we do is granfathers. or even gandmothered. Michael Flemming:grandrelated* Paul McGrady 2:Grandparented Michael Flemming:aagh avri doria:and we have to look at mandatory sperately from voluntary. and we need to discuss ICANN ability to enforce the voluntary. Rubens Kuhl:Those were grandfathered, but would a new procedure be grandfathered ? Michael Flemming:My English Trang Nguyen 2:Section 1.1.d.ii of the bylaws avri doria:yes, that is what i was saying. Kathy Kleiman 2:Going forward is a new world! Trang Nguyen 2:and 1.1.d.iv is the provision that says "ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements, including public interest commitments, with any party in service of its Mission." Kathy Kleiman 2:"in service of its Mission" Kathy Kleiman 2:Good call, tx you! Steve Chan:@Michael, Jeff, sure, action item is captured in the notes. Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks all Paul McGrady 2:Thanks all! avri doria:bye good discussion, good start on the issue. please continue the discussion on the list. Alexander Schubert:Tnx Phil Buckingham 2:thanks Michael - great discussion

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 01 June
by Julie Hedlund June 1, 2017

June 1, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 01 June. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. Please also see the attached slides and the excerpts from the chat room below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 01 June Discussion on Global Public Interest See the slides at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64950794/SubPro%20Track%20… Slide 2: Explanation of the Subject -- Definition of Global Public Interest "introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder policy development process. Slide 3: GAC Toronto Communique October 2012 -- AGB: Specific role for the GAC to provide early warnings and advice on new gTLD applications that raise public policy issues. -- GAC requested a written briefing from the Board -- how to modify applications as a result of early warnings; how overseen and enforced by ICANN. Slide 4: Introducing Public Interest Commitments -- February 2013: PIC Spec -- PICs posted in March 2013 -- 499 PIC specs where received. See: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-06mar13-…. Slide 5: Specification 11: Mandatory PICs -- Registry Operator use only ICANN accredited registrars that are party to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. -- Registry Operator agrees to perform the following specific public interest commitments enforceable by ICANN and through the PICDRP. [Reading through sections of the PICDRP. See slides 5 and 6.] Slide 7: Specification 11: Voluntary PICs -- Section 4 of Spec 11. -- Were "voluntary" in nature. -- No guidance on what should be in or not. Types: -- Anti-abuse -- Additional RPMs -- Geographic Protections -- Many reserved the right at sole discretion to modify or even eliminate PICs. Slide 8: Questions and Concerns Related to the Subject -- Global Public Interest wasn't explored that well. -- Could be an area of policy development. Slide 9: Relevant Guidance -- Annex A to the ICANN Board resolution on Planning for Future gTLD Application Rounds (17 November 2014): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-a-17nov14-en.…. Slide 10: Rationale for Policy Development -- Not a lot to work with respect to the definition of Global Public Interest. Slide 11: Questions -- PICs are not incorporated into policy. Determine what is an adequate "application of 'public interest' analysis as a guideline for evaluation determinations on individual applications." [Reading questions from Slide 11.] -- Question: Can someone remind us how the PICs came about? -- After the GAC issued its early warning -- how to put these obligations in the contract. Fadi suggested PICs as a way to address the GAC's Toronto Communique asking for a mechanism. Beijing Communique had more detail. 499 TLDs submitted PICs so the majority did not. It was top down and that is one of the reasons we are addressing it, whether it should be incorporated into policy. -- The concept was created by ICANN staff/Board to address the issue of how to address concerns raised by some TLDs. The Beijing communique specific TLDs that had public interest issues. That resulted in the mandatory PICs that were applicable to some TLDs. The GAC asked for 8 specific constraints on some TLDs. The Board implemented a subset of that. GAC and ALAC are still taking the position that those were not complete and some TLDs deserved more protection than others. One of the requirements for this PDP to look at. The GAC and ALAC agreed to not take action on existing TLDs with the understanding that it would be considered for subsequent TLDs. -- Initially when we heard about the PICs it appeared to be intended to be some time of response to the GAC. That there should be a place to codify it as part of the contract. It went way beyond the GAC. The voluntary PICs had other elements -- apparently the voluntary PICs were open for a very short amount of time and anyone could put anything in there. -- Put yourself in the applicant's mindset at the time. Applications are just starting to get evaluated. Some were scared that the GAC would have advice against their TLDs. So they put things in their PICs so governments would view them more favorably. Some of these might not be included in future TLDs. It depends on how we do PICs. Should address the issue of how to respond to GAC early warning and to amend your application as a binding commitment, or should we not? -- Share examples of intellectual property rights being enhanced? -- One could argue whether some of these things are "public interest commitments". Don't see anything wrong to have a list and putting them into the contract. -- If the PICs are voluntary how do you evaluate whether they are in the public interest? Address both mandatory and voluntary. Are the mandatory PICs sufficient in protecting the public interest and should they be included in policy? -- GAC and ALAC have stated that there are certain classes of TLDs based on the category numbers the GAC assigned where the current PICs are no sufficient. -- On the mandatory PICs there is work going on to talk about some of these in Spec 11 3b -- conversations between the Public Safety Working Group and the Registries. Clarification on what is required on some of these PICs. 4th one on generic strings (slide 6) depends on where we come out on closed generics. One PICDRP case filed to date. Although they found fraudulent activity by the registry there wasn't much under the contract for ICANN to open a breech notice based on the contract. How the PIC works is more for Work Track 3. [Looking back at slides 5-6 -- mandatory PICs.] -- Several sessions at ICANN meetings where Tony Harris has expressed concerns about the Spec 11 requirement about only using ICANN-accredited registrars. -- The requirement in the PIC is not to use ICANN-accredited registrars but the ones on the 2013 RAA -- controls that were not in prior RAAs. 2013 RAA added some other requirements on registrars, some of which are relatively expensive. -- In terms of are these mandatory PICs necessary, I don't think we can get rid of #1 -- prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, etc. -- #1 of Mandatory PICs [reading from the slide]: This was done before the new ICANN Bylaws. May need to evaluate them in light of the new Bylaws. Is this legal or otherwise and consistent with the new ICANN mission. -- Believe that the existing PICs were grandfathered into the Bylaws.. See: Section 1.1.d.ii of the Bylaws. Doesn't apply to new contracts or in the process of being signed. Also: 1.1.d.iv is the provision that says "ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements, including public interest commitments, with any party in service of its Mission." Action: Should still confirm with Legal. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Actually, some registries considered including PICs that contradicted parts of the agreement they didn't like, like sunrise protection only for brands. Rubens Kuhl: Having such a list in a PIC allows people that dislike it to challenge it in a PDDRP. So for any stakeholders, it's better than being listed as a Registry Service. Jeff Neuman 2: Just TLD Commitments Kathy Kleiman 2: And perhaps GAC Commitments Rubens Kuhl: Some PICs tried to address ALAC or IO concerns... hil Marano: “The Panel notes that PIC (3)(a) of Specification 11 imposes no obligation on Respondent as the Registry Operator itself to avoid fraudulent and deceptive practices.” See https://www.icann.org/uploads/compliance_notice/attachment/911/serad-to-wes… Kiran Malancharuvil: The PICDRP functionality may be for WT3, but there is a LOT to be learned about the PICs generally from the PICDRP result. Kiran Malancharuvil: And there have been multiple, filed, only one made it to the panel. Jeff Neuman 2: @Kiran - Right......when we talk about how the dispute process works, that is for WT3. But the PICs themselves (which are the subject of the dispute) is for us in WT2. Kurt Pritz: Now that new TLDs are in use: Can anyone point to a potential abusive behavior that was prevented by a PIC? (I.e., has there been an abuse in a TLD (that didn’t receive Type 1 GAC Advice) that might have been replicated by a GAC Advice Type 1 TLD?) - or - Can anyone point to an abuse by a GAC Advice Type 1 TLD that could be avoided by enhanced PIC Specs? If the answer to both of these is no, we should question the benefit of having the PIC Specs.

1 0

Recordings, Attendance, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 25 May 2017
by Julie Bisland May 25, 2017

May 25, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p4zpsx6knty/<https://participate.icann.org/p4zpsx6knty/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4020b23172121acd…> 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/GNTRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 25 May 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki Page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Michael Flemming:I received apologies from Jon Nevett and Susan Payne. Julie Bisland:noted, thank you Michael Flemming:Annebeth, it looks like you were able to join us. Jeff Neuman:@Michael - You received apologies, but were they really sorry? Michael Flemming:Welcome Michael Flemming:I think so Annebeth Lange:Hi Michael, yes, my other meeting was cancelled Phil Buckingham:I ve dropped . can I have another dialout please. Julie Bisland:yes, Phil, dialing now Phil Buckingham:thanks Julie Emily Barabas:we are now on slide 3 Phil Buckingham:julie - cant get a connection . will hang up . Try again please Julie Bisland:trying again now. Phil Buckingham:back in Emily Barabas:In CC2, the WG asked: 2.8.1 - Noting that the role of Contractual Compliance is to enforce the registry agreement and any changes to that role are beyond the scope of this PDP, the WG is not anticipating policy development related to this topic. The WG expects that any new contractual requirements would be made enforceable by inclusion in the base agreement. Do you agree with this approach? Emily Barabas:checking . . . Steve Chan:Maybe this one Michael? 2.1.3 - Should the entire application be incorporated into the signed Registry Agreement? Should portions of the application, explicitly identified, be incorporated into the signed Registry Agreement? If changes are made between applying and executing the Registry Agreement, how should this be handled? If changes are made after executing the Registry Agreement, how should this be handled? If changes like these are contemplated, how can the needs of the community to properly consider the contents of an application be weighed against an applicant’s need to make either minor adjustments or fundamental changes to their registry? Annebeth Lange:Is this also a question about entering into a contract between ICANN and a registry under certain conditions, and then after the delegation the registry changes the policy considerately? This was relevant in the first round in connection with for example community TLDs or certain geographical TLDs that needed support from a public authority. Annebeth Lange:Post-delegation was on the table in the first round. Annebeth Lange:+1, Avri Jeff Neuman:Really hard to hear Phil Jeff Neuman:uts just quiet Samantha Demetriou:I'm glad Steve brought that point up. I'm not sure we should be digging too deeply into pricing at all. In terms of certain predatory practices, such as trademarked terms being marked as premium names with premium pricing, we should probably also consider whether this is in the purview of our PDP or the RPM review PDP. Annebeth Lange:Impossible to hear Julie Hedlund:@All: Slides are unsynced so you can move them yourself. We are on slide 1. Christa Taylor:Impossible to hear Christa Taylor:yes! Annebeth Lange:Yes, Phil Buckingham:sorry everyone avri doria:y Emily Barabas:now on slide 3 Emily Barabas:Here is the question in CC2: Emily Barabas:2.7.1 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. Rubens Kuhl:That extension was given due to Spec 13 taking time to be finalized. Jeff Neuman 2:This issue was not just about the timeline, but also whether there needs to be a delegation deadline and what purpose does it really serve Rubens Kuhl:So from the perspective of Spec 13 applicants, they had the same lenght of time to act. Jeff Neuman 2:After all, does delegation alone, without any use actually discourage squatting? There were MANY TLDs that were sold after delegation, but before what most of us would call actual use Trang Nguyen:I believe the RA also provides for applicants (beyond Spec 13 applicants) to request for extensions to sign the RA. Rubens Kuhl:Non-delegated TLDs could be cheapear to hold as inventory, since they could pay less or no fees to a registry service provider. Steve Chan:Section 4.3: §4.3 Termination by ICANN(b) ICANN may, upon notice to Registry Operator, terminate this Agreement if Registry Operator fails to complete all testing and procedures (identified by ICANN in writing to Registry Operator prior to the date hereof) for delegation of the TLD into the root zone within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date. Registry Operator may request an extension for up to additional twelve (12) months for delegation if it can demonstrate, to ICANN's reasonable satisfaction, that Registry Operator is working diligently and in good faith toward successfully completing the steps necessary for delegation of the TLD. Any fees paid by Registry Operator to ICANN prior to such termination date shall be retained by ICANN in full. Rubens Kuhl:@Trang, did any applicants or contracted registries requested such extension ? Rubens Kuhl:Possible purpose is to increase the hold cost in order to stimulate usage. Jeff Neuman 2:Delegation is when you pay fees Christa Taylor:When delegated Jeff Neuman 2:Except the YMCH fees were upon signing Jeff Neuman 2:TMCH Phil Buckingham:Michael , blog post by Christine Willetts - April 16 Rubens Kuhl:The TMCH fee was a single time USD 5,000 fee. So time doesn't factor into cost. Jeff Neuman 2:I am just saying that the TMCH fees were billed at signing Jeff Neuman 2:I guess my question is whether the community still has concerns about TLDs not being "used" Christa Taylor:If we move to continuous rounds, could it impact the concern of not being used? Phil Buckingham:Q should there be a requirement to launch after a set number on months / years after delegation ? Trang Nguyen:ICANN org tracks delegation dates so we can provide average amount of time that it took for TLDs to get delegated if that is helpful to this discussion. Jeff Neuman 2:"Warehousing" is very different than taking a long time to use Annebeth Lange:Jeff, +1. There is also the question of the definition of "use" avri doria:Agree we should ask for data. Greg Shatan:Jeff, agree but the length of time is part of the difference. I'm not suggesting the current timeframes were good or bad, too long or too short.... Trang Nguyen:ICANN org has received requests for extension for delegations and have granted them. Michael Flemming:Samantha we can hear you. Trang Nguyen:Same with contracting. We received requests for extensions (from Spec 13 applicants and non-Spec 13 applicants), and have granted extension Phil Buckingham:+1 Alan . I have "found " PDT Service Level Targets ( SLTs) Should have been 28 days target 2/10 were missed may 16- march 17 Trang Nguyen:We can provide average timeframe for contracting and delegation. Rubens Kuhl:http://newgtlds.icann.org/newgtlds.csv has some indications that could point to TLDs that went beyond expected delegation dates. Jeff Neuman 2:@Greg, for some brands the timeline was too short....for others too long. It also relates to how long ICANN took to evaluate the applications and get to the point of signing agreements. Many of the sponsors of the TLDs at brands were long gone from those companies by the time ICANN was ready to sign agreements. That severely impacted brands who originally did want to "use" the TLDs, but lost interest after the 3 or 4 years it took to get through the process Rubens Kuhl:There are a number of reasons to not being put into use... for instance, our TLDs are not being used due to lack of RAA2013 registrars in our target market. Annebeth Lange:I agree, Rubens. Jeff Neuman 2:And some brands got in because they actually wanted to use it :) Jim Prendergast:Should note that .brands are also the leading type of TLD resignations. Rubens Kuhl:Has CCT-RT looked into this angle ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am not surprised at that Greg Jeff Neuman 2:@Jim....true....but that could just mean that they know when they should get out ..... as opposed to others that should be getting out :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Jim , so why / what are the reasons why they "resigned " ? avri doria:it may be necessary to ammend a strict policy with a list of possible circumstances for getting an extension. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):makes sense to me Avri Rubens Kuhl:"nogotiation" Greg Shatan:Needs a tell-all book, Jeff! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good discussion today... Thanks everyone... Bye for now then... Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 01 June 2017 at 21:00 UTC. avri doria:bye Annebeth Lange:Seeyou, goodnight from Norway Greg Shatan:Buh-bye! Phil Buckingham:thanks Michael

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 25 May
by Julie Hedlund May 25, 2017

May 25, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 25 May. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. Please also see the attached slides and the excerpts from the chat room below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 25 May 1. Discussion on Contractual Compliance Slide 2: Explanation of the Subject Slide 3: Questions and Concerns Related to the Subject -- Issues raised around how application representations can be better applied to the RA. Slide 4: Relevant Guidance Side 5: Rationale for Policy Development -- not in our mandate to make recommendation. WG is not anticipating policy develop on this topic. -- In CC2, the WG asked: 2.8.1 - Noting that the role of Contractual Compliance is to enforce the registry agreement and any changes to that role are beyond the scope of this PDP, the WG is not anticipating policy development related to this topic. The WG expects that any new contractual requirements would be made enforceable by inclusion in the base agreement. Do you agree with this approach? -- One more question that talked about making changes -- should the application itself be tied into the registry agreement? 2.1.3 - Should the entire application be incorporated into the signed Registry Agreement? Should portions of the application, explicitly identified, be incorporated into the signed Registry Agreement? If changes are made between applying and executing the Registry Agreement, how should this be handled? If changes are made after executing the Registry Agreement, how should this be handled? If changes like these are contemplated, how can the needs of the community to properly consider the contents of an application be weighed against an applicant’s need to make either minor adjustments or fundamental changes to their registry? -- One of the things that might be helpful (slide 3) questions raised in the public comment. Reasoning for why we should even consider this. -- There are so many issues that arise with respect to contractual compliance and the view of contracted parties would be different from non-contracted parties. What is the scope with this WG with regard to those issues. Which have to do with policy? We can't just brush by contractual compliance issues unless we decide what we are brushing by. -- First, the question that was posted in 2.1.3 -- it becomes far more relevant if we end up having categories in future applications with different terms associate with them and the lack of a registry to change those terms. In terms of what is within our scope if we feel that registries and registrars have to do something that is subject to compliance, but we also can make recommendations in terms of how to enforce things. -- In looking at this the contracts that people have do need to enforce the conditions under which a name was one -- whether all or part. The problem with getting there looking at audits and compliance as a black box. No idea of what they are finding now in registry and registrar compliance audits. How we couple in these together -- how complied with and how it is audited. -- Summary: 1) what issues to look at and talking about in this topic -- what data ICANN might be collecting in how they enforce the contracts 2) how to make the recommendations on enforcement to ICANN; 3) compliance data is a black box. -- While data is a concern, the concern is beyond just the data element to how they do what they do and how effective they are. May need to give recommendations on how to do it. Data is a window into something, and we need the data too to know what is going on. -- in a general direction -- how ICANN conducts compliance, how data is collected, and what data can be provided. -- May ask ICANN re: question about entering into a contract between ICANN and a registry under certain conditions, and then after the delegation the registry changes the policy considerately? This was relevant in the first round in connection with for example community TLDs or certain geographical TLDs that needed support from a public authority. -- Public Comments: Concerns on premium pricing. Such methods were used to abuse sunrise -- exclusive rights to trademark holders. (reference to INTA on behalf of IPC) -- Issues on predatory pricing that we need to examine, but separate that asking for definitive pricing in the application. We should take some of the concerns on predatory pricing and seeing how we can address them. -- These concerns weren't reflected in the contractual compliance section of the Issue Report. It would not be in contractual compliance's ability to enforce something that is not in the agreement. >From the chat: Annebeth Lange: Is this also a question about entering into a contract between ICANN and a registry under certain conditions, and then after the delegation the registry changes the policy considerately? This was relevant in the first round in connection with for example community TLDs or certain geographical TLDs that needed support from a public authority. Annebeth Lange: Post-delegation was on the table in the first round. 2. Discussion of TLD Rollout Slide 2: Explanation of the Subject [reading from the slide] -- Whether or not this was adequate time for the rollout of new gTLDs. Slide 3: Questions and Concerns Related to the Subject Slide 4: Relevant Guidance Slide 5: Rationale for Policy Development -- Question on this in CC2 so responses may be a good first step. Question: 2.7.1 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. -- in reality in regards to the delegation timeline ICANN did issue notices to individuals that needed to execute the registry agreement. An extension request was offered to those applicants for an additional 9 months. -- Helpful to explore -- ask ICANN with regards to the delegation deadline in the registry agreement -- were there any TLDs that did request extensions to the delegation deadline and how many were terminated for not meeting the deadline. -- The question was not just about timelines. The issue is did the delegation requirement meet the goal, such as helping to prevent squatting? Not sure what purpose the delegation deadline serves right now. Need to go back to the principle that we wanted TLDs to be used when applied for. -- The goal was to prevent squatting. There were TLDs that weren't delegated -- was this an issue? -- Some applicants that were brands TLD wanted to apply for defense purposes. -- The issue of use and rollout timing -- there is clearly a policy consideration that TLDs are more like spectrum than second-level domains. There are ideas of innovation -- there are a lot of different justifications for not allowing warehousing of public domains. -- There was a policy in place -- if we can't find a justification for changing it, then it stays in place. There is data available and we are acting like it is something we can't ask for. We should ask for the data so we can have informed discussions. Have there been people who needed extensions? Where there TLDs that were terminated. Action Item: Get an official response. -- Consider the good-faith argument in applying for an extension. -- When an extension was granted it wasn't necessarily a 12-month bracket. -- Be careful in making any conclusions based on what happened in the last round. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: That extension was given due to Spec 13 taking time to be finalized. Jeff Neuman 2: This issue was not just about the timeline, but also whether there needs to be a delegation deadline and what purpose does it really serve. Rubens Kuhl: So from the perspective of Spec 13 applicants, they had the same lenght of time to act. Trang Nguyen: I believe the RA also provides for applicants (beyond Spec 13 applicants) to request for extensions to sign the RA. Rubens Kuhl: Non-delegated TLDs could be cheapear to hold as inventory, since they could pay less or no fees to a registry service provider. Steve Chan: Section 4.3: §4.3 Termination by ICANN(b) ICANN may, upon notice to Registry Operator, terminate this Agreement if Registry Operator fails to complete all testing and procedures (identified by ICANN in writing to Registry Operator prior to the date hereof) for delegation of the TLD into the root zone within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date. Registry Operator may request an extension for up to additional twelve (12) months for delegation if it can demonstrate, to ICANN's reasonable satisfaction, that Registry Operator is working diligently and in good faith toward successfully completing the steps necessary for delegation of the TLD. Any fees paid by Registry Operator to ICANN prior to such termination date shall be retained by ICANN in full. -- How do we want to define using a TLD? What is the concern with putting those TLDs that aren't being actively used on the spot? -- Many good reasons it might take quite some time for TLDs to be used. Brands entered this with somewhat of a feeling that they had a gun put to their head. For competive reasons people got in, for defensive reasons, so brands didn't have the commercial motivations in place. Rubens Kuhl: @Trang, did any applicants or contracted registries requested such extension ? Rubens Kuhl: Possible purpose is to increase the hold cost in order to stimulate usage. Jeff Neuman 2: Delegation is when you pay fees Christa Taylor: When delegated Rubens Kuhl: The TMCH fee was a single time USD 5,000 fee. So time doesn't factor into cost. Jeff Neuman 2: I am just saying that the TMCH fees were billed at signing Jeff Neuman 2: I guess my question is whether the community still has concerns about TLDs not being "used" Christa Taylor: If we move to continuous rounds, could it impact the concern of not being used? Phil Buckingham: Q should there be a requirement to launch after a set number on months / years after delegation ? Trang Nguyen: ICANN org tracks delegation dates so we can provide average amount of time that it took for TLDs to get delegated if that is helpful to this discussion. Jeff Neuman 2: "Warehousing" is very different than taking a long time to use Annebeth Lange: Jeff, +1. There is also the question of the definition of "use" avri doria: Agree we should ask for data. Greg Shatan: Jeff, agree but the length of time is part of the difference. I'm not suggesting the current timeframes were good or bad, too long or too short.... Trang Nguyen: ICANN org has received requests for extension for delegations and have granted them. Trang Nguyen: Same with contracting. We received requests for extensions (from Spec 13 applicants and non-Spec 13 applicants), and have granted extension Phil Buckingham: +1 Alan . I have "found " PDT Service Level Targets ( SLTs) Should have been 28 days target 2/10 were missed may 16- march 17 Trang Nguyen: We can provide average timeframe for contracting and delegation. Rubens Kuhl: http://newgtlds.icann.org/newgtlds.csv has some indications that could point to TLDs that went beyond expected delegation dates. Jeff Neuman 2: @Greg, for some brands the timeline was too short....for others too long. It also relates to how long ICANN took to evaluate the applications and get to the point of signing agreements. Many of the sponsors of the TLDs at brands were long gone from those companies by the time ICANN was ready to sign agreements. That severely impacted brands who originally did want to "use" the TLDs, but lost interest after the 3 or 4 years it took to get through the process Rubens Kuhl: There are a number of reasons to not being put into use... for instance, our TLDs are not being used due to lack of RAA2013 registrars in our target market. Jeff Neuman 2: And some brands got in because they actually wanted to use it :) Jim Prendergast: Should note that .brands are also the leading type of TLD resignations. Rubens Kuhl: Has CCT-RT looked into this angle ? Jeff Neuman 2: @Jim....true....but that could just mean that they know when they should get out ..... as opposed to others that should be getting out :) Phil Buckingham: + 1 Jim , so why / what are the reasons why they "resigned " ? avri doria: it may be necessary to ammend a strict policy with a list of possible circumstances for getting an extension. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense to me Avri

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Meeting May 25th at 21 UTC
by Michael Flemming May 25, 2017

May 25, 2017

Dear All, This agenda does come late, however, after discussion with staff and the leadership group, we have decided to change up the agenda for this week. Originally, we were going to be going over Vertical Integration more in depth. However, the data we have requested from GDD staff will take more time to receive. Therefore, we will be going over the following items instead. TLD Rollout Contractual Compliance These are issues that did not receive heavy concern in the Final Issue Report. Yet, they are items that we may want to go through. Therefore, we will be introducing these items and discuss how we want to approach them. I also realize that many of you may be on your way home from the INTA meeting. I wish all of you safe travels. If you do not expect to attend the meeting this week, then may I ask you to please reply to this email? If we have a large number of members unable to attend, then we may consider rescheduling this meeting as well. Please do let me know. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 1

Attendance / Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 18 May 2017
by Julie Bisland May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p1il6y9rj8d/<https://participate.icann.org/p1il6y9rj8d/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4020b23172121acd…> 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/FtTRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 18 May 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Phil Buckingham:hi , im in - all working Michael Flemming:I am right here Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed you are Michael Flemming:We have 20 on, we should get started soon. Jeff Neuman:Lets go :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):morning Phil Michael Flemming:Phil, people can just raise their hands if they have a question. Jeff Neuman:Do we have control of the slides Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: They are unsynced. Julie Hedlund:-- Now... Kathy Kleiman:Is anyone else having trouble hearing Phil? Michael Flemming:Where are we? Julie Hedlund:Yes. Kathy Kleiman:It's as if he is muffled Julie Hedlund:Not on a particular slide -- asking about the meeting schedule -- meeting weekly at this time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we do Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):but it is a bit muffled Jeff Neuman 2:To sum up: We are meeting every week for the next 4 weeks Kathy Kleiman:I was wondering what information/data/studies exist to inform the very good questions being raised above? Jeff Neuman 2:Lots of topics to cover in WT2 Jim Prendergast:Ill do what I can but I know I have 1 or 2 conflicts Jeff Neuman 2:We are losing you Phil Jim Prendergast:maybe do a poll to all WT members since nto everyone is on the call? Jeff Neuman 2:yep Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):as long as my calendar gets booked I will comply Kathy Kleiman:yes Steve Chan:Here is the Google sheet that provides guidance on schedule of topics: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Karen Day (SAS):hear you fine, Phil Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Steve please Skype links to me the android AC doesn't support links that work Jeff Neuman 2:The leadership team has thought about this quite a bit and we agree that starting from scratch would not be a good idea. The train essentially has left the station on registry/Registry Cross-Ownership Steve Chan:@Cheryl, done. Please let me know if that works. Jeff Neuman 2:Essentially Registries were not allowed to own Registrars, but Registrars could own registries Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and the letters VI still make me shudder somewhat.. The WG was an "interesting experience" Jim Prendergast:very polite of you Cheryl "interesting experience" Jeff Neuman 2:Jon Nevett and I still had the best proposal in the Working Group :) Jim Prendergast:do we have any statistics on how many Vertically integrated Registries there are? Jim Prendergast:is that something ICANN tracks? Jeff Neuman 2:@Jim, that is a good question....we should collect that info Jeff Neuman 2:ICANN should have that from the certifications that are required to be filed every year from integrated entities Jeff Neuman 2:Trang? Michael Flemming:They do, I think. Michael Flemming:There are questions that ask about ownership. Trang Nguyen:I believe it should be possible to get this data. Will check. Rubens Kuhl:I'm not hearing Phil. Rubens Kuhl:Is it just me ? Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry):Did Phil drop? Sarah L:phones gone quiet? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):audio Alexander Schubert:he dropped Kathy Kleiman:yes Rubens Kuhl:On the audio bridge I can hear Jeff and some others. Phil Buckingham:so sorry i ve lost you . could I have another dial out . Karen Day (SAS):Phil, the A.C room will call you directly if you click on the phone icon Phil Buckingham:thanks Karen Julie Bisland:I'm attempting to call Phil Steve Chan:Here is the first link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Steve Chan:And the second link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Gg Levine (NABP):This approach makes sense. Jim Prendergast:good question Kathy Jon Nevett:Are these issues within the picket fence? Michael Flemming:Exactly what I was gonna say :) Kathy Kleiman:That would be great - tx you! Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry):Let's stick with complaints that Compliance determined had a foundation. Anyone can file a complaint with Compliance about anything. Michael Flemming:Well, I'd be interested to know if there wre any complaints filed in the first place. Jon Nevett:jeff, do you have an opinion about the picket fence? Rubens Kuhl:It's a stepped away mark. Alan Greenberg:VI was explicitly included within the picket fence if I recall correctly. Rubens Kuhl:Alan, if you want to respond to the current thread, please move ahead of me. I'm introducing a new thread. Christa Taylor:I believe VI was a PDP back at that time. If it wasn't in the 'picket fence' than it wouldn't have been a PDP Jon Nevett:I just checked and it's in the Picket Fence -- see Spec 1, Sec 1.2.6 Jeff Neuman 2: @Jon: I was just goiong to say that too: restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are affiliated. Rubens Kuhl:We call it registrar 9998 in RA lingo. Alan Greenberg:Spec 1, section 1.2.6. ConsensusPoliciesshallrelatetooneormoreofthefollowing: [...] restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are affiliated. Michael Flemming:It used to be 9999 Rubens Kuhl:9999 is the one for nic, www, whois etc. Michael Flemming:Ah, yes, you are correct. Christa Taylor:Page 18 of the scope discussed whether this would fall within policy development (picket fence) https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu… Kathy Kleiman:Depending on the presmise that major abuses have not taken place Kathy Kleiman:Are there registrars on the call? Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry):I don't think we can answer this without compliance data. Michael Flemming:Yes and we have not seen any problems but agree with Kristina on getting that data. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Kristina Rubens Kuhl:Kathy, are there non-VI registrars on the call ? They are more likely to oppose than the ones that are already VI. Steve Chan:CRA Report here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_topics… Rubens Kuhl:What I heard from folks at VI registries, that had a registrar but registry was their primary business, is that following the equal access was so complex they saw no advantage in being one. They in effect sold their registrar business sometime after. Phil Buckingham 2:MMX - right ? Steve Chan:That's it Julie Hedlund:No more slides Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Kathy Kleiman:good meeting - useful slides! Steve Chan:25 May, 1 Jun, 15 Jun Jeff Neuman 2:Thanks Michael Phil Buckingham 2:Contractual compliance , Global Public Interest TLD Rollout Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... bye for now then... avri doria:bye Trang Nguyen:Thanks, all! Bye! Phil Buckingham 2:Sorry . Thanks Jeff for stepping in

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 18 May
by Julie Hedlund May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 May. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. Please also see the chat room notes at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64073994/AC%20Chat%20track…. As the notes were quite extensive they were not excerpted below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 18 May Meeting schedule: Suggest we have a call each week leading up to Johannesburg at this time. Agreed: Will meet each week at the same time for 4 weeks. See the schedule of topics at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O_NpWTXFMNHkJARveqCapEssRt1CaEqwWe8… See slide 13 -- Questions for Discussion -- Do we need to reopen VI issue? -- Do the mitigations of harm work? -- If we didn't mitigate these harms what do we need to do to change that? -- If we didn't realize the benefits what do we need to do? [Reading text on the slides. See the attached slides.] Slide 1: Introduction Slide 4: Origins of Vertical Separation Slide 5: Status Quo in 2007 Slide 8: Journey to the Current State Slide 9: Journey to the Current State, Cont. Slide 10: Registry Code of Conduct and Exceptions, cont. Slide 11: Registry Code of Conduct and Exceptions, Cont. Referenced Links: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting/ccer and https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting/spe…. Slide 12: Discussion Slide 6: Potential Concerns and Benefits of Vertical Integration Slide 12 -- Assumption -- VI is a reality despite no GNSO-developed policy on this subject. -- Poll on assumptions: Green checkmark if you agree, x if you don't agree. (8 checkmarks) -- Have there been any serious abuses? -- Get statistics of how many integrated entities. -- See if there are any complaints filed with compliance or otherwise relating to a VI entity. -- Check to see if that is one of the items that ICANN does audit. -- Are vertical integration issues within the picket fence? -- Would apply to registries that have already signed an agreement. Good question. Look at what ICANN staff found when they did the 2009 PDP. Don't think anyone here is saying we should not allow VI going forward. -- At the time the registry contract was proposed VI was added to be in the picket fence. That doesn't really alter what we say in the future. That was the one escape hatch. -- Comment on 2012 round -- limited to 100 domains that can be reserved for promotional development purposes and they must obey the RAA requirements. Two types of vertical integration. What we are seeing in Africa, South America, etc. (global south) new gLTDs are not getting traction. Although there is a requirement to only use ICANN-accredited registars there is no must-carry requirement. -- Contained in Spec 5 -- promotional operational names -- form of vertical integration. Slide 13: Questions for Discussion See CRA Report at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/crai-report-24oct08-en.pdf >From the chat: Jeff Neuman 2: The leadership team has thought about this quite a bit and we agree that starting from scratch would not be a good idea. The train essentially has left the station on registry/Registry Cross-Ownership Jeff Neuman 2: Essentially Registries were not allowed to own Registrars, but Registrars could own registries Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and the letters VI still make me shudder somewhat.. The WG was an "interesting experience" Jon Nevett: Are these issues within the picket fence? Michael Flemming: Exactly what I was gonna say :) Kathy Kleiman: That would be great - tx you! Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry): Let's stick with complaints that Compliance determined had a foundation. Anyone can file a complaint with Compliance about anything. Alan Greenberg: VI was explicitly included within the picket fence if I recall correctly. Rubens Kuhl: Alan, if you want to respond to the current thread, please move ahead of me. I'm introducing a new thread. Christa Taylor: I believe VI was a PDP back at that time. If it wasn't in the 'picket fence' than it wouldn't have been a PDP Jon Nevett: I just checked and it's in the Picket Fence -- see Spec 1, Sec 1.2.6 Jeff Neuman 2: @Jon: I was just goiong to say that too: restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are affiliated. Rubens Kuhl: We call it registrar 9998 in RA lingo. Michael Flemming: It used to be 9999 Rubens Kuhl: 9999 is the one for nic, www, whois etc. Michael Flemming: Ah, yes, you are correct. Christa Taylor: Page 18 of the scope discussed whether this would fall within policy development (picket fence) https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf Kathy Kleiman: Depending on the presmise that major abuses have not taken place Kathy Kleiman: Are there registrars on the call? Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry): I don't think we can answer this without compliance data. Michael Flemming: Yes and we have not seen any problems but agree with Kristina on getting that data. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Kristina Rubens Kuhl: Kathy, are there non-VI registrars on the call ? They are more likely to oppose than the ones that are already VI. Rubens Kuhl: What I heard from folks at VI registries, that had a registrar but registry was their primary business, is that following the equal access was so complex they saw no advantage in being one. They in effect sold their registrar business sometime after.

1 0

Agenda , WT2 Call 21.00 UTC 18 May 2017 ( later today) Vertical Separation & Vertical Integration
by Phil Buckingham May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

Hi Everyone, My apologises for the lateness in sending you all the agenda for today's call later at 21.00 UTC. I will be driving the call tonite, whilst Michael (Flemming) has a well earned break. Michael will be monitoring the chat and taking all the questions you may have or previously prepared for the open discussion for the last 30 minutes. I actively encourage as many of you as possible to attend, and for those of you that are observers certainly consider changing your status to a participant. Your comments from experiences gained during Round 1,with solutions and suggestions for Round 2 are always very welcome. The topic tonite is on Vertical Separation and Vertical Integration. It would be especially good to see and get comments and updates from those that were on the Vertical Integration WG , back in 2010-2011 with Jeff, Avri and myself and numerous others. Agenda First 30 minutes : 1: Introductions, SOI Updates 2: Meetings Times , o/s Topics ( pre Jo'Burg) 3: VI Summary & PDP Status 4: Origins of Vertical Separation 5: Status Quo in 2017 6: Potential Concerns and Benefits of VI 7: Journey to the Current Status 8: Registry Code of Conduct & Exemptions Second 30 mins 9: Open discussion highlighting actual Registry, Registrar examples, experiences of VS and VI. Use and mitigation via Spec 9, Spec 13. Please note that we intend to cover Specifications 9 & 13 re .brands in much more depth next week at the same time. Regards, Phil Phil Buckingham Co-Chair, WT2.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 27 April
by Julie Hedlund April 28, 2017

April 28, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 April. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. Please also see the chat room notes at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64073994/AC%20Chat%20track…. As the notes were quite extensive they were not excerpted below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 April 1. Full Working Group Update: -- Met last Monday and also will meet next Monday. -- Went over our responses to the CCT-RT draft report. -- Had two Geographic Names Webinars on Tuesday, attended by over 150 people. May have been 25 governments. Good first experimental call with members of the entire community, including the GAC. -- The recordings, transcripts, and slides from the two geographic names sessions are available here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr -- Preparing for the face-to-face sessions in Johannesburg in June. -- Drafting Teams are underway on some of the overall issues. 2. Closed Generics: Work thus far: -- Looked at a history. -- Looked at what is a closed generic and what is the debate. -- Looked at the pros and cons from the public comments. -- This PDP WG has been asked to look at how to move forward, such as a compromise that could allow for closed generics that could prove satisfactory to those that see potential harms, such as competition, public interest, etc. Comment of Some NCSG members to the Closed Generics public comment here: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/msg00061.html Milton Mueller, Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy -- Favored allowing closed generics. -- Concerns: Idea of free competition among business models. -- Opposition to closed generics from people who have interest in the current business model. -- Closed generic -- owner of the TLD tries to manage what happens at the second level, such as a brand -- hotels.com for example -- to increase the value of the domain. -- Important for consumers when you have indescriminate mass registration under a brand domain you could have consumer confusion. Not sure you would want to ban any alternatives to that model. Would be denying end users an option and forcing every registry to operate under the mass registration model. -- Long-standing concern with freedom of expression: having ICANN decide what is a generic term. -- Freedom of expression implies in the domain name system the ability of a domain registry to exercise some descretion who applies in their registry. -- Why not allow both models to coexist. -- There are generic names that have been registered that don't convey monopoly power. Discussion: -- If you look at TLDs from 2002 and 2004 rounds, and also 2012 these were all positive. -- Could now see TLDs used anticompetively. -- Example seems to be the lock-in potential, not of closed generics. Independent of closed generics problem. -- Not sure you can raise the price for one domain. -- How is that different from a generic or non-generic. -- Problem is: why would we go through this exercise if we know that we are going to encounter the same bogus competition fears from the GAC that we got before? We need to figure out a way to make it acceptable to the GAC. -- The GAC/governments would be trained in the concept of competition policy. Say that if they think there is a competition problem by delegating a closed generic let's see you apply local law and the measurement of market power. Question: If we were to allow closed generics would it be possible to allow the national law to deal with the proposed harms being raised? -- The NCSG is deeply divided on this issue. -- You can't register a generic word under trademark law as a trademark. -- Why put the community through this again? -- The reason we are going through this again is because policy was never set on this matter so the Board has asked the PDP WG to consider it again and whether there needs to be a policy. -- 2013 comments were very reactive to comments that were filed. Question: Is there a way that someone could apply for a TLD proposing a closed model but also address all of the harms/cons? -- It is incumbent on us to consider how those proposed harms could be addressed. Incumbent on us to at least address it. -- We have raised a similar question in the CC2 comment. -- Respond to the statement that the whole responded against closed generics -- not a groundswell. Correct that we can deal with this better in the current context. It makes sense to have a general policy. It is a matter of business model competition. -- Can we have an example of a business model that would only work if the TLD is closed? Look at the NCSG member comments -- .hotel in which you select and organize the domain in a manner that does not allow anybody to register -- you have to meet certain criteria. Any sponsored domain operates that way. -- For community applications you could apply as a TLD. Michele Neylon, Blacknight Internet Solutions, Registrar -- We noted the case of .cloud. It has been adopted widely by companies that operate cloud-based services. -- Application for .blog where the only possible usage was on a specific platform. -- If you look at it in terms of allowing people to register as active users. -- It would be very hard to believe that anybody would have such a strong piece of IP that would give them an exclusive right to that (.blog/.cloud). -- If .food was used solely for the Food Network it would be hard to argue against it but I wouldn't like it. Discussion: -- .blog option -- that you have to decide based on the platform. -- It's about having a choice. The question whether it's a good choice -- the question is should ICANN dictate what business model you should be able to use. -- If a trademark owner has a registration for a trademark it's not about closed generics anymore. -- The Pros/Cons documents needs a "GAC Management" Section. Otherwise, we are just driving ourselves off the same old cliff. -- There are people looking at this. It is an important issue. -- Not sure that saying a decision that came after the Board's decision should govern the policy discussion now.. -- Didn't have time to go through all of these statements. Need to capture all of the pros and cons that have been said.

1 0

recording, Attendance, AC recording and AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 27 April 2017
by Terri Agnew April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): <https://participate.icann.org/p2hoivyjjkj/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=270a392f7eacd741 b08abf3f2654f84519ad6e8cf34f5cf5e6c5e8497ddb0bc4> https://participate.icann.org/p2hoivyjjkj/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> 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/CrHRAw> https://community.icann.org/x/CrHRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 27 April 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_C rHRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ CrHRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=QlbBwdawy6LX1PMUZTN3vRdLZMoEKxUFoM5yZGQsaV s&s=9oGePU4gxyyDGZXNWvnFiOMcgUqIwWWZpAQr76uZLtg&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=QlbBwdawy6LX1PMUZTN3vRdLZMoEKxUFoM5yZGQsaVs&s=9o GePU4gxyyDGZXNWvnFiOMcgUqIwWWZpAQr76uZLtg&e= Terri Agnew:We would like to introduce Julie Bisland as GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator. She has started training with us this week. Michele Neylon:evening Alexander Schubert:nicht Alexander Schubert:*night Jeff Neuman:Welcome everyone! Jeff Neuman:We have some phone numbers listed without names....is it possible to match up numbers with names Michele Neylon:the 353 one is me Milton Mueller:is that an IPv6 address? ;-) Cecilia Smith:I'm 858 Michele Neylon:Milton :) Steve Chan:The recordings, transcripts, and slides from the two geographic names sessions are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group -2Dactivities_calendar-23apr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou p-2Dactivities_calendar-23apr&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7 xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=QlbBwdawy6LX1PMUZTN 3vRdLZMoEKxUFoM5yZGQsaVs&s=Ycfa-Up_0CEFNswZUk3eGbbKZhP0Tuj8VKiSs8u2LFc&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=QlbBwdawy6LX1PMUZTN3vRdLZMoEKxUFoM5yZGQsaVs&s=Yc fa-Up_0CEFNswZUk3eGbbKZhP0Tuj8VKiSs8u2LFc&e= Kathy Kleiman:NCSG was deeply divided on this issue. Jeff Neuman:Steve - Can we post a link to the statement that Milton is referring to Paul McGrady:@Kathy - so was the IPC. Tricky topic. Steve Chan:@Jeff, sure. NCSG comment to the Closed Generics public comment here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_c omments-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2D05feb13_msg00061.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_ comments-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2D05feb13_msg00061.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrc rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk &m=QlbBwdawy6LX1PMUZTN3vRdLZMoEKxUFoM5yZGQsaVs&s=BguCu0SjH3q38gI4KxfvCsFR1PI 0HUiSs_NtTHsIeo4&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=QlbBwdawy6LX1PMUZTN3vRdLZMoEKxUFoM5yZGQsaVs&s=Bg uCu0SjH3q38gI4KxfvCsFR1PI0HUiSs_NtTHsIeo4&e= Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - thanks for pointing that out. The reason I introduced it as the NCSG comment is because that is how it was filed "Comments of Noncommercial Stakeholder Group members on 'Closed generic' TLD applications" Kathy Kleiman:@Jeff, it's not an NCSG comment, but a comment signed by certain NCSG members. Kathy Kleiman:There are a lot of NCSG members who work for the principle (and have for years) that Generic Words are not owned by anyone. Steve Chan:Apologies Kathy, you're right. This is a comment from members of the NCSG rather than on behalf of the NCSG. Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - understood. I am not taking sides...just trying to make sure everyone is able to present their positions. If I am coming across another way, I apologize Robin Gross:There is no such thing as a "generic" word in any non-fuzzy sense. Michele Neylon:I recall it being a bone of contention at the time Kathy Kleiman:In the proceeding that the ICANN Board opened for the discussion of this topic, there was an outpouring of concern - from around the world -- booksellers, furniture makers, cloud computing platforms. Michele Neylon:Well one "cloud" company wanted to have .cloud for themselves Kathy Kleiman:The other major view in NCSG was that Generic Words belong to everyone, and that Generic Words can't be registered at trademarks for their generic purposes. They are open to everyone in the industry, field or area. Robin Gross:I don't understand why ICANN should want to regulate business models in this way. Milton Mueller:remember that any "generic" term regulation has to apply to multiple languages and character sets Robin Gross:Requiring a specific business models seems anti-innovation and anti-competitive. Kathy Kleiman:I have never seen such a huge outpouring of concern - including for .BOOK as just mentioned - from around the world (until we got to proxy/privacy) Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Alexander, let's use .write, please. I have concerns about using one of Amazon's TLDs for your example to avoid misunderstandings later. Paul McGrady:@Alexander - price gauging isn't unqiue to closed generics. Ask any brand owner that went through certain recent Sunrises... Rubens Kuhl:Nope, a registry can increase price for one domain. Susan Payne:I've experineced unilaterally imposed huge price increases in the ccTLD space too. I don't see what this has to do with closed generics - but it's late here and I'm tired Michele Neylon:I'm confused Michele Neylon:(which happens a lotO) Kathy Kleiman:@Michele, right, and the Cloud Industry Forum wrote to the ICANN Comment Forum to bemoan the locking up of a "highly generic phrase that is referred to by the industry as a whole and is not under restriction or ownership by any organizations, but has become in essence an industry classification." Milton Mueller:sure Alexander Schubert:Kristina: Have read your comment only now - didn't read the comments during the discussion. Rubens Kuhl:One way is to tell GAC that governments are the ones with anti-trust authority and better equipped to handle possible issues. Paul McGrady:@Rubens, much of these things were tried in the last round. But when your objections are not based in law, they are impervious to good arguments Kathy Kleiman:I would like to raise my hand, but having trouble with browser Alexander Schubert:Question to all: How could you raise the price for a single SLD WITHOUT raising the price for others AFTER a domain was registered? To my understanding that is not possible right now with gTLDs! Robin Gross:All of the examples provided by those who want to kill closed generics are by competitors of the applicant not wanting their competitor to have the name. This is clearly a gaming system. Alexander Schubert:And regarding "Market Domination": If Amazon registers .book - and doesn't use it; that creates a leverage for Amazon because there will be less options for online sales and distribution for books! Rubens Kuhl:Alexander, it's possible. The registry only needs to send a notice of increase 6 months ahead to registrars, and that notice can specify specificlabel.TLD as the only that have increased. Milton Mueller:Kathy, domain names are not trademarks Robin Gross:Registration is about providing EXCLUSIVE use. Not saying someone can't use a word. That point is missing from this argument. Alexander Schubert:And when we are at it: Why do we laws garnting public access to beaches ? Why not selling all beaches to the rich - and the poor can't go to the beach anymore? Milton Mueller:right Robin whether a TLD is open or closed, it is exclusively controlled by the registry Robin Gross:It is a conflation of concepts of right to exclusive use with right to use at all. Big difference legally. Susan Payne:@Alexander, even if you increase the prices across the TLD as a whole, it has an impact on the individual registrant. If that is the domain you have built your online presence on it is not a cheap or simple matter to switch so your choices are limited Alexander Schubert:Rubens: You can raise prices ACCROSS the board - but not for a SINGLE domain, right? Milton Mueller:Alexander: there are lots of private beaches. They co-exist with public beaches. I think we can have both Rubens Kuhl:Note that this per-label pricing had more occurences of lowering prices than raising prices. Most premium domains have seen not much market demand and the price was reduced. Kathy Kleiman:Tx Jeff Kathy Kleiman:Could you post the chart you are talking about again? Rubens Kuhl:Alexander, wrong. It's per label pricing on 2012-round gTLDs. Alexander Schubert:Rubens: Please define "per label"? Michele Neylon:Rubens - correct Michele Neylon:Alex - per domain thing.tld Michele Neylon:label - domain Alexander Schubert:OK Michele Neylon:same thing Alexander Schubert:Didn't knew that..... Rubens Kuhl:alexander.gay can cost differently from iam.gay Michele Neylon:you can raise or lower prices on your premium lists Michele Neylon:move them between tiers etc etc Alexander Schubert:Why would then somebody be so stupid to invest Millions into a domain.newgTLD - if it could be taken away at any given time by raising the price to a Billion USD? Milton Mueller:indeed, Alexander why? Michele Neylon:*some* registries have increased prices for existing registrations Michele Neylon:others have frozen the price Alexander Schubert:I think you just made me a BIG .com fan - again..... Rubens Kuhl:Alexander, because they don't know that ? ;-) Milton Mueller:long-term contracts offer protection against hold-up pricing Kathy Kleiman:I think they did comment ... Jeff Neuman:Milton - did I misquote you when saying that something cant be anti-comptitive in advance ? Michele Neylon:I've commented on this topic at length in the past Michele Neylon:not sure if anyone wants me to rehash what I said previously Michele Neylon:4 years later :) Rubens Kuhl:The only way a registry can guarantee it wouldn't happen is filing a PIC saying so. That would make that committment enforceable by registrants. Jeff Neuman:Michele - If you want to discuss your comments you filed, please do Michele Neylon:Jeff - happy to if people want me to Michael Flemming:Michele, would you like me to call on you next? Michael Flemming:Your feedback is very important. Michele Neylon:I don't mind :) Michele Neylon:https://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/23/5-reasons-why-closed-generic-n ew-gtlds-should-be-opposed/ Robin Gross:I haven't seen a single free speech group come out for banning closed generics. It is a business gaming issue, not a free speech issue. Jeff Neuman:@Michele - you bring a registrar perspective as well. Its rare we get registrars offering their perspective here ;) Michael Flemming:Alright, I will call on you right after Alexander. Michele Neylon:Jeff - lol Michele Neylon:Jeff - you are a registrar officially :) Jeff Neuman:I dont voice my opinion as chair Michele Neylon::) Alexander Schubert:can I respond? Rubens Kuhl:Same happens with community TLDs... Milton Mueller:yes Milton Mueller:you are just choosing to call it a community TLD instead of a closed generic. Milton Mueller:The community TLD is closed in the same sense that a closed generic is closed Kathy Kleiman:Good point Michele Neylon:a regulated TLD can be as well Kathy Kleiman:to the speaker... Alexander Schubert:Milton: If you need restrictions: Just file a ton of pics - and you are done. Like in a community TLD (obviously you do not need to identify as community priority). I just don't see why you need to completely "close" a TLD. Milton Mueller:how is that different from a closed generic Michele? Alexander Schubert:In a closed generic gTLD sooner or later ALL "rights" to registrants will vanish - and the domains will NOT be "registered" but "leased" - and the terms will be shady and intransparent. Kind of the "payday loan" of the DNS. Rubens Kuhl:The deterrence for single registrant is not the registrar equal access clause, since the policy could prescribe that only one registrant is allowed no matter the registrar... what prevents it today is one of the PICs, 3c and 3d: Rubens Kuhl:c. Registry Operator will operate the TLD in a transparent manner consistent with general principles of openness and non-discrimination by establishing, publishing and adhering to clear registration policies. d. Registry Operator of a "Generic String" TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's "Affiliates" (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). "Generic String" means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others. Paul McGrady:@Milton - thanks for joining the call today. Very interesting stuff. Lots to think about, Robin Gross:The argument for banning closed generics does seem to be very anti-choice. Alexander Schubert:Milton: Choices are fine. But there is only ONE ".music" and ONE ".gay" - and we shouldn't toy around with those strings.... Alexander Schubert:Thanks Milton! Paul McGrady:@Robin - yes. It was a way for less creative competitors to make sure that a competitor that had the foresight to apply did not get the commercial advantage that it paid for as an early adopter. Susan Payne:@Alexander - it's a closed TLD. There aren't registrants in the traditional sense. So it's not a question registrants losing rights and being at the mercy of the RO Alexander Schubert:Susan: The Centralnic thrid level domains (based on ll.com) are sold as "normal registrations" at registrars - and the consumer doesn't notice what happens in the background... Alexander Schubert:The same will happen with "closed generics": Domains will b sold at registars! Jeff Neuman:So you were ok with The Food Network getting .food? Jeff Neuman:And using it in connection with the Food Network avri doria:Susan, they are basically just platform users? Kathy Kleiman:.FOOD was the only closed generic to stay as a closed generics. Jeff Neuman:Yes Michele thanks Kathy Kleiman:Dozens opened up to their competitors. Robin Gross:Dictacting how people should use words like this is complete micro-management that kills innovation. Susan Payne:@Avri - Perhaps, but it depends on circumstances. What I was trying to say was that we shouldn't be assuming that the only use for a TLD is a retail "pile em high" model Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Preventing an RO from limiting registrations to itself and its affiliates prevents the RO from experimenting with using the DNS in innovative ways. It's effectively impossible to innovate if 3Ps already have registered domains in the TLD. Alexander Schubert:Robin: Can you give an example how innovation would be killed? Doesn't minimum wage then also "kills innovation"? Paul McGrady:I still think the Pros/Cons documents needs a "GAC Management" Section. Otherwise, we are just driving ourselves off the same old cliff. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):You can't try something new if you have to take 3P interests in their domains into account. If the experiment doesn't work and the TLD is "closed", only the RO is harmed. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):And Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I'm using "harm" very loosely. Alexander Schubert:And closed TLDs are maybe fine if they are NOT generic cathegory keyword strings. Susan Payne:which case? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):be good tonpost the details Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):to post Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):And, of course, numerous objection proceedings had exactly the opposite outcome. Rubens Kuhl:I don't think the penalty box is forever. I think this PDP determines the fate of those applications. Kathy Kleiman:It was an independent review by an international panel Alexander Schubert:It would also really be nice to have a link to a source whoch decribes potential "innovations" which would ONLY work in a "closed generic"...... Jeff Neuman:Sounds like Michael has a crowd Rubens Kuhl:Alexander, I have one closed generic idea I won't disclose since it's a trade secret... Paul McGrady:This has been a fabulous call. I think it was really thoughtful. I know I walked away with a bunch to think about. Alexander Schubert:Thannks! Alexander Schubert:1:00 am here Rubens Kuhl:... and other people might have other ideas like that. avri doria:bye and thanks all for the discusssion Michele Neylon:11pm here Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx everyone bye for now Robert Burlingame:Bye Rubens Kuhl:Bye all! Kathy Kleiman:Bye All

1 0

Agenda for Meeting at 21 UTC April 27, 2017
by Michael Flemming April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Dear All, Apologies as I have not gotten this out sooner. I am currently unable to have easy access to email right now. However, I plan on being there for our upcoming meeting. For this week's meeting, we will be continuing our last discussion of Closed Generics. Last week we went over the con arguments of the public comment as well as exploring what the potential harms are. I use the word potential because the current RA does not allow for Closed Generics, as such we are unable to determine if any of these are actual harm. If someone does have evidence of actual harm, then please bring it up for discussion. However, we will be seeking proposals and ideas for how we can compromise for a way to allow Closed Generics. If you have any thoughts, we would very much appreciate them. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

2 1

Agenda for WT2 Meeting 13 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC
by Michael Flemming April 15, 2017

April 15, 2017

Dear All, This week on 13 April 2017 at 21 UTC we will be once again discussing Closed Generics. As of our last meeting, we went through the Pros and Cons of Closed Generics by looking at the comments made in the Public Comments. We have not reached a consensus on anything at this point, however, we have not had a lot of input for the Cons and potential harm of Closed Generics at the current time. This week we will try to distinguish what potential harm exists if Closed Generics were allowed by analyzing the Public Comments even further. I welcome anyone who would like to assist in this discussion and analysis by joining us this week. Below is the agenda. 1. *Welcome * 2. *SOI * 3. *Closed Generics* 4. *AOB* I look forward to speaking with everyone and having an exciting conversation! Kind regards, Michael Flemming

3 6

recording, Attendance, AC recording and AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 13 April 2017
by Terri Agnew April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 13 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): <https://participate.icann.org/p96pyjrn60g/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=436763efcaabf56f d0227f108d44d3c705d81ed2dd669eac5ee8f7b29a7d3189> https://participate.icann.org/p96pyjrn60g/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> 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/B7HRAw> https://community.icann.org/x/B7HRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 April 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 13 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_B 7HRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ B7HRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=hYPNbusNs1aZNiWMt5YLdxDjanNXesFnRf6fmhomND w&s=vm5gV3gjsKgjXRvhkTmcfU1EovHJOj1MvA2dolJuMT4&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=hYPNbusNs1aZNiWMt5YLdxDjanNXesFnRf6fmhomNDw&s=vm 5gV3gjsKgjXRvhkTmcfU1EovHJOj1MvA2dolJuMT4&e= Michael Flemming:Terri, I think Phil Buckingham is also only on the phone Susan Payne:hi, I'm trying to get a dial out Heather Forrest:I had trouble with the Adobe link in my calendar entry, but then the reminder email sent 2 minutes before we started had a link that worked just fine Heather Forrest:(sorry, not like that info is useful to Kathy, who isn't in Adobe) Terri Agnew:Thanks Heather, I will send another email to all JUST In case (including Kathy) Steve Chan:Michael, happy to assist. Terri Agnew:@Susan, if I can help dial out, please chat me your telephone number (sending you a private AC chat) Susan Payne:thanks Terri, now sorted Terri Agnew:@Susan, thank you for the update Kathy Kleiman:Finally made it in! Steve Coates:Can't hear you, sir! Paul McGrady:How about "alleged" or "proposed"? Heather Forrest:Based on Phil's comment and Michael's reply, we need to update the language in teh document on screen Paul McGrady:Perfect Heather Forrest:Paul, sorry Paul McGrady:GNSO Policy on new gTLDs actually didn't prohibit or even mention closed generics. Paul McGrady:No problem Heidi, er Heather... Heather Forrest:you bet, buddy Kathy Kleiman:Many drafters of the Applicant Guidebook felt very strongly that Closed Generics were barred by the rules. Paul McGrady:Why were non of the pro-closed generics comments from the last round included in this document? Seems either a big oversight or one-sided designed to lead us all to a particular conclusion. Susan Payne:@Kathy, that might have been the intention of some, but I don't think that was what the wording of the AGB said Kathy Kleiman:First, belatedly, tx you for the opportunity to join you today! Kathy Kleiman:@Susan, the response in 2012 and 2013 was considerable! Kathy Kleiman:https://iccwbo.org/publication/exp_499_icann_116_expert-determinatio n/ Kathy Kleiman:I think the determination stands on its own - worth reading! Susan Payne:@Kathy, what do you mean the response in 2012/2013? Kathy Kleiman:The letters and articles written in 2012 and 2013 - some circulated earlier today. Kathy Kleiman:Many with group signatures. Susan Payne:yes but my point is that is not what the AGB says, that is what some people wrote after the event surely carlos Gutiérrez:sorry butMcGrady does not come through right carlos Gutiérrez:terrible echo avri doria:Even if we don't reopen it, we need to be explicit. One of the deficits in the previous policy is that we were not specific about approving closed generics, we just assumed that of course they would be ok. Heather Forrest:I think Carlos means that Paul's mic cuts in and out avri doria:note: we did not even have a name for them back then. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Avri Paul McGrady:+1 Avri Paul McGrady:But we are only seeing what 1 side has said. Why aren't we looking at what the other side said? Michael Flemming:We have gone over the Pros in the last call. Could you be clear what the other side would be? Paul McGrady:@kathy - the Board never said that Terri Agnew:@Carlos, I also sent you a private AC Chat, try logging out and back into adobe connect, maybe even try a differrent browser to see if echo clears up Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):not sure we have any consensus on that Kathy... I don't agree they are " by definition " Good Steve Chan:@Paul, the NGPC was empowered by the Board to pass resolutions. Therefore, NGPC resolutions are ICANN Board resolutions. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):rather that this needs discussion Paul McGrady:@Kathy - that was the pre-round 1 model Greg Shatan:It might be a good idea to prepare a Greg Shatan:pros document that parallels the cons document in the AC room. Kathy Kleiman:ICANN bans closed generic gTLDs, for nowKevin Murphy, June 24, 2015, 09:28:31 (UTC), Domain Policy -- ICANN has slapped a de facto ban on so-called closed generic gTLDs, at least for the remaining 2012 round applicants. 6/24/2015 Paul McGrady:+1 Greg. Having them side by side would be terrific. THis document, accidently I think, seems super-one-sided. Terri Agnew:@Carlos, did logging back in help? Susan Payne:thats a headline from a blog, not a fact. please stop mischaracterising Kathy Greg Shatan:I'll go back and look at the prior document. Paul McGrady:@Kathy - Kevin's headline isn't the same thing as a Board resolution, No need to revisit, I suppose, because the Chair just read the actual resolution which defers, not rejects Kathy Kleiman:Dozens of gTLDs (maybe more) became open. I'm not sure why this is a controversial fact. Paul McGrady:@Kathy - closed generic applicants throwing in the towel on the issue in order to preserve what they could from their application costs isn't the same thing as the Board rejecting closed generics. The options - as read by the Chair into the record were, withdraw, capitulate, or be deferred. avri doria:and we are now at the point to which they were defered. Paul McGrady:+1 Avri Kathy Kleiman:what's the question again? Steve Chan:The Code of Conduct is not loaded into the AC room...please give us a moment. Kathy Kleiman:It's Specification 9 in new gTLD Registry Agreements Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):my AC has bad lag today... sorry Julie Hedlund:Unsynced Steve Chan:Specification 9 is page 282 Michael Flemming:So, I think the main point here is on 6 in relatiomn to the comment made. Rubens Kuhl:Although not always mentioned, closed generics can bring inovation as well to the DNS. .frogans is one example of the usage type that can go in that direction. Paul McGrady:@Kathy - I love him, but Michele's business is selling second level domain names, so closed generics are contrary to his business model, but that doesn't make them against the public interest Susan Payne 2:the difficulty is that all of these arguments assume that all we want are a whole series of .com alternatives. where is the innovation in that Liz Brodzinski:+1 Susan Rubens Kuhl:So the question is how to close the door to misuse without forbidding possible good uses. Paul McGrady:@Kathy - no competitors were blocked out of closed generics - all were welcome to apply for them Kiran malancharuvil:Agree with Paul and Susan Payne 2 (identity theft??) Greg Shatan:The basic argument seems to be that TLDs shouldn't be treated like second level domains. Emily Barabas:Michele's full blog post is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.internetnews.me_201 3_02_23_5-2Dreasons-2Dwhy-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2Dnew-2Dgtlds-2D <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.internetnews.me_20 13_02_23_5-2Dreasons-2Dwhy-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2Dnew-2Dgtlds-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=Fm Y1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AI gn-H4xR2EBk&m=hYPNbusNs1aZNiWMt5YLdxDjanNXesFnRf6fmhomNDw&s=ZmuH0rj5SVrKDDRF cJU6_7bM-ckCEurMrS6o1iYztrU&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=hYPNbusNs1aZNiWMt5YLdxDjanNXesFnRf6fmhomNDw&s=Zm uH0rj5SVrKDDRFcJU6_7bM-ckCEurMrS6o1iYztrU&e= should-be-opposed/ Susan Payne 2:lost connection Kiran Emily Barabas:https://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/23/5-reasons-why-closed-generic- new-gtlds- should-be-opposed Rubens Kuhl:Also of notice is that most of the anger against closed generics came specifically regarding .book. Emily Barabas:pardon the broken link -- https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.internetnews.me_201 3_02_23_5-2Dreasons-2Dwhy-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2Dnew-2Dgtlds-2Dshould-2Dbe-2Do pposed_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.internetnews.me_20 13_02_23_5-2Dreasons-2Dwhy-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2Dnew-2Dgtlds-2Dshould-2Dbe-2D opposed_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSF pCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=hYPNbusNs1aZNiWMt5YLdxDjanNXesFnRf6fmhom NDw&s=kZf9cyi03zgwTFXoIUOQTsua6pvC5PTdsyD8ZvJV3OY&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=hYPNbusNs1aZNiWMt5YLdxDjanNXesFnRf6fmhomNDw&s=kZ f9cyi03zgwTFXoIUOQTsua6pvC5PTdsyD8ZvJV3OY&e= Kathy Kleiman:@Paul - of course we are closing off competitors -- to basic generic words that no one would be able to trademark as generic to their goods, services and industries. Kathy Kleiman:Tx for including me! Rubens Kuhl:@Kathy, Apple sounds pretty generic to me... (ducks) Susan Payne 2:Rubens - only for apples Paul McGrady:@Kathy - all were free to apply. Terri Agnew:Next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. avri doria:we will of course need to talk about this issue until we fnd a way forward. Greg Shatan:Competition shouldn Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now.... yes indeed Avri Robert Burlingame:Bye avri doria:bye & thanks Greg Shatan:Sorry will complete thought on list.

1 0