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

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

June 6, 2018

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

1 0

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

April 2, 2018

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

1 0

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

March 30, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and Webex chat attached to this email. The p3 recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call held on Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 21:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-29mar18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-29mar18-en.mp3> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FxO8B Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

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

March 30, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Webex chat and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call held on Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 21:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-29mar18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-29mar18-en.mp3> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FxO8B Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

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

March 29, 2018

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

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Meeting
by Michael Flemming March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

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

1 0

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

March 26, 2018

I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we *look* like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... Just my 2 cents, Greg On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> wrote: > It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more > broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an > Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting > applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission > first. The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion > of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular > region, and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the > Objection. Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be > resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to > the commencement of any substantive proceedings. > > > > It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given > that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years > regarding this arena. It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without > getting the geo names issues resolved first. Maybe no one wants another > Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the > varying interests are far apart? I would favor a new Objection process to > resolve this. At that point, the community may be able to accept some of > the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide). > > > > I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the > Objection, its application fee will be refunded. Just to be clear, the > process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the > same. > > > > Anne > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese* > > Of Counsel > > 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office > > 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax > > AAikman(a)lrrc.com > > _____________________________ > > Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP > > One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 > > Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > > lrrc.com > > > > > > *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman > *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM > *To:* cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange; > Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org > *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org; > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org > > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps > > > > Thanks Christopher. > > > > I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the > activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only > address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work > Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. > > > > To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to > apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic > names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., > then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic > names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is > recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. > > > > If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level > domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. > > > > In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on > two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will > address it at that point in time. > > Thanks. > > > > *Jeffrey J. Neuman* > > *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA* > > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > > E: *jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com <jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>* > > T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514> > > M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079> > > @Jintlaw > > > > *From:* cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM > *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr < > langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no>; > Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org>; Olga Cavalli < > olgacavalli(a)gmail.com>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com>; > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org > *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org; > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org; > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps > > > > Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: > > > > Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of > the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the > interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by > prior understandings reached in WT1-4. > > > > In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on > several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, > Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. > > > > Consequently, notwithstanding the *décalage* of the WT schedules, I > consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input > from the PDP as a whole. > > > > Regards > > > > Christopher Wilkinson > > > > > > > > On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> wrote: > > > > Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 > Members/Observers, > > > > You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out > cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We > wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we > are going from here. > > > > Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through > the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from > the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track > meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered > (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of > April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial > Report. > > > > ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 > Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into > one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and > working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the > report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, > our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order > starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, > Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, > Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the > substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first > week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled > in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks > to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for > public comment. > > > > This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that > we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on *April > 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd.* > > > > As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to > describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), > and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will > be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to > see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the > recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have > general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public > comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we > have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting > preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the > final report later this year > > > > *This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different > schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders.* > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. > > > > Best regards, > > > > *Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr* > > Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg > > > > ------------------------------ > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or > agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended > recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by > replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any > attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and > confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 >

2 1

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

March 25, 2018

Christopher, The work track 1-4 co-chairs have been noticing the possible inter-relationships throughout the process, and those have been addressed. Even for WT5, the overlap consisting of additional reserved names and some names requiring letters of support/non-objection was also always envisioned... something like a geo objection was not, but that is something that can be harmonised and integrated with the objection process, if's that what WT5 ends up suggesting. That can be even done by WT5 by taking what has already been proposed, like number of panelists and fees bearing, and then defining standing and principles specifically to that process. Even the possibility of adding more contractual requirements, if decided by WT5, can be dealt by with Geo PICs, something that was also foreseen... so I may be optimistic here, but I couldn't think of anything WT5 could come up with that wouldn't be easily integrated into the SubPro output.That doesn't prevent people's imagination to go beyond and actually find something that would be harder to harmonise... but considering the low likelihood, we can deal with it, if it happens, but only if it happens, instead of planning for something that likely won't happen. Rubens > On 25 Mar 2018, at 14:29, lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu wrote: > > Good afternoon: > > I have considerable empathy with the concerns expressed by Greg here below > I suggest that the current plan underestimates the inter-relationships between the Work Tracks, notably but not exclusively with WT5. > > Regards > > CW > > >> On 24 Mar 2018, at 05:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? >> >> An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. >> >> Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) >> >> Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... >> >> Just my 2 cents, >> >> Greg >> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: >> It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission first. The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular region, and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the Objection. Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to the commencement of any substantive proceedings. >> >> >> >> It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years regarding this arena. It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without getting the geo names issues resolved first. Maybe no one wants another Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the varying interests are far apart? I would favor a new Objection process to resolve this. At that point, the community may be able to accept some of the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide). >> >> >> >> I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the Objection, its application fee will be refunded. Just to be clear, the process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the same. >> >> >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese >> >> Of Counsel >> >> 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office >> >> 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax >> >> AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >> _____________________________ >> >> <image002.png> >> >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP >> >> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 >> >> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> >> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> >> >> >> >> >> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman >> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM >> To: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange; Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> >> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps >> >> >> >> Thanks Christopher. >> >> >> >> I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. >> >> >> >> To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. >> >> >> >> If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. >> >> >> >> In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> >> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA >> >> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 >> >> Mclean, VA 22102, United States >> >> E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> >> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> >> @Jintlaw >> >> >> >> From: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> >> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps >> >> >> >> Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: >> >> >> >> Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. >> >> >> >> In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. >> >> >> >> Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Christopher Wilkinson >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, >> >> >> >> You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. >> >> >> >> Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. >> >> >> >> ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. >> >> >> >> This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. >> >> >> >> As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year >> >> >> >> This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. >> >> >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr >> >> Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> >> >> >> >> >> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4>

1 0

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

March 24, 2018

Dear WT2 Members, On 22 February 2018, WT2 submit several follow-up questions to ICANN Org (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735941/Contractual%20Com…) related to vertical integration. Attached, please find a response from Contractual Compliance to the questions within its purview (note that the original questions and responses from May 2017 are also included in this document). The remaining questions will be responded to by GDD. The response can also be found on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/RT2AAw Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

2 2

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

March 23, 2018

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

2 1

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

March 23, 2018

Thanks Christopher. I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

1 0

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

March 14, 2018

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

1 0

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

March 4, 2018

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

3 4

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

March 1, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC Chat of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and Mp3 are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call held on Thursday, 01 March 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-01mar18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p93j4jtabf3/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FRO8B Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

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

March 1, 2018

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

1 0

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

Feb. 27, 2018

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

1 1

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

Feb. 22, 2018

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

1 0

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

Feb. 22, 2018

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

1 0

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

Feb. 21, 2018

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

1 1

WT2 Progress Document
by Michael Flemming Feb. 16, 2018

Feb. 16, 2018

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

1 0

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

Feb. 9, 2018

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

2 1

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

Feb. 8, 2018

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

2 1

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

Feb. 7, 2018

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

1 0

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

Feb. 1, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 01 February 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-01feb18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p4463awbd25/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9wSfB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle -------------------------------

1 0

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

Feb. 1, 2018

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

2 2

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 18 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 18, 2018

Jan. 18, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. Please see below the links to the referenced documents and excerpts from the chat room. Applicant Terms and Conditions https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LyeCn0QHyFu8cvmAuZ8_sUUIuGMzeh8XyaLMhDI… Reserved Names https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h4aqPkeTg0-8tMatrEHFMMZsaZNC6qfTR04uDuQ… Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 18 January 2017 1. Proposals on High Level Agreements and further deliberations Reserved Names Applicant Terms and Conditions -- We have provided some summaries of our progress. Section 3 (reading from the section): -- Clarify the language in this section. -- We are saying that the decision to review a decision - I think we need to link the rejection to the 3 categories - laws, bylaws, or etc. -- Need to state the concept that while ICANN has authority to reject application it needs to do so under the applicant contract, bylaws, etc. The concept is that we don't agree with the language that is in the applicant terms and conditions and should be limited to certain circumstances. Be clear about discretion is limited to certain circumstance. -- The Work Track should agree on wording. -- See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8… Section 6: -- Wt2 can say that there needs to be an appeals mechanism, but some WT members oppose the covenant not to sue. -- The mechanism of the IRP is a good model. Section 14: -- Could probably have some language that describes the role of a terms and conditions document is, but doesn't override everything in the AGB and ICANN's Bylaws. Changes to the AGB will reference the predictability framework. -- First 3 bullets are consensus decisions. -- 4th bullet implies that it is a minority decision. If the changes are policy changes they have to go back to the GNSO. High-Level Agreement so Far: -- Maintaining the reserved names list in the top level: Appears to be consensus to maintain the top level reserved name list. While there is no consensu on whether any specifc changes in the top level reserved name list should be recommended, it would be beneficial for the WT to further review the Top Level Reserved Name List. >From the chat: Sophia Feng: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LyeCn0QHyFu8cvmAuZ8_sUUIuGMzeh8XyaLMhDI… Sophia Feng: here is link to this document Jim Prendergast: can I suggest that one of the post call action items that is sent int he summary a link to the doc asking WT members to review and propose edits. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): For the record, we oppose the covenant not to sue - regardless of any appeals mechanism. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I suspect several entities will @Kristina, and that may be clearer post public comments after the Initial Report Jeff Neuman: I believe our Prelim Report needs to state that some members of the Working Group oppose the covenant not to sue as a concept. If, however, such a covenant not to sue remains, then we recommend.......... Heather Forrest: There was a presentation to SO/AC leaders yesterday on the new IRP and what SO/ACs will need to do to participate in that process. I wasn't able to participate due to time zone but think we need to consider these Ts and Cs in light of that new process Steve Chan: WT3 is definitely considering appeals mechanisms as part of its topic on Accountability Mechanisms (probably a topic that is not correctly labeled) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): The IRP is certainly a good bst practice model in my biased (personal) view Jeff Neuman: THe new IRP is a little bit better, but it will not be sufficient to challenge substantive decisions of evaluators Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): The comments I made earlier w/r/t the .ISLAM and .HALAL IRP Final Declaration apply to Section 14, too. Steve Chan: Would a reference to the Predictabilty Framework, from the overarching issues, make sense here? Heather Forrest: +1 Kristina - decisions such as these on validity are critical to this group's evaluation Jeff Neuman: Sure Steve Chan: Or perhaps this particular concerns might feed into the Predictability Framework? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): We could do that Steve... Justine Chew: Section 14 -- unavoidable changes should not prejudice applicants who have submitted their application(s), and if prejudice arises some allowances should be granted to such applicants. Jim Prendergast: no objections here Jeff Neuman: At the end of the day, I think that fourth bullet will go away and just reference the other work under the predictability framework Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): makes sense Jeff Jeff Neuman: [which goes into the things that Alan talked about] Jeff Neuman: @Jim - I think you are right Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): The other issue with "a few" is that "a few" has one meaning if the few = all SGs and Constituencies (for example) and another meaning if "a few" = 2 people in their individual capacity. Suggest rephrasing for that reason, too. 2. Reserved Names (4.3.1): -- Release of certain reserved names: Whether we have a policy recommendation on this issue. Make sure we don't lose that issue. -- Staff notes that there is still ongoing policy development on IGO acronyms. The policy posted there are exception procedures. -- For any category that doesn't have an exception there should be a process developed. -- During the policy discussions on IOC names there was a discussion on whether we want an exception, and the decision was no. Interesting that the most recent policy is to add an exception. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: AS a preface to this section, we know that there is a new consensus policy just announced on IGO / INGO names and so we will make sure that that consensus policy is incorporated into our prelim report Jeff Neuman: sorry initial report Michael Flemming: I think that everyone is fully aware, but just to make sure there is no confusion. Geographic Names at the TOP LEVEL are being discussed in Work Track 5, not Work Track 2. Steve Chan: Here is the announcement Jeff just referenced: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-01-16-en Heather Forrest: Raising for completeness the same comment here as I made in this week's WT5 meeting - it's important that we focus on the rationale of reserving names (as was done in the RNWG Final Report) Michael Flemming: RNWG = Reserved Name Working Group Steve Chan: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8… Julie Hedlund: @Sophia: Unless we share screen we can't show it. But members can open it. Jeff Neuman: Adobe Connect has some limitations Steve Chan: The document is uploaded to the AC room and can be displayed, but probably diffcult to read there. Jeff Neuman: Lets make sure to capture Heather's comment on making sure the rationale is provided from the original 2007/2008 RSWG where we recommend the reservations are maintained Steve Chan: The link shared above is for second-level reserved names. Steve Chan: Here is the link for the top-level: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHao6Hf1s8e… Heather Forrest: Thanks Jeff :) Jim Prendergast: today’s announcement contains a definitive list of terms that must be reserved. but no list like that was provided in the AGB. I can’t remember if we talked about having icann develop and publish a definitive list but that would seem to make sense to synch the two major categories of reserved names. (at 2nd level) Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): +1 Jim Jeff Neuman: Good point Jim Jeff Neuman: One I know that many registries were asking ICANN to do for a long time :) Steve Chan: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedN… Michael Flemming: @Heather, some CC2 comments addressed this area. But, when you say questioned in regards to its choice, I don't believe we have had a Registry chime in on. Heather Forrest: @Michael - thank you. I was just curious, but the fact that Registries haven't raised it as a problem suggests that it isn't a problem, or it isn't high priority Heather Forrest: To the comment about IANA transition, there were some very interesting discussions in the Reserved Names Working Group in 2007 about reservations for ICANN-related names, and why these should be treated differently than any other brand or corporate name Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): "Very interesting discussions," indeed. :-) Heather Forrest: I recall a very rational argument raised by Mike Rodenbaugh, I think Jeff Neuman: But also we are talking about both top level and second level here Jeff Neuman: Alan you may be right at top level, but second level is a different story Kathy Kleiman: Perhaps you can put this out for review by the whole subteam? Jeff Neuman: EIther way, we need to discuss it further Kathy Kleiman: on the list... Jeff Neuman: @Kathy - yes, it needs to be discussed by all Alan Greenberg: @Jeff, the PDP was exclusively discussing 2nd level.

1 0

Progress documents shared： Agenda for WT2 Call at 3 UTC on 18th Jan 2018
by Sophia Feng Jan. 18, 2018

Jan. 18, 2018

Dear All, Please find the progress documents discussed in today’s call as below: Applicant Terms and Conditions https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LyeCn0QHyFu8cvmAuZ8_sUUIuGMzeh8XyaLMhDI… Reserved Names https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h4aqPkeTg0-8tMatrEHFMMZsaZNC6qfTR04uDuQ… And feel free to edit and add any comments/feedbacks. regards, Michael Flemming Sophia Feng 原始邮件发件人:Sophia Fengfengshuo(a)zdns.cn 收件人:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org 抄送:Michael Flemmingflemming(a)brightsconsulting.com 发送时间:2018年1月17日(周三) 11:36 主题:Updated：[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Agenda for WT2 Call at 3 UTC on 18th Jan 2018 Hi All, Apology for the confusion on the meeting time, the next all for WT2 will be held at 3 UTC on 18th Jan 2018. best regards, Sophia 原始邮件发件人:Sophia Fengfengshuo(a)zdns.cn 收件人:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org 抄送:Michael Flemmingflemming(a)brightsconsulting.com 发送时间:2018年1月16日(周二) 18:20 主题:[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Agenda for WT2 Call at 21 UTC on 18th Jan 2018 Dear All, Please note the agenda for the upcoming meeting of WT2 at 21 UTC on 18th Jan 2018. Welcome SOI Updates Proposals on High Level Agreements and further deliberations Reserved NamesApplicant Terms and Conditions AOB Looking forwards to discussing with you. best regards, Michael Flemming Sophia Feng

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team-Track 2-Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Jan. 18, 2018

Jan. 18, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Adobe Connect Chat and recording of the call attached to this email, and the AC recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call held on Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p3pznizwspt/<https://participate.icann.org/p3pznizwspt/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=0255f127d1fb0f9f…> 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/WB1yB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses</learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy…>

1 0

Updated： Agenda for WT2 Call at 3 UTC on 18th Jan 2018
by Sophia Feng Jan. 17, 2018

Jan. 17, 2018

Hi All, Apology for the confusion on the meeting time, the next all for WT2 will be held at 3 UTC on 18th Jan 2018. best regards, Sophia 原始邮件发件人:Sophia Fengfengshuo(a)zdns.cn 收件人:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org 抄送:Michael Flemmingflemming(a)brightsconsulting.com 发送时间:2018年1月16日(周二) 18:20 主题:[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Agenda for WT2 Call at 21 UTC on 18th Jan 2018 Dear All, Please note the agenda for the upcoming meeting of WT2 at 21 UTC on 18th Jan 2018. Welcome SOI Updates Proposals on High Level Agreements and further deliberations Reserved NamesApplicant Terms and Conditions AOB Looking forwards to discussing with you. best regards, Michael Flemming Sophia Feng

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Call at 21 UTC on 18th Jan 2018
by Sophia Feng Jan. 16, 2018

Jan. 16, 2018

Dear All, Please note the agenda for the upcoming meeting of WT2 at 21 UTC on 18th Jan 2018. Welcome SOI Updates Proposals on High Level Agreements and further deliberations Reserved NamesApplicant Terms and Conditions AOB Looking forwards to discussing with you. best regards, Michael Flemming Sophia Feng

1 0

GDD Response to Vertical Integration Data Request
by Steve Chan Dec. 22, 2017

Dec. 22, 2017

Dear WT2 Members, WT2, during its meeting on 18 May 2017, requested statistics on how many registry operators are vertically integrated. While apologizing for the lateness of delivery, below, please find the response below from GDD: ICANN collects data about contracted parties’ vertical integration (also known as cross-ownership or Affiliate relationships) during the application process for both registrars and registry operators. Additionally, contracted parties are required to notify ICANN of its Affiliate relationships occurring after contracting, under both the registrar and registry operator agreements with ICANN. To date, ICANN has tracked notifications received from approximately 275 vertically integrated contracted parties. Sixteen of these notifications were received after contracting (4 in 2014, 10 in 2015, and 2 in 2017). However, contracted parties are not required to notify ICANN of the termination of such relationships. Therefore, the total number of vertically integrated contracted parties may vary from those notifications previously tracked. If you have any questions about this information, please let policy support staff know. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

4 5

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 21 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Dec. 21, 2017

Dec. 21, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Adobe Connect chat and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording is listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 21 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): <https://participate.icann.org/p2969t6xz15/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=17e199abfa1fcf54 4e1069db42438778cb8fe907e0429b4cdb72a46f61efd41d> https://participate.icann.org/p2969t6xz15/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/bAtyB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 December 2017
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 21, 2017

Dec. 21, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The referenced documents are attached. Wishing you all a wonderful holiday and a very Happy New Year! Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 21 December 2017 1. Calls Rotation Times and Next Meeting: -- The calls rotate between 1500, 2100, and 0300 UTC (in that order). -- The next meeting is Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 2100 UTC. 2. SOI Updates: None. 3. Proposals on High Level Agreements and further deliberations: 3.1 Base Registry Agreement (reference the attached document) -- Looking at the discussions we've had on the registry agreement and trying to move toward to consensus, or no-opposition, to what we consider high-level agreement. -- High-level agreement: Recommend a scaled back core agreement with additional specifications per category, with the goal of a single agreement with a more clear, structured, and efficient method for obtaining exemptions. Discussion: -- Is the definition of exclusive use registry? Trying to avoid getting into the specifics of the different TLD types -- that discussion is being held at the full WG level. Not all TLDs qualify as a brand TLD, but some are still exclusive use. -- There is no restriction on someone applying for a non-generic term and then wanting to use it exclusively. Example: .office, is under the code of conduct but isn't trademarked. -- Is there consensus around exclusive use registries? Also, is there consensus around closed generics? Response: We are asking for consensus around having multiple agreements versus single agreements. These types are just listed as an idea of what multiple types might be. There are no conclusions on what these categories are. If there are multiple TLDs in what form might ICANN sign a registry agreement? We can remove the chart and ask whether there is support for a single agreement and say the issue of which categories are approved for future application windows was not addressed in this Work Track, except for the discussion of Closed Generics. -- Categories tend to anticipate what future business models and then can restrict innovation. Strive for ways to provide relief from contractual requirements that doesn't upset our policies, or have ways to add contractual requirements for certain categories. If there is a category could show what relief they are seeking -- that is, why form a category? Need to wait for the full WG to come to agreement on the categories. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: So Kurt - Basically acknowledge the categories that are already deemed acceptable with specifications and then a process for requesting relief for newly-developed models. Jeff Neuman: The rationale as you stated is to promote innovation. 3.2 Registrant Protections (reference the attached document) High-Level Agreement so far: -- appears to be consensus to explore a different method to fund the EBERO process, but no consensus on what method to explore -- continue to discuss methods and models. -- appears to be consensus to keep the EBERO process in cases where there is a failure of the back-end services provider, and also in keeping the triggers for the EBERO process the same as in the AGB with the existing critical registry functions. Discussion: -- Are brand TLDs exempt from EBERO now? Also, if someone fails -- the question about registrant data is being handled. Response: Currently brand TLDs have the same requirements in the code of conduct and spec 13 as other TLDs. Also, there are no recommended changes to the existing EBERO structure and how it functions. -- If there is a registry failure the goal in EBERO is to make sure everything continues to operate, so no need to contact registrants. -- Under EBERO you just switch provider, but the rules don't change. Registrants will be notified if the registrant is transitioned to a registry with different rules. If there is an outage the registry notifies the registrars and the registrars notify the registrants. -- EBERO = Emergency Back End Registry Operator. It is not a failure of the front end, but of the back end. The change of a front-end registry is a different process. -- WT may want to examine whether or not single-registrant model registries should be exempt from other registrant protections such as data escrow. -- Recently EBERO was triggered for the case of .wed. The WT may want to consider analyzing further details in this matter when available. -- Also consider analyzing instances where ICANN decided not to invoke EBERO when emergency thresholds were breached. -- Still discussions about the desire to trigger an EBERO where there is a failure of the front-end registry operator and the back-end registry services provider is both capable and willing to continue to provide the Critical Registry Functions (reference the document for more details).

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Call at 15 UTC on 21 December 2017
by Michael Flemming Dec. 21, 2017

Dec. 21, 2017

Dear All, Please note the agenda for the upcoming meeting of WT2 at 15 UTC on 21 December 2017. 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. Proposals on High Level Agreements and further deliberations - Registry Agreement - Registrant Protections 4. AOB Please note that after further consideration, it is foreseen that we will require the full 60 minutes to discuss the above topics. Discussions on Reserved Names will come in the following weeks. Leadership will seek to provide an updated schedule leading up to the plenary report. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

2 2

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Dec. 7, 2017

Dec. 7, 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, 07 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p3ijo6520vw/ Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-07dec17-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-07dec17-en.mp3> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/XAtyB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 2 - 7 December 2017
by Emily Barabas Dec. 7, 2017

Dec. 7, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below notes and action items from the call on 7 December. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. You can find the chat transcript and call recording here: https://community.icann.org/x/XAtyB Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. SOI Updates - No updates 3. Contractual Compliance - Recap of previous discussion on this topic – group discussed that it needs to define the scope of what it can address in policy. Scope must be limited to contractual requirements and data collection. Additional feedback was sought on these points through CC2. - Compliance tends to operate as a blackbox. Recommendations to enhance transparency about new gTLDs would be useful. - Recap of discussion from 25 May call: - Public Comment raised issues in regards to predatory pricing of Registries. The opinion was raised that this was outside of role of Contractual Compliance if it is not explicit in the RA. - Are there any areas we can ask ICANN Compliance for data to better understand the duties of Compliance and offer recommendations for improvement? - It was suggested that we reach out to Contractual Compliance to ask them what data would help them better fulfill their role. - Suggested approach for policy development in this area was to ask ICANN for what data they collect from Registries in order to enforce the contracts and make recommendations. 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? - Jannik Skou, INTA, Nominet, RySG, BRG, Afilias, and ALAC agree with the WG expectation that any new contractual requirements would be made enforceable by inclusion in the base agreement. - RySG, BRG, and Afilias said that any compliance related requirements should enforceable by inclusion in the Registry Agreement - INTA said that more granular data should be available from compliance on the department and complaints received regarding contractual compliance - Comment discusses “troubling operational practices”: arbitrary and abusive pricing for premium domains targeting trademarks; use of reserved names to circumvent Sunrise; and operating launch programs that differed materially from what was approved by ICANN. - Are the allegations (from the INTA comment) valid? Would this not be a first step prior to the consideration of recommendations? Any data from compliance that might provide some data for analysis - On one level predatory pricing bad, but is that not in our domain to attempt to control. Possibly within our domain is that in their description of their business plan, if there is unusual pricing planned, that they document it. If we restrict these practices, aren’t we going against supporting innovative business models? - Perhaps it is in scope is to add something to the contract in another area of the PDP. - Do we have any such rules at ICANN that we need to treat everyone equally? Not aware of such requirements. - Before we take effort to draft recommendations, why not first confirm that these allegations are correct? - Of the list in the INTA comment there are different categories of issues. There does not appear to be anything in the rules regarding arbitrary and abusive pricing for premium domains targeting trademarks. If this is correct, it is not a compliance issue. If they have violated the approved rules for Sunrise, that could be a compliance issue. - Compliance would definitely not be able to enforce the spirit of contractual obligations, only the specific provisions included in the contract. Compliance will only be able to give us data on things that are true violations of the contact. - It may be useful to ask compliance if there is complaints data, even if it might not be contractually restricted. Justine Chew: Do we have reported cases on "undesired" practices? Then we can analyse why they happened..... Justine Chew: And taking it further if necessary, to see if there has been some "unintended consequences" of not providing for terms in the RA. Althought this may be a stretch. - Is the RPM Group addressing any of the issues? Members of this WT who are also members of the RPM WG might be able to provide insight. - The circumstances described in the comment by INTA mirrored the one complaint PICDRP. WT3 is looking at the PICDRP. This group might want to look into the substance of the complaint. - Important to look at the different elements of the INTA comment. Premium pricing of trademarked names is tied to the agreement. There is likely data on this specific issue. - If we seek data from Compliance, whether there is evidence of these practices or not, the WT can still discuss practices that could take place and decide if they should be restricted from a Compliance standpoint - Should Spec 13 registries have to go through annual audit? TLD Rollout - Reading slide 10 (recap, goal, and discussions) - Requested data from GDD about delegation timeline, extensions, reasons for extensions - 45 extension requests, 30 granted. Contenxt: out of over 1200 contracted new gTLDs. - 15 TLDs terminated prior to delegation for lack of progress (all Brands). Generally mutual agreement to terminate. - Reasons for extension: change of RSP prior to delegation, assignment of TLD to other RO (and RSP), issues partnering with data escrow agent, internal turnover - Most felt that timeframes are reasonable. - Reviewing 2.7.1 CC2 comments - Afilias felt escrowing data for only nic.TLD seems premature - Jannik Skou felt that applicants should be guaranteed contract, delegation, etc. within a certain timeframe. - BC felt that both the applicant and ICANN need to adhere to specified timelines. ICANN communications were sometimes delayed, impacting applicants' ability to move towards contracting/delegation. -- Should there be any recommendation that ICANN should aslo adhere to timelines? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): As we are aiming for predictability I would think we should ensure timeliness - Given tone of this call, should be able to summarize deliberations/CC2 and come back with recommendations, possibly in February. Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] AGENDA: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Dec. 6, 2017

Dec. 6, 2017

Please note my apologies. I will not be able to attend this call. sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Sophia Feng <fengshuo(a)zdns.cn> Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 11:32 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] AGENDA: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC Dear All, Please find the proposed agenda for our upcoming WT2 call at Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC. We will be focusing on formulating recommendations from the previous discussion and CC2 Comments on Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout. Please review the CC2 Comments prior to the call and thank you for sending in any comments. Agenda: * Welcome * SOI Update * Contractual Compliance: Discussion Recap & CC2 Comments * TLD Rollout: Discussion Recap & CC2 Comments * AOB Looking forwards to talking to you in our next call. best regards, Sophia Feng 原始邮件发件人: Julie Bisland<julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org>> 收件人: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org><ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>> 抄送: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><GNSO-SECS(a)ICANN.ORG<mailto:GNSO-SECS@ICANN.ORG>> 发送时间: 2017年11月22日(周三) 06:40 主题: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (Wednesday) 19:00 PST, 22:00 EST, (Thursday) 03:00 London GMT, 04:00 Paris CET For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ycofvdua Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option below (also sent in the calendar invitation). Thank you. Kind regards, Julie You're Invited. You've been invited to a GlobalMeet® phone only meeting. Have the meeting call you. Click the Connect Me link below. No need to dial-in. Connect Me [toolbar.conferencinghub.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__toolbar.conferencinghu…> Not at your computer? You can join by dialing one of the access numbers below. Mobile: tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825#<tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825> Access Number: 1-605-475-5604 Guest Passcode: 8650457825 Additional Access: USA: 1-605-475-5604 USA: 1-712-770-4203 USA: 1-719-457-6209 Canada, Calgary: +1 403 407 5793 Canada, Montreal: +1 514 669 5928 Canada, Toronto: +1 647 426 9172 Canada, Vancouver: +1 604 222 7836 Argentina, Buenos Aires: +54 (0) 11 5172 6003 Argentina (toll free): 0800 800 1223 Australia, Sydney: +61 (0) 2 8017 6064 Australia, Melbourne: +61 (0) 3 8687 0553 Australia, Brisbane: +61 (0) 7 3015 0535 Australia (toll free): 1 800 804 786 Austria, Vienna: +43 (0) 1 25302 1785 Austria (toll free): 0800 8866 3413 Bahrain, Manama: +973 1619 8739 Bahrain (toll free): 800 04212 Belarus (toll free): 8 820 0011 0341 Belgium, Brussels: +32 (0) 2 400 6928 Belgium (toll free): 0800 39279 Brazil, Sao Paulo: +55 11 4935 7169 Brazil, Rio de Janeiro: +55 21 4560 0072 Brazil (toll free): 0800 887 0233 Bulgaria, Sofia: +359 (0) 2 491 6045 Bulgaria (toll free): 00800 111 4950 Cambodia, Phnom Penh: +855 23 965 723 Canada (toll free): 1 855 950 3717 Chile, Santiago: +56 (0) 2 2666 0696 Chile (toll free): 171 800 835 783 China (national): +400 613 8103 China, Beijing: +86 10 5667 0003 China, Shanghai: +86 21 2039 7081 Colombia, Bogota: +57 1 508 8137 Colombia (toll free): 01 800 755 0102 Costa Rica (toll free): 800 542 5328 Croatia (toll free): 0800 805 940 Cyprus (toll free): 800 97424 Czech Republic, Prague: +420 225 986 554 Czech Republic (toll free): 800 701 532 Denmark, Copenhagen: +45 32 72 78 10 Denmark (toll free): 80 70 35 86 Egypt (toll free): 0800 000 0593 Estonia, Tallinn: +372 622 6551 Estonia (toll free): 800 011 1589 Fiji (toll free): 00800 3322 Finland, Helsinki: +358 (0) 9 2310 1677 Finland (toll free): 0800 772 236 France, Paris: +33 (0) 1 70 37 16 56 France (toll free): 0800 946 531 France (national): 0811 655 100 France (national): 0821 231 671 Georgia, Tbilisi: +995 32 2 050 778 Germany, Frankfurt: +49 (0) 69 2222 10612 Germany, Munich: +49 (0) 89 2030 31207 Germany (national): 01801 003 899 Germany (toll free): 0800 588 9170 Greece, Athens: +30 211 181 3824 Greece (toll free): 00800 128 913 Hong Kong: +852 3018 9111 Hong Kong (toll free): 800 901 787 Hungary, Budapest: +36 1408 8953 Hungary (toll free): 068 001 9673 Iceland (toll free): 800 9847 India, Delhi: +91 (0) 11 6641 1394 India, Bangalore: +91 (0) 80 6127 6710 India, Mumbai: +91 (0)22 6187 5028 India, Chennai: +91 (0)44 6688 6061 India (toll free): 1800 200 9415 Indonesia, Jakarta: +62 21 2188 9084 Indonesia (toll free): 007 803 321 8927 Ireland, Dublin: +353 (0) 1 526 9421 Ireland (national): 0818 270 271 Ireland (toll free): 1800 937 649 Ireland (national): 1890 907 630 Israel, Tel Aviv: +972 (0)3 721 7943 Israel (toll free): 1809 213 168 Italy, Milan: +39 02 3600 8006 Italy, Rome: +39 06 8750 0676 Italy (toll free): 800 146 094 Japan, Tokyo: +81 (0) 3 4560 1270 Japan, Osaka: +81 (0) 6 4560 2410 Japan (toll free): 0120 305 211 Japan (mobile): 0120 632 611 Japan (national): 0570 085 744 Kazakhstan (toll free): 8800 333 7554 Kenya, Nairobi: +254 (0)20 529 3581 South Korea, Seoul: +82 (0) 2 6007 0079 South Korea (toll free): 00798 6136 1454 Latvia, Riga: +371 6601 3627 Latvia (toll free): 8000 4418 Lithuania, Vilnius: +370 5205 5468 Lithuania (toll free): 8800 31449 Luxembourg: +352 2088 1749 Luxembourg (toll free): 800 28433 Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur: +60 (0) 3 7724 8010 Malaysia (toll free): 1 800 816 152 Mexico, Guadalajara: +52 33 4162 4504 Mexico, Mexico City: +52 55 8421 0326 Mexico, Monterrey: +52 81 4162 5648 Mexico (toll free): 01 800 733 4102 Morocco, Casablanca: +212 (0) 520 48 0022 Morocco (toll free): 0800 091 296 Netherlands, Amsterdam: +31 (0) 20 716 8345 Netherlands (toll free): 0800 020 2597 New Zealand, Christchurch: +64 (0) 3 974 2596 New Zealand, Wellington: +64 (0) 4 909 4674 New Zealand, Auckland: +64 (0) 9 929 1825 New Zealand (toll free): 0800 452 947 Nigeria, Lagos: +234 1 277 3944 Norway, Oslo: +47 21 00 48 15 Norway (toll free): 800 56081 Oman (toll free): 800 77265 Panama, Panama City: +507 8 335 913 Panama (toll free): 00800 223 1390 Peru, Lima: +51 (0) 1 700 9571 Peru (toll free): 0800 78102 Philippines, Manila: +63 (0)2 395 3426 Philippines (toll free): 1 800 111 013 99 Poland, Warsaw: +48 22 295 3570 Poland (toll free): 00 800 121 4356 Portugal, Lisbon: +351 21 316 4093 Portugal (toll free): 800 784 442 Qatar (toll free): 00 800 100 491 Romania, Bucharest: +40 (0) 21 529 3992 Romania (toll free): 0800 801 035 Russia, Moscow: +7 495 646 9181 Russia (toll free): 8 800 500 9241 Saudi Arabia (toll free): 800 844 6641 Saudi Arabia (toll free): 800 850 0219 Serbia (toll free): 0800 190 712 Singapore: +65 6622 1957 Singapore (toll free): 800 616 3192 Slovakia, Bratislava: +421 (0)2 3321 5498 Slovakia (toll free): 0800 002 002 Slovenia, Ljubljana: +386 1600 8695 Slovenia (toll free): 0800 81193 South Africa, Johannesburg: +27 (0)11 589 8321 South Africa (toll free): 0800 999 434 Spain, Madrid: +34 91 114 6653 Spain, Barcelona: +34 93 800 1946 Spain (toll free): 900 828 035 Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka: +94 720 910 333 Sweden, Stockholm: +46 (0) 8 5065 3956 Sweden (toll free): 0200 125 588 Switzerland, Geneva: +41 (0) 22 595 4795 Switzerland, Zurich: +41 (0) 44 580 7207 Switzerland (toll free): 0800 740 360 Taiwan, Taipei: +886 (0) 2 2650 7329 Taiwan (toll free): 0800 666 596 Thailand, Bangkok: +66 (0) 2104 0761 Thailand (toll free): 001 800 6136 1473 Tunisia, Tunis: +216 31 378 101 Turkey, Istanbul: +90 212 375 50 49 Turkey (toll free): 00800 4488 26642 Ukraine (toll free): 0800 500 896 UAE (toll free): 8000 3570 2662 UK (03): +44 (0)330 336 6002 UK (toll free): 0800 358 6385 UK (national): 0844 473 5010 UK (national): 0845 545 0015 USA /Canada (toll free): 1-866-398-2885 Uruguay (toll free): 0004 019 0152 Venezuela, Caracas: +58 212 720 2164 Venezuela (toll free): 0 800 162 7451 Vietnam, Hanoi: +84 4 4458 3312 Vietnam (toll free): 1800 9226

1 0

[gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] AGENDA: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Sophia Feng Dec. 6, 2017

Dec. 6, 2017

Dear All, Please find the proposed agenda for ourupcoming WT2 call atThursday, 07 December2017 at 03:00 UTC. We will be focusing on formulating recommendations from the previous discussion and CC2 Comments on Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout. Please review the CC2 Comments prior to the call and thank you for sending in any comments. Agenda: Welcome SOI Update Contractual Compliance: Discussion Recap CC2 Comments TLD Rollout: Discussion Recap CC2 Comments AOB Looking forwards to talking to you in our next call. best regards, Sophia Feng 原始邮件发件人:Julie Bislandjulie.bisland(a)icann.org 收件人:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.orgntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org 抄送:gnso-secs@icann.orgGNSO-SECS@ICANN.ORG 发送时间:2017年11月22日(周三) 06:40 主题:[Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place onThursday, 07 December2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (Wednesday) 19:00 PST, 22:00 EST, (Thursday) 03:00 London GMT, 04:00ParisCET For other times:https://tinyurl.com/ycofvdua Adobe Connect room:https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option below (also sent in the calendar invitation). Thank you. Kind regards, Julie You're Invited. You've been invited to a GlobalMeet® phone only meeting. Have the meeting call you. Click the Connect Me link below.No need to dial-in. Connect Me[toolbar.conferencinghub.com] Not at your computer? You can join by dialing one of the access numbers below. Mobile: tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825# Access Number: 1-605-475-5604 Guest Passcode: 8650457825 Additional Access: USA: 1-605-475-5604 USA: 1-712-770-4203 USA: 1-719-457-6209 Canada, Calgary: +1 403 407 5793 Canada, Montreal: +1 514 669 5928 Canada, Toronto: +1 647 426 9172 Canada, Vancouver: +1 604 222 7836 Argentina, Buenos Aires: +54 (0) 11 5172 6003 Argentina (toll free): 0800 800 1223 Australia, Sydney: +61 (0) 2 8017 6064 Australia, Melbourne: +61 (0) 3 8687 0553 Australia, Brisbane: +61 (0) 7 3015 0535 Australia (toll free): 1 800 804 786 Austria, Vienna: +43 (0) 1 25302 1785 Austria (toll free): 0800 8866 3413 Bahrain, Manama: +973 1619 8739 Bahrain (toll free): 800 04212 Belarus (toll free): 8 820 0011 0341 Belgium, Brussels: +32 (0) 2 400 6928 Belgium (toll free): 0800 39279 Brazil, Sao Paulo: +55 11 4935 7169 Brazil, Rio de Janeiro: +55 21 4560 0072 Brazil (toll free): 0800 887 0233 Bulgaria, Sofia: +359 (0) 2 491 6045 Bulgaria (toll free): 00800 111 4950 Cambodia, Phnom Penh: +855 23 965 723 Canada (toll free): 1 855 950 3717 Chile, Santiago: +56 (0) 2 2666 0696 Chile (toll free): 171 800 835 783 China (national): +400 613 8103 China, Beijing: +86 10 5667 0003 China, Shanghai: +86 21 2039 7081 Colombia, Bogota: +57 1 508 8137 Colombia (toll free): 01 800 755 0102 Costa Rica (toll free): 800 542 5328 Croatia (toll free): 0800 805 940 Cyprus (toll free): 800 97424 Czech Republic, Prague: +420 225 986 554 Czech Republic (toll free): 800 701 532 Denmark, Copenhagen: +45 32 72 78 10 Denmark (toll free): 80 70 35 86 Egypt (toll free): 0800 000 0593 Estonia, Tallinn: +372 622 6551 Estonia (toll free): 800 011 1589 Fiji (toll free): 00800 3322 Finland, Helsinki: +358 (0) 9 2310 1677 Finland (toll free): 0800 772 236 France, Paris: +33 (0) 1 70 37 16 56 France (toll free): 0800 946 531 France (national): 0811 655 100 France (national): 0821 231 671 Georgia, Tbilisi: +995 32 2 050 778 Germany, Frankfurt: +49 (0) 69 2222 10612 Germany, Munich: +49 (0) 89 2030 31207 Germany (national): 01801 003 899 Germany (toll free): 0800 588 9170 Greece, Athens: +30 211 181 3824 Greece (toll free): 00800 128 913 Hong Kong: +852 3018 9111 Hong Kong (toll free): 800 901 787 Hungary, Budapest: +36 1408 8953 Hungary (toll free): 068 001 9673 Iceland (toll free): 800 9847 India, Delhi: +91 (0) 11 6641 1394 India, Bangalore: +91 (0) 80 6127 6710 India, Mumbai: +91 (0)22 6187 5028 India, Chennai: +91 (0)44 6688 6061 India (toll free): 1800 200 9415 Indonesia, Jakarta: +62 21 2188 9084 Indonesia (toll free): 007 803 321 8927 Ireland, Dublin: +353 (0) 1 526 9421 Ireland (national): 0818 270 271 Ireland (toll free): 1800 937 649 Ireland (national): 1890 907 630 Israel, Tel Aviv: +972 (0)3 721 7943 Israel (toll free): 1809 213 168 Italy, Milan: +39 02 3600 8006 Italy, Rome: +39 06 8750 0676 Italy (toll free): 800 146 094 Japan, Tokyo: +81 (0) 3 4560 1270 Japan, Osaka: +81 (0) 6 4560 2410 Japan (toll free): 0120 305 211 Japan (mobile): 0120 632 611 Japan (national): 0570 085 744 Kazakhstan (toll free): 8800 333 7554 Kenya, Nairobi: +254 (0)20 529 3581 South Korea, Seoul: +82 (0) 2 6007 0079 South Korea (toll free): 00798 6136 1454 Latvia, Riga: +371 6601 3627 Latvia (toll free): 8000 4418 Lithuania, Vilnius: +370 5205 5468 Lithuania (toll free): 8800 31449 Luxembourg: +352 2088 1749 Luxembourg (toll free): 800 28433 Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur: +60 (0) 3 7724 8010 Malaysia (toll free): 1 800 816 152 Mexico, Guadalajara: +52 33 4162 4504 Mexico, Mexico City: +52 55 8421 0326 Mexico, Monterrey: +52 81 4162 5648 Mexico (toll free): 01 800 733 4102 Morocco, Casablanca: +212 (0) 520 48 0022 Morocco (toll free): 0800 091 296 Netherlands, Amsterdam: +31 (0) 20 716 8345 Netherlands (toll free): 0800 020 2597 New Zealand, Christchurch: +64 (0) 3 974 2596 New Zealand, Wellington: +64 (0) 4 909 4674 New Zealand, Auckland: +64 (0) 9 929 1825 New Zealand (toll free): 0800 452 947 Nigeria, Lagos: +234 1 277 3944 Norway, Oslo: +47 21 00 48 15 Norway (toll free): 800 56081 Oman (toll free): 800 77265 Panama, Panama City: +507 8 335 913 Panama (toll free): 00800 223 1390 Peru, Lima: +51 (0) 1 700 9571 Peru (toll free): 0800 78102 Philippines, Manila: +63 (0)2 395 3426 Philippines (toll free): 1 800 111 013 99 Poland, Warsaw: +48 22 295 3570 Poland (toll free): 00 800 121 4356 Portugal, Lisbon: +351 21 316 4093 Portugal (toll free): 800 784 442 Qatar (toll free): 00 800 100 491 Romania, Bucharest: +40 (0) 21 529 3992 Romania (toll free): 0800 801 035 Russia, Moscow: +7 495 646 9181 Russia (toll free): 8 800 500 9241 Saudi Arabia (toll free): 800 844 6641 Saudi Arabia (toll free): 800 850 0219 Serbia (toll free): 0800 190 712 Singapore: +65 6622 1957 Singapore (toll free): 800 616 3192 Slovakia, Bratislava: +421 (0)2 3321 5498 Slovakia (toll free): 0800 002 002 Slovenia, Ljubljana: +386 1600 8695 Slovenia (toll free): 0800 81193 South Africa, Johannesburg: +27 (0)11 589 8321 South Africa (toll free): 0800 999 434 Spain, Madrid: +34 91 114 6653 Spain, Barcelona: +34 93 800 1946 Spain (toll free): 900 828 035 Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka: +94 720 910 333 Sweden, Stockholm: +46 (0) 8 5065 3956 Sweden (toll free): 0200 125 588 Switzerland, Geneva: +41 (0) 22 595 4795 Switzerland, Zurich: +41 (0) 44 580 7207 Switzerland (toll free): 0800 740 360 Taiwan, Taipei: +886 (0) 2 2650 7329 Taiwan (toll free): 0800 666 596 Thailand, Bangkok: +66 (0) 2104 0761 Thailand (toll free): 001 800 6136 1473 Tunisia, Tunis: +216 31 378 101 Turkey, Istanbul: +90 212 375 50 49 Turkey (toll free): 00800 4488 26642 Ukraine (toll free): 0800 500 896 UAE (toll free): 8000 3570 2662 UK (03): +44 (0)330 336 6002 UK (toll free): 0800 358 6385 UK (national): 0844 473 5010 UK (national): 0845 545 0015 USA /Canada (toll free): 1-866-398-2885 Uruguay (toll free): 0004 019 0152 Venezuela, Caracas: +58 212 720 2164 Venezuela (toll free): 0 800 162 7451 Vietnam, Hanoi: +84 4 4458 3312 Vietnam (toll free): 1800 9226

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] 回复： Notes and Action Items: New gTLD SubsequentProcedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017
by Michael Flemming Nov. 29, 2017

Nov. 29, 2017

Dear All, In regards to our previous request for further feedback, I want to introduce some deadlines so that we may begin moving forward. On item 1 and 2, could we ask for further input by this Friday, December 1st? We want to know if anyone has any suggestions about questions to compliance and if there are any objections on asking the BC for further clarity about their comment. On item 3, we remain open to input until we start summarizing the work for initial proposals for the plenary report. Thank you to those who have already contributed. Kind regards, Michael Flemming On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Levine, Gertrude <glevine(a)nabp.pharmacy> wrote: > If I understand the question correctly, I would say, yes, we should > address the full integration for Specification 13 .brand registries and any > Code of Conduct exempt registries in this Vertical Integration topic. And, > yes, we should allow Specification 13 .brand registry and Code of Conduct > exempt registries to operate without other registrars. My understanding is > that the non-discrimination against registrars is intended to create > competition for the benefit of registrants. If such registries are not > selling domains, there is no need to hold them to this requirement. > > > > *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces@icann.org] > *On Behalf Of *Michael Flemming > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 22, 2017 3:25 AM > *To:* Sophia Feng <fengshuo(a)zdns.cn> > *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] 回复： Notes and Action Items: New gTLD > SubsequentProcedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017 > > > > Dear All, > > > > Please note that the point we are most trying to address here is on the > last question. On the call we had today, there was some ambiguity about the > full intention of the CC2 question 2.6.3. in the first place. The question > appears as if it seeks to address mainly the inconsistency of requiring > Code of Conduct exempt registries to not discriminate against registrars > who it has entered into an RRA with. This was reinforced with input in > regards to the background of the question, "economic papers said things > like allowing discrimination between registrars would help to achieve > efficiencies -- so has our artificial imposition of limits prevented > vertically integrated registries from achieving the benefits of vertical > integration". But based upon responses to the question, ridding the > requirement of registrars for these registries would be beneficial. > > > > If that is the case, then we want to *(i) seek clarification in regards > to the question, and (ii) engage member input in regards to the CC2 > feedback*. > > > > I hope this might provide further clarification. > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > Michael Flemming > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Sophia Feng <fengshuo(a)zdns.cn> wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Thank you to those who attended today’s call and discussion on Vertical > Integration. While Michael and I want to engage members’ feedback on action > items in order to move forward, we would especially appreciate feedback on > point 3. > > > > 1. From the discussion,these following proposed questions will be sent in > order to request further data input from ICANN Compliance. for further > review: > > 1) How many registry operators are vertically integrated? > > 2) Of that number, how many operate multiple TLDs? > > 3) How many complaints were there against ROs (overall - regardless of > whether due to vertical integration)? > > 4) Of the complaints referenced in the 1.b answer, how many ROs were > those 10 complaints against? *(Does this include complaints dealing with > 2.9 of RA?)* > > 5) How many of those ROs own more than one TLD or multiple TLDs? > > 6) How many of those ROs were required to perform some kind of > remediation regardless if they were found to be in breach or not? > > > > 2. Regarding BC’s comment related to CC2 Question 2.6.2: BC supported > exemptions where the RO can demonstrate that the term comprising the TLD > string directly corresponds to a product name of the Registry Operator. WT2 > should seek clarifications from BC on what “ a product name of the RO” > means in that comment. > > > > 3. Regarding the comments for CC2 Question 2.6.3, > > “Some have argued that although we allow Registries to serve as both as a > registry and as a registrar, the rules contained within section 2.9 of the > Registry Agreement and in the Code of Conduct prohibit the integrated > registry/registrar from achieving the economic efficiencies of such > integration by not allowing a registry to discriminate in favor of its own > registrar. Do those arguments have merit? If yes, what can be done to > address those claimed inefficiencies? If not, please explain. What > safeguards might be required?” > > Nominet, Google and Jannik Skou suggested allowing full integration for > .brand registries and any “single registrant” TLD. In essence, this > proposes getting rid of the registry/registrar relationship requirement and > the other aspects of section 2.9 for Code of Conduct exempt TLDs. > > > > *So the further question to the group is - Should we address the full > integration for Specification 13 .brand registries and any Code of Conduct > exempt registries in this Vertical Integration topic? If yes,** should > we allow Specification 13 .brand registry and Code of Conduct exempt > registries TLD operates without a registrar? What are the pros and cons?* > > > > We look forwards to your feedbacks. > > > > best regards, > > Sophia Feng > > > > > > 原始邮件 > > *发件人**:* Julie Hedlund<julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> > > *收件人**:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org> > > *发送时间**:* 2017年11月22日(周三) 06:09 > > *主**题**:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD > SubsequentProcedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017 > > > > Dear Work Track members, > > > > Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s > call. *These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members > navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the > chat transcript or the recording.* > > > > The referenced slides are attached along with the Response from ICANN > Compliance on PIC complaints. > > > > Best, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – > 21 November 2017* > > > > *1. SOI Updates:* None. > > > > *2. Appointment of New Co-Chair:* > > > > Slide 3 -- Process for Appointment of Co-Chair > > -- Nominations and volunteers were accepted from 31 Oct to 10 November. > > -- Sophia Feng volunteered. > > -- Welcome to Sophia. > > > > *3. Schedule Forward to Plenary Report:* > > > > Slide 4 -- Schedule > > -- Objective: In order provide time for deliberations have outlined the > steps we need to take to meet the deadline. > > -- What do deliberations look like? What will the format be? There is no > decided format for that. should fully outline the issue and provide a path > forward including consensus if we have it. > > -- Ask ourselves if this is realistic. > > -- By February we will present what we have as a deliberation and ask for > consensus. > > -- March 9th to send proposal to overall WG. > > > > Discussion: > > -- Confused the term "deliberations" means discussion, not conclusions. > You are using it as coming to a conclusion. Don't see how we can do that > on a single call on three different options. > > -- We don't need to have a conclusion on the topic. The better term would > be agreement on a prooposal: what the issue is, what we have talked about; > if we don't have a path forward we need to say if we need more time. > > -- A "proposal" implies we've made decisions and I don't think given the > timeframe that is somewhat unrealistic. > > -- There are 12 issues and in February we need to get a finalized document > on the issues in 3 calls, that is 15 minutes per issue. We have to come > out of calls like this one with a straw man document with the sense of the > group. > > -- We have a summary document that summarizes what we have spoken about to > date and how we might find a path forward. > > -- This is an ambitious schedule: if we are going to make this schedule we > have to continue discussions online and we need more written documents. We > can't expect all conversations will take place on phone calls. > > -- There have been enough calls that we can lay out the options and > discuss the pros and cons; may not be tendencies toward solutions on all of > these. > > -- A preliminary report doesn't have to be conclusions; it can be pros and > cons and ask pointed questions. > > -- If our target is in fact a viable set of options and questions to ask, > that may be doable. > > > > *4. Vertical Integration Continuation: Discussion on follow up questions > to ICANN Compliance:* > > > > Slide 5: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? > > -- Had two previous calls. > > -- Introduced history, benefits, and harms. > > -- Reviewed mechanism to detour abusive activity. > > > > Goal: Not to reverse VI as that is a standard. Looking to explore whether > the mechanism introduced have fulfilled their purpose or if additional > mechanisms are required. > > > > Discussions: Requested data from ICANN Compliance and decided we need more > data. > > > > Slide 6: Discussion Recap: Additional Questions > > -- What about audit reports, GDD. Response: We received input on audit > reports, but there wasn't substantive findings on compliant registry > operators, but we will check. > > -- The data on audit reports is accessible; we will share after the call. > > -- The link to the 2017 registry audit report is here: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contractual-compliance-ra- > audit-report-2017-11sep17-en.pdf > > > > From the chat: > > Kathy Kleiman: What about audit reports? > > Kathy Kleiman: GDD?? > > Kathy Kleiman: How would we get a report from GDD on its audit reports? > > Kathy Kleiman: This is the most systematic review of compliance, right? > > Jeff Neuman: Kathy, compliance CCME back and said there were no issues > with VI that they have found > > Jeff Neuman: typo: came back > > Trang Nguyen: Previous years' reports, including registrar audit reports > are here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/compliance-reports-2017 > > Jeff Neuman: But all they do with respect to this is get a > self-certification. I do not believe they have done anything more than that > > Kathy Kleiman: These audit reports don't appear to address VI > > Emily Barabas 2: The responses from ICANN compliance can be found on this > wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.3.5+Registrar+ > Non-Discrimination > > Emily Barabas 2: (see bottom of page) > > > > *5. Vertical Integration: CC2 Comments:* > > > > Slide 7: CC2 Comments > > -- Goal of CC2 Comment Review is our second pass through the WT2 topics. > The goal is to review the feedback provided and discuss this input and the > material of the topic in the WT2. > > > > Slides 8-9: Question 2.6.1 > > -- Nominet, BRG, and RySG stated that they did not identify any issues. > > > > Discussion: > > -- The reason we asked the initial questions is because the audit is a > self-audit. > > -- Once you get into sub-topics that are related you might get some more > information. Not too much interest from the community on wholesale changes > to vertical integration. > > > > Slides 10-12: Question 2.6.2 > > -- Nominet, Afilias, RySG, BRG, and Valideus did not identify any other > circumstances where exemptions should be granted. > > -- BC supported exemptions where the RO can demonstrate that the term > comprising the TLD string directly corresponds to a product name of the > Registry Operator. > > -- RySG, BRG, Valideus supported greater flexibility for registry > operators wishing to seek an exemption and stated that existing process of > obtaining an exemption to the Code of Conduct results in some ambiguity > under the Registry Agreement. > > > > Discussion: > > -- I see this for non-trademarked products, such as Microsoft Office where > they can get Code of Conduct exemptions. Not a generic term but is one > that they use that can't be trademarked. Or one that doesn't qualify for > Spec 13. > > > > From the chat: > > Jeff Neuman: I see this for non-trademarked products > > Susan Payne: Funnily I think they mean in the trademark sense, but where > they don't qualify for spec 13 > > > > Slides 13-17: Question 2.6.3 > > -- Nominet supported allowing full integration for .brand registries. > > -- Jannik Skou supported allowing full integration for .brand registries > and any "single registrant" TLD. > > -- RySG and BRG suggested that the PDP examine whether there remains any > consumer protection benefit to limiting registry-direct sales. > > -- Google encouraged the PDP to examine whether to permit closed TLDs to > self-allocate all domain names and recommended extending carve outs granted > to .brands to other TLDs that qualify for a Code of Conduct exemption. > > -- INTA stated that it does not support dispensing with the Code of > Conduct requirements altogether, but there may be justification for > permitting registries to seek an exemption to the Spec 9 Code of Conduct on > a case-be-case basis. > > -- ALAC supported retaining the non-discrimination rule. > > -- John Poole opposed vertical integration. > > > > Discussion: > > -- One aspect of what this question is asking is do we need section 2.9 of > the Registry Agreement -- the definiing principle. Registry has to use an > ICANN-accredited registrar. > > -- Before we started on vertical integration economic papers said things > like allowing discrimination between registrars would help to achieve > efficiencies -- so has our artificial imposition of limits prevented > vertically integrated registries from achieving the benefits of vertical > integration. Was for non-brand or open registries, not .brand or closed > registries. > > -- Second the comment that it is not very efficient. The question is > universal across the brand owners -- consider whether vertical integration > is possible for .brand TLDs. > > > > From the chat: > > Jeff Neuman: One of the things I think we should do on the last question > is talk to Donuts, Google, Afilias, and other vertically integrated > registries and registrars > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): makes sense Jeff > > Jeff Neuman: Once we get the list of the vertically integrated entities, > we can talk to them > > Gg Levine (NABP): Maybe allow it for registries that are low-volume? > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 > > >

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] 回复： Notes and Action Items: New gTLD SubsequentProcedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017
by Michael Flemming Nov. 22, 2017

Nov. 22, 2017

Dear All, Please note that the point we are most trying to address here is on the last question. On the call we had today, there was some ambiguity about the full intention of the CC2 question 2.6.3. in the first place. The question appears as if it seeks to address mainly the inconsistency of requiring Code of Conduct exempt registries to not discriminate against registrars who it has entered into an RRA with. This was reinforced with input in regards to the background of the question, "economic papers said things like allowing discrimination between registrars would help to achieve efficiencies -- so has our artificial imposition of limits prevented vertically integrated registries from achieving the benefits of vertical integration". But based upon responses to the question, ridding the requirement of registrars for these registries would be beneficial. If that is the case, then we want to *(i) seek clarification in regards to the question, and (ii) engage member input in regards to the CC2 feedback*. I hope this might provide further clarification. Kindest regards, Michael Flemming On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Sophia Feng <fengshuo(a)zdns.cn> wrote: > Dear All, > > > Thank you to those who attended today’s call and discussion on Vertical > Integration. While Michael and I want to engage members’ feedback on action > items in order to move forward, we would especially appreciate feedback on > point 3. > > > 1. From the discussion,these following proposed questions will be sent in > order to request further data input from ICANN Compliance. for further > review: > > 1) How many registry operators are vertically integrated? > > 2) Of that number, how many operate multiple TLDs? > > 3) How many complaints were there against ROs (overall - regardless of > whether due to vertical integration)? > > 4) Of the complaints referenced in the 1.b answer, how many ROs were > those 10 complaints against? (Does this include complaints dealing with > 2.9 of RA?) > > 5) How many of those ROs own more than one TLD or multiple TLDs? > > 6) How many of those ROs were required to perform some kind of > remediation regardless if they were found to be in breach or not? > > > 2. Regarding BC’s comment related to CC2 Question 2.6.2: BC supported > exemptions where the RO can demonstrate that the term comprising the TLD > string directly corresponds to a product name of the Registry Operator. WT2 > should seek clarifications from BC on what “ a product name of the RO” > means in that comment. > > > 3. Regarding the comments for CC2 Question 2.6.3, > > “Some have argued that although we allow Registries to serve as both as a > registry and as a registrar, the rules contained within section 2.9 of the > Registry Agreement and in the Code of Conduct prohibit the integrated > registry/registrar from achieving the economic efficiencies of such > integration by not allowing a registry to discriminate in favor of its own > registrar. Do those arguments have merit? If yes, what can be done to > address those claimed inefficiencies? If not, please explain. What > safeguards might be required?” > > Nominet, Google and Jannik Skou suggested allowing full integration for > .brand registries and any “single registrant” TLD. In essence, this > proposes getting rid of the registry/registrar relationship requirement and > the other aspects of section 2.9 for Code of Conduct exempt TLDs. > > > So the further question to the group is - *Should we address the full > integration for Specification 13 .brand registries and any Code of Conduct > exempt registries in this Vertical Integration topic? If yes,** should > we allow Specification 13 .brand registry and Code of Conduct exempt > registries TLD operates without a registrar? What are the pros and cons?* > > > We look forwards to your feedbacks. > > > best regards, > > Sophia Feng > > > > 原始邮件 > *发件人:* Julie Hedlund<julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> > *收件人:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org> > *发送时间:* 2017年11月22日(周三) 06:09 > *主题:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD > SubsequentProcedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017 > > Dear Work Track members, > > > > Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s > call. *These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members > navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the > chat transcript or the recording.* > > > > The referenced slides are attached along with the Response from ICANN > Compliance on PIC complaints. > > > > Best, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – > 21 November 2017* > > > > *1. SOI Updates:* None. > > > > *2. Appointment of New Co-Chair:* > > > > Slide 3 -- Process for Appointment of Co-Chair > > -- Nominations and volunteers were accepted from 31 Oct to 10 November. > > -- Sophia Feng volunteered. > > -- Welcome to Sophia. > > > > *3. Schedule Forward to Plenary Report:* > > > > Slide 4 -- Schedule > > -- Objective: In order provide time for deliberations have outlined the > steps we need to take to meet the deadline. > > -- What do deliberations look like? What will the format be? There is no > decided format for that. should fully outline the issue and provide a path > forward including consensus if we have it. > > -- Ask ourselves if this is realistic. > > -- By February we will present what we have as a deliberation and ask for > consensus. > > -- March 9th to send proposal to overall WG. > > > > Discussion: > > -- Confused the term "deliberations" means discussion, not conclusions. > You are using it as coming to a conclusion. Don't see how we can do that > on a single call on three different options. > > -- We don't need to have a conclusion on the topic. The better term would > be agreement on a prooposal: what the issue is, what we have talked about; > if we don't have a path forward we need to say if we need more time. > > -- A "proposal" implies we've made decisions and I don't think given the > timeframe that is somewhat unrealistic. > > -- There are 12 issues and in February we need to get a finalized document > on the issues in 3 calls, that is 15 minutes per issue. We have to come > out of calls like this one with a straw man document with the sense of the > group. > > -- We have a summary document that summarizes what we have spoken about to > date and how we might find a path forward. > > -- This is an ambitious schedule: if we are going to make this schedule we > have to continue discussions online and we need more written documents. We > can't expect all conversations will take place on phone calls. > > -- There have been enough calls that we can lay out the options and > discuss the pros and cons; may not be tendencies toward solutions on all of > these. > > -- A preliminary report doesn't have to be conclusions; it can be pros and > cons and ask pointed questions. > > -- If our target is in fact a viable set of options and questions to ask, > that may be doable. > > > > *4. Vertical Integration Continuation: Discussion on follow up questions > to ICANN Compliance:* > > > > Slide 5: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? > > -- Had two previous calls. > > -- Introduced history, benefits, and harms. > > -- Reviewed mechanism to detour abusive activity. > > > > Goal: Not to reverse VI as that is a standard. Looking to explore whether > the mechanism introduced have fulfilled their purpose or if additional > mechanisms are required. > > > > Discussions: Requested data from ICANN Compliance and decided we need more > data. > > > > Slide 6: Discussion Recap: Additional Questions > > -- What about audit reports, GDD. Response: We received input on audit > reports, but there wasn't substantive findings on compliant registry > operators, but we will check. > > -- The data on audit reports is accessible; we will share after the call. > > -- The link to the 2017 registry audit report is here: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contractual-compliance-ra- > audit-report-2017-11sep17-en.pdf > > > > From the chat: > > Kathy Kleiman: What about audit reports? > > Kathy Kleiman: GDD?? > > Kathy Kleiman: How would we get a report from GDD on its audit reports? > > Kathy Kleiman: This is the most systematic review of compliance, right? > > Jeff Neuman: Kathy, compliance CCME back and said there were no issues > with VI that they have found > > Jeff Neuman: typo: came back > > Trang Nguyen: Previous years' reports, including registrar audit reports > are here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/compliance-reports-2017 > > Jeff Neuman: But all they do with respect to this is get a > self-certification. I do not believe they have done anything more than that > > Kathy Kleiman: These audit reports don't appear to address VI > > Emily Barabas 2: The responses from ICANN compliance can be found on this > wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.3.5+Registrar+ > Non-Discrimination > > Emily Barabas 2: (see bottom of page) > > > > *5. Vertical Integration: CC2 Comments:* > > > > Slide 7: CC2 Comments > > -- Goal of CC2 Comment Review is our second pass through the WT2 topics. > The goal is to review the feedback provided and discuss this input and the > material of the topic in the WT2. > > > > Slides 8-9: Question 2.6.1 > > -- Nominet, BRG, and RySG stated that they did not identify any issues. > > > > Discussion: > > -- The reason we asked the initial questions is because the audit is a > self-audit. > > -- Once you get into sub-topics that are related you might get some more > information. Not too much interest from the community on wholesale changes > to vertical integration. > > > > Slides 10-12: Question 2.6.2 > > -- Nominet, Afilias, RySG, BRG, and Valideus did not identify any other > circumstances where exemptions should be granted. > > -- BC supported exemptions where the RO can demonstrate that the term > comprising the TLD string directly corresponds to a product name of the > Registry Operator. > > -- RySG, BRG, Valideus supported greater flexibility for registry > operators wishing to seek an exemption and stated that existing process of > obtaining an exemption to the Code of Conduct results in some ambiguity > under the Registry Agreement. > > > > Discussion: > > -- I see this for non-trademarked products, such as Microsoft Office where > they can get Code of Conduct exemptions. Not a generic term but is one > that they use that can't be trademarked. Or one that doesn't qualify for > Spec 13. > > > > From the chat: > > Jeff Neuman: I see this for non-trademarked products > > Susan Payne: Funnily I think they mean in the trademark sense, but where > they don't qualify for spec 13 > > > > Slides 13-17: Question 2.6.3 > > -- Nominet supported allowing full integration for .brand registries. > > -- Jannik Skou supported allowing full integration for .brand registries > and any "single registrant" TLD. > > -- RySG and BRG suggested that the PDP examine whether there remains any > consumer protection benefit to limiting registry-direct sales. > > -- Google encouraged the PDP to examine whether to permit closed TLDs to > self-allocate all domain names and recommended extending carve outs granted > to .brands to other TLDs that qualify for a Code of Conduct exemption. > > -- INTA stated that it does not support dispensing with the Code of > Conduct requirements altogether, but there may be justification for > permitting registries to seek an exemption to the Spec 9 Code of Conduct on > a case-be-case basis. > > -- ALAC supported retaining the non-discrimination rule. > > -- John Poole opposed vertical integration. > > > > Discussion: > > -- One aspect of what this question is asking is do we need section 2.9 of > the Registry Agreement -- the definiing principle. Registry has to use an > ICANN-accredited registrar. > > -- Before we started on vertical integration economic papers said things > like allowing discrimination between registrars would help to achieve > efficiencies -- so has our artificial imposition of limits prevented > vertically integrated registries from achieving the benefits of vertical > integration. Was for non-brand or open registries, not .brand or closed > registries. > > -- Second the comment that it is not very efficient. The question is > universal across the brand owners -- consider whether vertical integration > is possible for .brand TLDs. > > > > From the chat: > > Jeff Neuman: One of the things I think we should do on the last question > is talk to Donuts, Google, Afilias, and other vertically integrated > registries and registrars > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): makes sense Jeff > > Jeff Neuman: Once we get the list of the vertically integrated entities, > we can talk to them > > Gg Levine (NABP): Maybe allow it for registries that are low-volume? > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 >

1 0

回复： Notes and Action Items: New gTLD SubsequentProcedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017
by Sophia Feng Nov. 22, 2017

Nov. 22, 2017

Dear All, Thank you to those who attended today’s call and discussion on Vertical Integration. While Michael and I want to engage members’ feedback on action items in order to move forward, we would especially appreciate feedback on point 3. 1. From the discussion,these following proposed questions will be sent in order to request further data input from ICANN Compliance. for further review: 1) How many registry operators are vertically integrated? 2) Of that number, how many operate multiple TLDs? 3) How many complaints were there against ROs (overall - regardless of whether due to vertical integration)? 4) Of the complaints referenced in the 1.b answer, how many ROs were those 10 complaints against? (Does this include complaints dealing with 2.9 of RA?) 5) How many of those ROs own more than one TLD or multiple TLDs? 6) How many of those ROs were required to perform some kind of remediation regardless if they were found to be in breach or not? 2. Regarding BC’s comment related to CC2 Question 2.6.2: BC supported exemptions where the RO can demonstrate that the term comprising the TLD string directly corresponds to a product name of the Registry Operator. WT2 should seek clarifications from BC on what “ a product name of the RO” means in that comment. 3. Regarding the comments for CC2 Question 2.6.3, “Some have argued that although we allow Registries to serve as both as a registry and as a registrar, the rules contained within section 2.9 of the Registry Agreement and in the Code of Conduct prohibit the integrated registry/registrar from achieving the economic efficiencies of such integration by not allowing a registry to discriminate in favor of its own registrar. Do those arguments have merit? If yes, what can be done to address those claimed inefficiencies? If not, please explain. What safeguards might be required?” Nominet, Google and Jannik Skou suggested allowing full integration for .brand registries and any “single registrant” TLD. In essence, this proposes getting rid of the registry/registrar relationship requirement and the other aspects of section 2.9 for Code of Conduct exempt TLDs. So the further question to the group is - Should we address the full integration for Specification 13 .brand registries and any Code of Conduct exempt registries in this Vertical Integration topic? If yes, should we allow Specification 13 .brand registry and Code of Conduct exempt registries TLD operates without a registrar? What are the pros and cons? We look forwards to your feedbacks. best regards, Sophia Feng 原始邮件发件人:Julie Hedlundjulie.hedlund(a)icann.org 收件人:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.orggnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org 发送时间:2017年11月22日(周三) 06:09 主题:[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD SubsequentProcedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017 Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call.These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The referenced slides are attached along with the Response from ICANN Compliance on PIC complaints. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 21 November 2017 1. SOI Updates: None. 2. Appointment of New Co-Chair: Slide 3 -- Process for Appointment of Co-Chair -- Nominations and volunteers were accepted from 31 Oct to 10 November. -- Sophia Feng volunteered. -- Welcome to Sophia. 3. Schedule Forward to Plenary Report: Slide 4 -- Schedule -- Objective: In order provide time for deliberations have outlined the steps we need to take to meet the deadline. -- What do deliberations look like? What will the format be? There is no decided format for that. should fully outline the issue and provide a path forward including consensus if we have it. -- Ask ourselves if this is realistic. -- By February we will present what we have as a deliberation and ask for consensus. -- March 9th to send proposal to overall WG. Discussion: -- Confused the term "deliberations" means discussion, not conclusions. You are using it as coming to a conclusion. Don't see how we can do that on a single call on three different options. -- We don't need to have a conclusion on the topic. The better term would be agreement on a prooposal: what the issue is, what we have talked about; if we don't have a path forward we need to say if we need more time. -- A "proposal" implies we've made decisions and I don't think given the timeframe that is somewhat unrealistic. -- There are 12 issues and in February we need to get a finalized document on the issues in 3 calls, that is 15 minutes per issue. We have to come out of calls like this one with a straw man document with the sense of the group. -- We have a summary document that summarizes what we have spoken about to date and how we might find a path forward. -- This is an ambitious schedule: if we are going to make this schedule we have to continue discussions online and we need more written documents. We can't expect all conversations will take place on phone calls. -- There have been enough calls that we can lay out the options and discuss the pros and cons; may not be tendencies toward solutions on all of these. -- A preliminary report doesn't have to be conclusions; it can be pros and cons and ask pointed questions. -- If our target is in fact a viable set of options and questions to ask, that may be doable. 4. Vertical Integration Continuation: Discussion on follow up questions to ICANN Compliance: Slide 5: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? -- Had two previous calls. -- Introduced history, benefits, and harms. -- Reviewed mechanism to detour abusive activity. Goal: Not to reverse VI as that is a standard. Looking to explore whether the mechanism introduced have fulfilled their purpose or if additional mechanisms are required. Discussions: Requested data from ICANN Compliance and decided we need more data. Slide 6: Discussion Recap: Additional Questions -- What about audit reports, GDD. Response: We received input on audit reports, but there wasn't substantive findings on compliant registry operators, but we will check. -- The data on audit reports is accessible; we will share after the call. -- The link to the 2017 registry audit report is here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contractual-compliance-ra-audit… From the chat: Kathy Kleiman: What about audit reports? Kathy Kleiman: GDD?? Kathy Kleiman: How would we get a report from GDD on its audit reports? Kathy Kleiman: This is the most systematic review of compliance, right? Jeff Neuman: Kathy, compliance CCME back and said there were no issues with VI that they have found Jeff Neuman: typo: came back Trang Nguyen: Previous years' reports, including registrar audit reports are here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/compliance-reports-2017 Jeff Neuman: But all they do with respect to this is get a self-certification. I do not believe they have done anything more than that Kathy Kleiman: These audit reports don't appear to address VI Emily Barabas 2: The responses from ICANN compliance can be found on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.3.5+Registrar+Non-Discrimination Emily Barabas 2: (see bottom of page) 5. Vertical Integration: CC2 Comments: Slide 7: CC2 Comments -- Goal of CC2 Comment Review is our second pass through the WT2 topics. The goal is to review the feedback provided and discuss this input and the material of the topic in the WT2. Slides 8-9: Question 2.6.1 -- Nominet, BRG, and RySG stated that they did not identify any issues. Discussion: -- The reason we asked the initial questions is because the audit is a self-audit. -- Once you get into sub-topics that are related you might get some more information. Not too much interest from the community on wholesale changes to vertical integration. Slides 10-12: Question 2.6.2 -- Nominet, Afilias, RySG, BRG, and Valideus did not identify any other circumstances where exemptions should be granted. -- BC supported exemptions where the RO can demonstrate that the term comprising the TLD string directly corresponds to a product name of the Registry Operator. -- RySG, BRG, Valideus supported greater flexibility for registry operators wishing to seek an exemption and stated that existing process of obtaining an exemption to the Code of Conduct results in some ambiguity under the Registry Agreement. Discussion: -- I see this for non-trademarked products, such as Microsoft Office where they can get Code of Conduct exemptions. Not a generic term but is one that they use that can't be trademarked. Or one that doesn't qualify for Spec 13. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I see this for non-trademarked products Susan Payne: Funnily I think they mean in the trademark sense, but where they don't qualify for spec 13 Slides 13-17: Question 2.6.3 -- Nominet supported allowing full integration for .brand registries. -- Jannik Skou supported allowing full integration for .brand registries and any "single registrant" TLD. -- RySG and BRG suggested that the PDP examine whether there remains any consumer protection benefit to limiting registry-direct sales. -- Google encouraged the PDP to examine whether to permit closed TLDs to self-allocate all domain names and recommended extending carve outs granted to .brands to other TLDs that qualify for a Code of Conduct exemption. -- INTA stated that it does not support dispensing with the Code of Conduct requirements altogether, but there may be justification for permitting registries to seek an exemption to the Spec 9 Code of Conduct on a case-be-case basis. -- ALAC supported retaining the non-discrimination rule. -- John Poole opposed vertical integration. Discussion: -- One aspect of what this question is asking is do we need section 2.9 of the Registry Agreement -- the definiing principle. Registry has to use an ICANN-accredited registrar. -- Before we started on vertical integration economic papers said things like allowing discrimination between registrars would help to achieve efficiencies -- so has our artificial imposition of limits prevented vertically integrated registries from achieving the benefits of vertical integration. Was for non-brand or open registries, not .brand or closed registries. -- Second the comment that it is not very efficient. The question is universal across the brand owners -- consider whether vertical integration is possible for .brand TLDs. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: One of the things I think we should do on the last question is talk to Donuts, Google, Afilias, and other vertically integrated registries and registrars Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): makes sense Jeff Jeff Neuman: Once we get the list of the vertically integrated entities, we can talk to them Gg Levine (NABP): Maybe allow it for registries that are low-volume?

1 0

Recording, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 21:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Nov. 22, 2017

Nov. 22, 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 Tuesday, 21 November 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p1asgkg7vzf/<https://participate.icann.org/p1asgkg7vzf/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=c5dc117acd7d7b4d…> 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/pJlEB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 November 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 at 21:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):hi all Sara Bockey:WT1 only had 4 people outside subpro and staff last night Emily Barabas 2:Correct, slides are unsynced Phil Buckingham:hi everyone , I hope Abu Dhabi was productive Wafa Dahmani:hi all Sophia Feng:Hi All Kurt Pritz:Thank you Sophia - this is great Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):glad to have you with this WT Sophia, looking forward to working with you Emily Barabas 2:Here is the link to Sophia's SOI: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Sophia Feng:Thank you all, for no objections:) feel free to let me know if you have any questions Susan Payne:sorry, am I missing something, where is the schedule? Emily Barabas 2:Slide 4 Susan Payne:thanks Emily Phil Buckingham:Sophia , congrats on your appointment. Feel free to contact me (phil(a)dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>) in the next week . I am more than happy to help you step into the role to coordinate with Michael . Sophia Feng:Thank you Phil, sure will do, a lot to learn and get up to speed, thank you Jeff Neuman:Michael - lets move onto the substance :) Kathy Kleiman:What about audit reports? Kathy Kleiman:GDD?? Kathy Kleiman:How would we get a report from GDD on its audit reports? Kathy Kleiman:This is the most systematic review of compliance, right? Kathy Kleiman:Tx! Trang Nguyen:The link to teh 2017 registry audit report is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Jeff Neuman:Kathy, compliance CCME back and said there were no issues with VI that they have found Jeff Neuman:typo: came back Trang Nguyen:Previous years' reports, including registrar audit reports are here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… Jeff Neuman:But all they do with respect to this is get a self-certification. I do not believe they have done anything more than that Kathy Kleiman:These audit reports don't appear to address VI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Kathy do you believe or are aware of any significant disadvantage or dissatisfactions arising from Viruses operations (to date)? Kathy Kleiman:Great, tx! Kathy Kleiman:I'll look up the Registry Agreements too Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):eight auto correct Viruses should read VI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):and eight should read ergh Emily Barabas 2:The responses from ICANN compliance can be found on this wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Emily Barabas 2:(see bottom of page) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thx Emily Trang Nguyen:I believe this is the link to the Compliance reponse that Michael was referencing: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Phil Buckingham:i thnk we need to differentiate between VI for open TLDs and closed/ brand TLDs . I dont know of a closed Registry having its own VI registrar yet . Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):slide 10 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):11 now Emily Barabas 2:Full text of CC2 responses is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Jeff Neuman:I see this for non-trademarked products Susan Payne:Funnily I think they mean in the trademark sense, but where they don't qualify for spec 13 Sophia Feng:Now in Slide13 Phil Buckingham:Agreed Jeff . . Jeff Neuman:Sorry driving through my favorite third world sate in the US...New Jersey :) Jeff Neuman:One of the things I think we should do on the last question is talk to Donuts, Google, Afilias, and other vertically integrated registries and registrars Susan Payne:sorry, have to drop off Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):makes sense Jeff Jeff Neuman:Once we get the list of the vertically integrated entities, we can talk to them Gg Levine (NABP):Maybe allow it for registries that are low-volume? Jeff Neuman:Gg - for communities and restricted TLDs - that has been discussed as well Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks everyone ð bye for now then... Julie Bisland:next call: Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC Phil Buckingham:Agreed Sophia , a closed brand TLD doesnt NEED a registrar , whether integrated or not . Sophia Feng:Thank you all, great call Phil Buckingham:thanks

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 21, 2017

Nov. 21, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The referenced slides are attached along with the Response from ICANN Compliance on PIC complaints. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 21 November 2017 1. SOI Updates: None. 2. Appointment of New Co-Chair: Slide 3 -- Process for Appointment of Co-Chair -- Nominations and volunteers were accepted from 31 Oct to 10 November. -- Sophia Feng volunteered. -- Welcome to Sophia. 3. Schedule Forward to Plenary Report: Slide 4 -- Schedule -- Objective: In order provide time for deliberations have outlined the steps we need to take to meet the deadline. -- What do deliberations look like? What will the format be? There is no decided format for that. should fully outline the issue and provide a path forward including consensus if we have it. -- Ask ourselves if this is realistic. -- By February we will present what we have as a deliberation and ask for consensus. -- March 9th to send proposal to overall WG. Discussion: -- Confused the term "deliberations" means discussion, not conclusions. You are using it as coming to a conclusion. Don't see how we can do that on a single call on three different options. -- We don't need to have a conclusion on the topic. The better term would be agreement on a prooposal: what the issue is, what we have talked about; if we don't have a path forward we need to say if we need more time. -- A "proposal" implies we've made decisions and I don't think given the timeframe that is somewhat unrealistic. -- There are 12 issues and in February we need to get a finalized document on the issues in 3 calls, that is 15 minutes per issue. We have to come out of calls like this one with a straw man document with the sense of the group. -- We have a summary document that summarizes what we have spoken about to date and how we might find a path forward. -- This is an ambitious schedule: if we are going to make this schedule we have to continue discussions online and we need more written documents. We can't expect all conversations will take place on phone calls. -- There have been enough calls that we can lay out the options and discuss the pros and cons; may not be tendencies toward solutions on all of these. -- A preliminary report doesn't have to be conclusions; it can be pros and cons and ask pointed questions. -- If our target is in fact a viable set of options and questions to ask, that may be doable. 4. Vertical Integration Continuation: Discussion on follow up questions to ICANN Compliance: Slide 5: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? -- Had two previous calls. -- Introduced history, benefits, and harms. -- Reviewed mechanism to detour abusive activity. Goal: Not to reverse VI as that is a standard. Looking to explore whether the mechanism introduced have fulfilled their purpose or if additional mechanisms are required. Discussions: Requested data from ICANN Compliance and decided we need more data. Slide 6: Discussion Recap: Additional Questions -- What about audit reports, GDD. Response: We received input on audit reports, but there wasn't substantive findings on compliant registry operators, but we will check. -- The data on audit reports is accessible; we will share after the call. -- The link to the 2017 registry audit report is here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contractual-compliance-ra-audit… >From the chat: Kathy Kleiman: What about audit reports? Kathy Kleiman: GDD?? Kathy Kleiman: How would we get a report from GDD on its audit reports? Kathy Kleiman: This is the most systematic review of compliance, right? Jeff Neuman: Kathy, compliance CCME back and said there were no issues with VI that they have found Jeff Neuman: typo: came back Trang Nguyen: Previous years' reports, including registrar audit reports are here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/compliance-reports-2017 Jeff Neuman: But all they do with respect to this is get a self-certification. I do not believe they have done anything more than that Kathy Kleiman: These audit reports don't appear to address VI Emily Barabas 2: The responses from ICANN compliance can be found on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.3.5+Registrar+Non-Discrimination Emily Barabas 2: (see bottom of page) 5. Vertical Integration: CC2 Comments: Slide 7: CC2 Comments -- Goal of CC2 Comment Review is our second pass through the WT2 topics. The goal is to review the feedback provided and discuss this input and the material of the topic in the WT2. Slides 8-9: Question 2.6.1 -- Nominet, BRG, and RySG stated that they did not identify any issues. Discussion: -- The reason we asked the initial questions is because the audit is a self-audit. -- Once you get into sub-topics that are related you might get some more information. Not too much interest from the community on wholesale changes to vertical integration. Slides 10-12: Question 2.6.2 -- Nominet, Afilias, RySG, BRG, and Valideus did not identify any other circumstances where exemptions should be granted. -- BC supported exemptions where the RO can demonstrate that the term comprising the TLD string directly corresponds to a product name of the Registry Operator. -- RySG, BRG, Valideus supported greater flexibility for registry operators wishing to seek an exemption and stated that existing process of obtaining an exemption to the Code of Conduct results in some ambiguity under the Registry Agreement. Discussion: -- I see this for non-trademarked products, such as Microsoft Office where they can get Code of Conduct exemptions. Not a generic term but is one that they use that can't be trademarked. Or one that doesn't qualify for Spec 13. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I see this for non-trademarked products Susan Payne: Funnily I think they mean in the trademark sense, but where they don't qualify for spec 13 Slides 13-17: Question 2.6.3 -- Nominet supported allowing full integration for .brand registries. -- Jannik Skou supported allowing full integration for .brand registries and any "single registrant" TLD. -- RySG and BRG suggested that the PDP examine whether there remains any consumer protection benefit to limiting registry-direct sales. -- Google encouraged the PDP to examine whether to permit closed TLDs to self-allocate all domain names and recommended extending carve outs granted to .brands to other TLDs that qualify for a Code of Conduct exemption. -- INTA stated that it does not support dispensing with the Code of Conduct requirements altogether, but there may be justification for permitting registries to seek an exemption to the Spec 9 Code of Conduct on a case-be-case basis. -- ALAC supported retaining the non-discrimination rule. -- John Poole opposed vertical integration. Discussion: -- One aspect of what this question is asking is do we need section 2.9 of the Registry Agreement -- the definiing principle. Registry has to use an ICANN-accredited registrar. -- Before we started on vertical integration economic papers said things like allowing discrimination between registrars would help to achieve efficiencies -- so has our artificial imposition of limits prevented vertically integrated registries from achieving the benefits of vertical integration. Was for non-brand or open registries, not .brand or closed registries. -- Second the comment that it is not very efficient. The question is universal across the brand owners -- consider whether vertical integration is possible for .brand TLDs. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: One of the things I think we should do on the last question is talk to Donuts, Google, Afilias, and other vertically integrated registries and registrars Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): makes sense Jeff Jeff Neuman: Once we get the list of the vertically integrated entities, we can talk to them Gg Levine (NABP): Maybe allow it for registries that are low-volume?

1 0

Agenda for Subsequent Procedures Work Track 2 Call at 21 UTC Tuesday 21 November, 2017
by Michael Flemming Nov. 20, 2017

Nov. 20, 2017

Dear All, Please note our agenda for the upcoming WT2 call at 21 UTC Tuesday 21 November, 2017. - Welcome - SOI Update - Appointment of new Co-Chair - Schedule forward to Plenary Report - Vertical Integration Continuation: Discussion on follow up questions to ICANN Compliance - Vertical Integration: CC2 Comments - AOB We have a bit to get through, so I ask that everyone please review the CC2 comments prior to the call. We will go over the summarized input from comments we have received. I look forward to discussing with everyone. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Recommendation for Co-Chair to WT2
by Michael Flemming Nov. 13, 2017

Nov. 13, 2017

Dear All, I am sending this to inform everyone of the closing of our Co-Chair volunteer/nomination period and that Sophia Feng has volunteered for the position. After further discussion with Sophia and the WG Co-Chairs, it is my recommendation that we ratify her as a Co-Chair on our next WT call. Sophia Feng's SOI is as below for full disclosure. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Shuo+Feng+SOI Please reach out if you have any questions. Kind regards, Michael Flemming.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Open Co-Chair Position: Now Accepting Volunteers & Nominations until November 10th
by Michael Flemming Nov. 7, 2017

Nov. 7, 2017

Dear All, My apologies for the follow up message. I am sending this message to correct the date for accepting volunteers and nominations to step up to Co-Chair position for Work Track 2. The date to accept volunteers and nominations will close on November 10th. Kind regards, Michael Flemming On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Michael Flemming < flemming(a)brightsconsulting.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > As noted in our previous meeting, Phil Buckingham has resigned as Co-Chair > of Work Track 2. > > We now have an opening for co-chair and I would like this email to serve > as announcement of accepting volunteers to take on this responsibility. > > In the position, the individual will be working with me to facilitate > discussion and policy for the WT2 topics. I know that it has been over a > year since we have begun our discussions, however, for those following > along it is assumed they will know the material. I and staff can provide > updates as well to bring the individual up to speed. > > We are currently at ICANN60, so for those that do have interest, the WG > Chairs and I would be happy to meet and answer any questions in Abu Dhabi. > If not, we would be happy to answer questions over email, as well. > > The goal is to have nominations and volunteers step forward before the end > of 11/6 and have the individual formally step up at our next WT2 meeting on > 11/21 at 21 UTC. > > We look forward to receiving volunteers. > > Kind regards, > > Michael Flemming >

1 1

Open Co-Chair Position: Now Accepting Volunteers & Nominations until November 6th
by Michael Flemming Oct. 28, 2017

Oct. 28, 2017

Dear All, As noted in our previous meeting, Phil Buckingham has resigned as Co-Chair of Work Track 2. We now have an opening for co-chair and I would like this email to serve as announcement of accepting volunteers to take on this responsibility. In the position, the individual will be working with me to facilitate discussion and policy for the WT2 topics. I know that it has been over a year since we have begun our discussions, however, for those following along it is assumed they will know the material. I and staff can provide updates as well to bring the individual up to speed. We are currently at ICANN60, so for those that do have interest, the WG Chairs and I would be happy to meet and answer any questions in Abu Dhabi. If not, we would be happy to answer questions over email, as well. The goal is to have nominations and volunteers step forward before the end of 11/6 and have the individual formally step up at our next WT2 meeting on 11/21 at 21 UTC. We look forward to receiving volunteers. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Phil Buckingham stepping down , GNSO Subsequent Procedures PDP WG , Co Chair WT2 ( Legal and Regulatory)
by Phil Buckingham Oct. 20, 2017

Oct. 20, 2017

For the attention of the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Participants and Observers : Re : Phil Buckingham stepping down as Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Co - Chair WT2 ( Legal and Regulatory ) and member of the Leadership Team. As some of you may be aware for the past few months I have been unable to commit the hours and attendance in Co Chairing the Subsequent Procedures WG , WT2 ( Legal and Regulatory) with Michael ( Flemming). Michael has been shouldering a huge workload ( especially with WT2 being tasked with the most complex and controversial PDP issues and topics ) , which has been very unfair , on my part. I am sure we are all agreed that he has done a very impressive job ,especially at some ungodly hours being based in Tokyo. I would personally like to thank him for his huge efforts and in the support he has given me in the last year and more. I now have a day job ( outside the domain industry ) and to compound it, a very serious eye problem , which is now requiring a brain scan at the end of this month. Having discussed the various options with the Leadership Team we all felt it would be best that I, very sadly, stand down with immediate effect. This is hugely disappointing and a huge wrench for me. In an ideal world , I would very much like to be re-elected by yourself back onto the Leadership team in early 2018. I am very much prepared to take on again the huge commitment in hours , without remuneration throughout 2018 and beyond. However , may I take this opportunity to add that it is my intention to submit a proposal to the GNSO Council/ approval by the ICANN Board that all persons in a Leadership role are remunerated accordingly , on a level playing field basis. If you wish to help in this effort please contact me @phil@dotadvice.co.uk Of course I am more than happy to help in an effective handover , whether on a temporary or permanent basis. I look forward to discussing and proposing my replacement on the WT2 call at 20.30 UTC today Regards, Phil Buckingham

2 1

Recording, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 19 October 2017 20:30 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 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, 19 October 2017 at 20:30 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p83di4m1z4k/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/j4JEB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 October 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 19 October 2017 at 20:30 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr:hi all Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I am in overlapping calls sorry avri doria:interesting sound effects Karen Day:yes, sounds like someone's phone is near a dripping sink Cheryl Langdon-Orr:good luck Phil Heather Forrest:@Michael- global public interest is a topic that we could talk for years about (and indeed have done so). What is the desired outcome/output/result of our discussion today? (Just asking so we have a clear direction in our discussion today) Alan Greenberg:Public interest was also implicated by the priority for community applications. Jeff Neuman:As Michael is saying, we will cover the CC2 comments, and then ultimately get to the question of PICs, and whether this is the appropriate vehicle to address public policy concerns. Heather Forrest:OK thank you Michael and Jeff for clarifying Holly Raiche 2:What about Specification 11? Jeff Neuman:Holly - What aspects of Speicification 11 Karen Day:WT3 Karen Day:Accountability Mech Holly Raiche 2:Thanaks for that Jeff Michelle DeSmyter:YES Jim Prendergast:yes Sara Bockey:I hear you Michelle DeSmyter:yes avri doria:i can hear Trang Nguyen:I can hear Michael and Jeff. Holly Raiche 2:I can hear you Jeff Neuman:Am i the only one who cant hear Jim Prendergast:sounds good Trang Nguyen:I can hear you loud and clear, Michael. Phil Buckingham:loud and clear michael Holly Raiche 2:that's fine Holly Raiche 2:Fine Jeff Neuman:i reloaded Jeff Neuman:So the approach to have PICs was a creation of the then CEO of ICANN to incorporate GAC advice. Should this same approach continue? Is there another way to do it? Jeff Neuman:yes.....there was no GNSO policy on this? Holly Raiche 2:At some point maybe we should also look a the report from the Consumer Trust, Choice WG - and public expectations - in this tract of Track 2 as well? Jeff Neuman:yes, once they finalize their report Gg Levine (NABP):Excellent question Phil Buckingham:very good points , alan Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I am only on AC now had to join another meeting via phone bridge Jon Nevett:.doctor? Jon Nevett:based on what data, Alan? Holly Raiche 2:Agreed wih Alan - the draft CCRT report does talk about consumer expectations Gg Levine (NABP):Well said, Alan Michael Flemming:Sorry for the background noise if I had made any Phil Buckingham:how do we determine a regulated industry ? they may vary country by country ? Jeff Neuman:I yield to Gg and Alan Michael Flemming:I will call on you afterwards Phil Buckingham:exactly Jon Alan Greenberg:I was not advocating ANYTHING. I was asked to present the ALAC position and that is what I did. Jon Nevett:no data in . DOCTOR Jon Nevett:I didn't say that at all Jon Nevett:how many in .doctor Jeff Neuman:jon can go ahead of me Jeff Neuman:i would like to hear Alan's view now Heather Forrest:Michael - put yourself in the Qto hold your place Michael Flemming:Thanks Heather Alan Greenberg:Why is it I have REPEATEDLY been told that we are not trying to make deciisons during this review of comments? Heather Forrest:chemist Jeff Neuman:We are not making decisions, but we are debating the issues Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thanks for the clarification Michael Jeff Neuman:So, Alan, can you put yourself back in the queue? Holly Raiche 2:Agree with Jeff - that is the issue that was raised by the CCRT report - the issue ishow to deal with consumer expectations and whether ICANN rules take those into account - just an aspect of public interest Alan Greenberg:I am mystified why in other WT meetings, I was told that the methodology, I think developed by Avri, that we were reviewing comments and NOT trying to resolve conflicts or come to closure. Jeff Neuman:I would note that there is a difference between "a connection" and "expectation of safety" Alan Greenberg:I did not come to this meeting prepared to debate the issues. Holly Raiche 2:Agree with Jeff - just raising the issue of how we deal with expectation and connection Jon Nevett:Right Jeff ex-ante censorship vs. ex-post enforcement Holly Raiche 2:I think the idea of he categories was to identify the critical names such as doctor and pharmacy Jim Prendergast:you went there!! Michael Flemming:I did Jon Nevett:i agree with Alan! Holly Raiche 2:Could this be sen out Phil Buckingham: dont think so michael Holly Raiche 2:sorry - 'sent' Julie Hedlund:We will send it with the notes and also post to the wiki. Jeff Neuman:next time Holly Raiche 2:Could we have time to look at it first Jeff Neuman:lets make sure it is out Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yep Heather Forrest:Goodbye all, safe travels to AD Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye ðŸ‘‹ for now then... Phil Buckingham:thanks michael

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 19 October 2017
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The referenced slides are attached along with the Response from ICANN Compliance on PIC complaints (for the next meeting). Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 19 October 2017 Notes: 1. SOI Updates: None. 2. Plenary Update: -- Two sessions in Abu Dhabi. First is on Saturday afternoon with Work Track Updates. Second session will be for Work Track 5, Geographic Names at the Top Level. -- Work Track 5: Have the leaders. Had a call with them earlier this week and another one tomorrow. We hope to get the Terms of Reference and Call for Volunteers out tomorrow or early next week. -- Seeking a volunteer as a co-chair for Work Track 2 following Phil Buckingham's resignation. 3. CC2 Comments - Global Public Interest (PICs): Discussion Recap: Slide 3: Introduction -- Goal: To move towards deliberations and proposals for steps forward for the initial report. -- 28 October 2017 F2F meeting at ICANN60 on Global Public Interest Slide 4: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? -- Last discussion was right before ICANN59. -- Action items: reach out to ICANN Compliance. -- Public Interest Commitments were tied into the final Registry Agreement in the form of Specification 11 as Mandatory PICs and Volunteer PICs. -- Mandatory PICs won't be the focus of this meeting. Slides 5 and 6: Specification 11: Mandatory PICs Slide 7: Specification 11: Voluntary PICs Discussion: -- The language on slides 5 and 6 are what is in Specification 11. Aside from the voluntary PICs, this is the crux of specification 11. We still need to talk about the PICDRP, which is in Work Track 3 -- Accountability Mechanism. >From the chat: Heather Forrest: @Michael- global public interest is a topic that we could talk for years about (and indeed have done so). What is the desired outcome/output/result of our discussion today? (Just asking so we have a clear direction in our discussion today) Alan Greenberg: Public interest was also implicated by the priority for community applications. Jeff Neuman: As Michael is saying, we will cover the CC2 comments, and then ultimately get to the question of PICs, and whether this is the appropriate vehicle to address public policy concerns. Heather Forrest: OK thank you Michael and Jeff for clarifying CC2 Questions: Slides 8-14: 2.9.1 Question and Comments Question: The Final Issue Report suggested that in considering the public interest the WG think about concerns raised in GAC Advice on safeguards, the integration of Public Interest Commitments (PICs), and other questions around contractual commitments. Have PICs served their intended purpose? If not, what other mechanisms should be employed to serve the public interest? -- GAC pointed to previous advice on this topic as well as comments on teh CCT-RT Draft Report. -- VTLD Consortium and NABP recommended circumstances under which a registry should be required to operate as a verified TLD. -- ALAC reiterated concerns about PICs and stated that trust can be increased through restrictions on who can become a registrant and on how the new name is used. -- John Poole recommended additional mechanisms. -- RySG, BRG, and Afilias stated the PICs have served their purpose and recommended no other additional mechanisms. -- Jannik Skou stated that there should be no mandatory safeguards. Discussion: -- With respect to GAC advice, how do we determine what is category 1 or 2 in absence of the GAC putting them in that list? We need some way of determining what they are and the GAC was silent on that. -- With respect to the ALAC comment: It focuses on the issue as the GAC, although they originated category 1 and 2. The overall concept is if you are talking about a TLD that is a regulated industry or does imply health and well-being the user should have some level of confidence that they can trust it. When at least one of the uses is a significant use and does have well being issues we think you have to take the safe root perhaps at the expense of a complete open and free market. The CCT-RT draft report said there were implications related to consumer trust. One of the downsides of .pharmacy and .bank that are doing restrictions they may assume that other similar names are restricted. -- Also concerns about optional PICs that could be written and then retracted. -- ALAC/GAC is presenting .doctor as people holding them out as medical practitioners but they aren't so wanted to restrict it to medical degrees, not other types of doctoral degrees. Restricting the use of a dictionary word to one part of its usage. -- Groups did put in sunsets on voluntary PICs. Only a few registries did them. -- Data on the propensity for fraud on the Internet. In the case of .pharmacy NABP became the registry operator because of the vaste amount of fraud happening in the pharmacy space online. 97% operating illegally in the US. -- For a space that has validated names in its top level: concern about applications in the future that set up a similar space but without validation. -- If you read the draft report from the CCT-RT it talks about the user expectations between the TLD and the site. Note sure where to deal with it. -- Consumers have an expectation that the string is somehow related to the purpose of the TLD, but there is a difference between a connection and ensuring someone's safety. -- If we do keep a model like PICs and assuming PICs are made a time after public and government comments to address those comments, are we agreed that we can use the PIC process to change an application? If so, we should come to some conclusions that applications should change to address based on PICs. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: So the approach to have PICs was a creation of the then CEO of ICANN to incorporate GAC advice. Should this same approach continue? Is there another way to do it? Jeff Neuman: yes.....there was no GNSO policy on this? Holly Raiche 2: At some point maybe we should also look a the report from the Consumer Trust, Choice WG - and public expectations - in this tract of Track 2 as well? Jeff Neuman: yes, once they finalize their report Holly Raiche 2: Agreed wih Alan - the draft CCRT report does talk about consumer expectations Holly Raiche 2: Agree with Jeff - that is the issue that was raised by the CCRT report - the issue ishow to deal with consumer expectations and whether ICANN rules take those into account - just an aspect of public interest Jeff Neuman: I would note that there is a difference between "a connection" and "expectation of safety" Holly Raiche 2: Agree with Jeff - just raising the issue of how we deal with expectation and connection Jon Nevett: Right Jeff ex-ante censorship vs. ex-post enforcement Holly Raiche 2: I think the idea of he categories was to identify the critical names such as doctor and pharmacy 4. Next Meeting: Response from ICANN Compliance on PIC complaints (see attached document)

1 0