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

Agenda for WT2 Call at 20:30 UTC October 19th, 2017 for 90 Minutes
by Michael Flemming Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

Dear All, Please note the WT2 call agenda for this week's meeting at 20:30 UTC on October 19th. 1. Welcomee 2. SOI Updates 3. CC2 Comments - Global Public Interest (PICs) 4. AOB After further discussion with the leadership team, we have decided to resume our Closed Generics discussion until after ICANN60. I know that the schedule has not been communicated effectively as of late. We are working to provide a more accurate schedule for future meetings. In the meantime, I am planning the material for this Thursday's call and ICANN60. On October 28th, Saturday, we will hold a meeting from 12:15 - 15:00 (local time) where WT2 will have roughly 30 minutes or so to engage with community members for further input on policy matters. I think that this will be an excellent opportunity to discuss the PICs, so I hope to have this as a continuation of our discussion this Thursday by going over CC2 comments and then opening the floor for input at ICANN60. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to reach out to me. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 12 October 2017 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 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, 12 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p9gaifz63rj/ 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/jYJEB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 October 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues meeting on Thursday, 12 October 2017 15:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:hi all Michael Flemming 2:Wonderful Michael Flemming 2:Cheryl, glad you are here. Steve Chan:Unsynced Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:not as late as it is fof me Steve Chan:I reccommend using the arrows to page through rather than trying to scroll :) Steve Chan:If you would like to review the full text, you can see here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Emily Barabas:@michael -- the quoted text on slide 5 - section 6 is not from CC2. I believe the proposed text was put forward during one of the previous calls on this topic. Jim Prendergast 2:I believe the text on slide 11 is a vestige from a previous set of slides on another topic. They deal with closed gerics. Michael Flemming 2:Jim that could be true Michael Flemming 2:And it is Michael Flemming 2:I am sorry, I should've done a better due diligence check Jim Prendergast 2:no biggie Emily Barabas:checking. . . Steve Chan:I believe that's the entire comment for this section. Steve Chan:[Do you believe that this paragraph gives ICANN an absolute right to reject any application for any reason including a reason that contradicts the Applicant Guidebook, or any law or policy?] Yes. [If yes, should such an unrestricted right appear in any modifications to the Guidebook?] Yes. Emily Barabas:sorry, you are much faster than me today Emily Barabas:thanks steve Steve Chan:waking up for a 5 am Council call gives me an extra pep in my step apparently. Gg Levine (NABP):Agreed. Jon Nevett:Need an appeal process, but make it loser pays as a deterrent to frivilous complaints Michelle DeSmyter:yes Steve Chan:Note, the topic of possible appeal processes is part of WT3's slate of topics. For those interested in the topic, please be sure to participate in WT3's discussions. Jim Prendergast 2:for more background on my upcoming point - suggest reading this piece by Jeff Neuman - provides good background. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_… Susan Payne:apologies, I have to drop again Kristina Rosette:have to drop for another meeting Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:bye Michelle DeSmyter:yes Jon Nevett:I would add to the list of ICANN inappropriate post-application changes was the $5K per-registry TMCH set-up fee that is nowhere in the AGB Michael Flemming 2:That is a good idea, I think, Jon. (Co-Chair hat off) Michael Flemming 2:Adding it to our list of issues, I mean. Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:agree with the importance of predictability Jim Prendergast 2:are there examples of where applicants been accomodated? Jim Prendergast 2:exactly Greg Shatan:Well, that went pear-shaped. Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:22 Steve Chan:SLide 22 Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:half way in Affilias Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:you wern't away long Michael Flemming 2:We go to 30 Emily Barabas:correct Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:there isvalso an overlapping call Steve Chan:there is at least one competing WG call: IGO/INGO curative rights protection mechanisms Steve Chan:Yes, what Cheryl said Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:good point Jim Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:argh my audio seems delaydd now Jim Prendergast 2:hadnt heard that one before but Im gonna steal it! Steve Chan:2.5.4 - Do you believe that any changes are needed in the Terms & Conditions in Module 6 of the Applicant Guidebook? If so, what are those changes and what is the basis or rationale for needing to do so? Jon Nevett:I need to hop -- thanks all -- Jon Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:your doing fine, we are making progress Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:thanks everyone... bye for now thanks Michael

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 12 October 2017
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 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. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 12 October 2017 1. SOI Updates: -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr reports that the GNSO Council confirmed her as Co-Chair with Avri and Jeff. -- Re-confirmed as the Director of Internet Society chapter. 2. CC2 Comments on Terms and Conditions: See the full text: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/terms Slide 3: -- Schedule for 12 and 19 October. -- Suggestions for topics for 28 October F2F meeting at ICANN60. Slide 4: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? -- Sections 3, 6, and 14 are of particular interest. -- See the summaries on Slide 4. Slide 5: Discussion Recap: Where are we now? Proposed Language from Previous Call: -- Section 3: Some respondents suggested clarifying language. -- Section 6: Suggestion to bring in an appeals mechanism. -- Section 14: Emphasized the importance of predictability and having a framework for change management. Slide 6: CC2 Question 2.5.1 Slide 7-10: Question 2.5.1 Comments -- RySG, BRG, Afilias, and INTA suggested adjusting language to clarify that ICANN cannot unilaterally reject an application without an appropriate reason. -- Jannik Skou stated that ICANN should not have the right to stop processing an application unless the application is disqualified according to rules in the AGB. -- NORID, ALAC, and John Poole stated that ICANN should have this right. Discussion: -- There seems to be a factual predicate in the highlighted language that seems to suggest that ICANN offers this option at their discretion. This is something that is decide by policy from the community, not by ICANN. ICANN's core values of transparency would dictate that any reasons for a choice would be spelled out. -- Can see where there could be occasions for ICANN to reject an application for reasons not outlined in the AGB, but is there a process to appeal that decision? [Covered in 2.5.2 question and responses] Slide 12-16: Question 2.5.2 -- INTA, NORID, RySG, BRG, and Afilias supported establishing an appeals process prior to opening subsequent procedures. -- ALAC suggested that if appeals are allowed they should only be allowed when decision is based on an error of fact that ICANN has available at the time. -- Nominet recommended adopting a "better mechanism" to require ICANN to review operational decisions related to applications. -- John Poole stated that the interests of the global Internet community should receive priority over the interests of registry operators. Discussion: -- Seems to be general agreement for an appeals mechanism. >From the Chat: Gg Levine (NABP): Agreed. Jon Nevett: Need an appeal process, but make it loser pays as a deterrent to frivilous complaints Steve Chan: Note, the topic of possible appeal processes is part of WT3's slate of topics. For those interested in the topic, please be sure to participate in WT3's discussions. Slides 17-24: 2.5.3 -- INTA, NORID, Nominet, and Valideus emphasized this importance of ensuring predictability, planning in advance, and learning from the 2012 round. -- BC and Jim Prendergast stated that ICANN's ability to change the AGB should be limited. -- INTA, NORID, BRG, RySG, Afilias, Valideus, and Jim Prendergast suggested specific conditions and rules for changes in the AGB. -- ALAC stated the AGB should not be changed after the application procedure has been initiated. Discussion: -- This issue of ICANN insisting on language that ICANN could unilaterally amend the contract really struck a nerve with registries. We are still dealing with some issues we need to iron out, but these should be nailed down before application acceptance. -- The latter part of Section 14 says something to the effect that ICANN would provide accommodation if there was harm. -- Can we ask ICANN for examples of where the have accommodated applications? -- Some of these could be good test cases. -- Might be an error in the ALAC response that it agrees that after the application procedure has been initiated, Guidebook should not be changed. ALAC will get back to the WT on that. Seems anomalous. -- It is not as if we are going into this blind. We've had several years to learn from mistakes. We can avoid many of the discussions about changes being made after the AGB is finalized. Would hope that there are not major issues that would appear that we haven't seen the first round. -- Still need an escape hatch, but should do a much better job than before. >From the Chat: Jim Prendergast 2: for more background on my upcoming point - suggest reading this piece by Jeff Neuman - provides good background. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130316_icann_must_drop_request_for_unilater… Jon Nevett: I would add to the list of ICANN inappropriate post-application changes was the $5K per-registry TMCH set-up fee that is nowhere in the AGB Michael Flemming 2: That is a good idea, I think, Jon. (Co-Chair hat off) Michael Flemming 2: Adding it to our list of issues, I mean. Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: agree with the importance of predictability Jim Prendergast 2: are there examples of where applicants been accomodated? Jim Prendergast 2: exactly Slides 25-27: Question 2.5.4: Do you believe that any changes are needed in the Terms & Conditions in Module 6 of the Applicant Guidebook? If so, what are those changes and what is the basis or rationale for needing to do so? -- RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested specific changes. -- Jannik Skou stated that ICANN should be allowed to make changes to the Terms and Conditions, but should seek to minimize the need for changes. Discussion: -- Doesn't seem like anyone is saying that no changes are allowed, but there should be an opportunity for applicants to modify or withdraw their applicants. Slide 28: General Comments: -- GAC pointed to its comments in response to questions in section 1.3.

1 0

Agenda for call on Thursday 15 UTC 12 October 2017
by Michael Flemming Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

Dear All, Please note that our call on Thursday is a bit of a change in schedule. We will be covering Terms and Conditions and move on with Closed Generics on our call next week or at a later date. We need to have a bit more development before we can move forward with that. 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. CC2 Comments on Terms and Conditions 4. AOB Apologies for the sudden change. Kind regards, Michael Flemming -- Sent from my mobile.

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 5 October 2017 20:30 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 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, 5 October 2017 at 20:30 UTC. Adobe Connect recording : https://participate.icann.org/p2lkwg6mdra/<https://participate.icann.org/p2lkwg6mdra/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ba32205baa7d5c6f…> 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/i4JEB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 5 October 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 05 October 2017 at 20:30 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr:hi all Julie Bisland:reminder: please mute Jeff Neuman:michael - are you ready? Cheryl Langdon-Orr:morning Michael ðŸ˜€ Cheryl Langdon-Orr:slide control? or is it just me Jeff Neuman:there are no slides :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ok.... Kiran Malancharuvil:I don’t have audio. I have a new SOI. Kiran Malancharuvil:thanks michael Steve Chan:Link to the file being shared: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Alexander Schubert:What is the "harm" to the general public by blocking free access to a beach? Well: they don't have access! Same with generic term based gTLDs. Do you REALLY expect a beach-goer would start ligitation? No. They are simply sad and go to another beach. Does ICANN want to produce sad prospective registrants? Julie Bisland:For attendance purposes, please let me know who is 2062661000 Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Hi Julie, I suspect that's me. Julie Bisland:Thank you, Kristina :) Greg Shatan:Beachgoers have in fact started multiple litigations with that fact pattern. Greg Shatan:There are always sad prospective registrants. It's inherent in the concept of unique strings. Annebeth Lange:If we compare this to the TLD-world, there would'nt be any more beaches to go to. That is a huge difference. Greg Shatan:There are no more prospective TLDs? Well then we can just shut this WG down now. And go to the beach. Alexander Schubert:+1 Annabeth Alexander Schubert:And yes: a closed beach potentially allows for "new business models" - but chances are it's benefitial only for a few; and often the beach might simply be shut down entirely and nobody can enjoy it. Annebeth Lange:What I mean is that the difference with TLDs is that it is only one registry that can have it, for example compared to trademarks, where several companies can have the same name in different areas. Alexander Schubert:+1 Annabeth Steve Chan:Beijing GAC Advice: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Annebeth Lange:+1 Greg, this is not only a question of the law, but should also be about policy avri doria:can lack of material harm be equated to a lack of detriment to the public interest? Holly Raiche:@ Avri +1 Jim Prendergast:are the leadership team calls where this topic was discussed recorded and/or transcribed? And available? Greg Shatan:They did refer to the concept of "monopoly" Greg Shatan:The panel was correct to reject that, as a matter of law. That's what I meant to say. avri doria:Jim, I think they are recorded, but have not been made avaialble outside the set of co-chairs. Annebeth Lange:But will it not be a kind of monopoly, when one actor is the only one that can use this generic term? Annebeth Lange:That is the reason why in the trademark world they do not allow generic terms as trademark, as least not in Norway Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - Most of the comments here are on the 4th element avri doria:Has the GAC standarded of supporting a public interest been accepted by the PDP? Greg Shatan:Not a "monopoly" as legally defined. And "generic terms" are allowed to be trademarks (even in Norway), as long as they are not generic for the goods and services of the applicant. I assume you were referring to "generic for the applicant's goods/services" meaning of "generic".... Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - That is my point. If you can show material detriment, then the TLD will not be allowed. But is it right to establish a rule preventing all forms of closed generics even though they cannot establish any likelihood of material harm avri doria:and, if so, which definition of public interest has the PDP accepted? Jeff Neuman:Does the right to "use" a generic word include the right to "register" a second level domain Jeff Neuman:I see those as different aspects Jeff Neuman:If a .book were introduced for example that was run by a company that owned all of the registrations but they allowed everyone in the world to "use" the content provided through the space, is that harmful? Annebeth Lange:@ Greg. Actually, in Norway we would never allow one company to register "book" as their trademark, even if the company sells books. The reason being that that gives one comopany an unfair advantage. Jeff Neuman:@Annabeth - they actually allow those in the Benelux countries as well Annebeth Lange:Interesting, Jeff. Greg Shatan:Annabeth, what if they only sell apples? Jim Prendergast: GAC advice process question - do we know if GAC advice from 2012 will still stand for this round or will the GAC have to issue new GAC advice on this and the multitude of other issues they issued advice on? avri doria:a generic word like "ibm" Annebeth Lange:Well, several companies can sell only apples, and in Norway it is a demand that you create a name that is unique to get it registered as a trademark. Jeff Neuman:@Jim - my assumption is that unless they specifically say that it only applies to that round, it continues to stand Greg Shatan:I was trying to make the point that a bookseller may not be able to register books, but an airline has... Jim Prendergast:thx avri doria:but a domain name is not a trademark. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Greg makes a good point. The analogy to trademark seems misplaced to me because the relevant goods and services (for which some are describing a TLD as "generic") are registry operator services or domain registry services (however you want to call them). Annebeth Lange:I agree, Avri, and that is even worse. Only one can have it and rule everyone out. Annebeth Lange:So if the company decides who are going to have a name on the second level, they can decide for example which applesellers that can register under .apple avri doria:or under .applesellers avri doria:? Annebeth Lange:Greg + 1 avri doria:would .applesellers be a generic? Jeff Neuman:I have no idea what those words mean :) Annebeth Lange:Apple is a difficult example since it has been allowed as trademark in US. But the Norwegian word would not have been allowed. Greg Shatan:"second level domains for third parties" Michael Flemming:Thanks, Greg. Annebeth Lange:Greg, let us have a discussion on this next time we meet. We have had several court cases in Norway about this. It is really difficult to get a generic word registered as a trademark. Alexander Schubert:I am not sure what exactly is being discussed here. here what will happen: Industry leaders will shut down "their" industry defining keywords! Or they will only allow registrants that promote THEIR brand! Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):With apologies, it seems I'm going to have to be on mute for a while. The dogs on my hallway are having a bark-a-thon. Greg Shatan:It's hard to foster innovation when you are looking backwards, Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):There's already some ICANN precedent for deferring competition issues to governmental authorities (the RSEP for example). Greg Shatan:How about the "I don't like it" objection? Greg Shatan:Very well put, Paul. Agree completely. Alexander Schubert:If ICANN promotes 2nd level registrations - then we need to MAKE THEM AVAILABLE! And not allow mlti billion corps to shut down generic terms! Kurt Pritz 2:To build on Greg’s comment: What would go for a higher price at auction: book.com or .book? What is more of a “monopoly,” .books or book.com.? My point is this: these are all just web addresses. If Barnes and Noble makes great use of book.com, the internet-using public will flock to it. If Amazon makes fantastic use of second-level names in .book, the internet using public will flock to it. There are millions of alternative web addresses available at the top and second level. I think we should not (and I think Greg was saying, we cannot) agonize over future uses of web addresses. As others have intimated, creating rules for restricting closed generics is problematic. The Guidebook allowed closed generics because it treated TLDs as alternative form of web addresses and because trying to restrict them is problematic. As Paul just said, we should not be pre-supposing which business model is preferred. Jeff Neuman:@Kathy, but many said just the opposite Greg Shatan:Registrars and registries can "promote" the market sale of second level domains. ICANN should not. Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - if you had asked most of the people participating in the policy process before the applications were submitted, whether closed generics would be allowed, I predict that 9 out of 10 would have said, yes Greg Shatan:Kathy, can you point us to a place where a closed generic applicant said they wanted to "lock out" their competitors (or words to that effect)? Alexander Schubert:Kurt: OBJECTION! boo.com owned by one company is the NORM - the Internet user KNOWS THAT! If all .book domains are given ONLY to authors that work with a certain publisher: The public won't know that not every author had access to these domains! Greg Shatan:Or is that only the "sour grapes" crowd. Alexander Schubert:*book.com Jeff Neuman:Attorneys making arguments against the practice saying that they never expected it is a little disingenuous Kathy Kleiman:@Jeff - not true. Please look at the list of companies that I shared, and that includes Yahoo! and J.Scott Evans... and materials submitted by Mark Partridge's firm Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - again, I love some of the people you are talking about, but they were responding as competitors of the applications avri doria:i certainly assumed it was possible and ok at that time. Michael Flemming:Co-Chair hat off: That what was I wanted to say. None of the applications included terms like monopoly within their application. Kathy Kleiman:Why can't you do that under .AWS or similar gTLDs, Kristine? Karen Day:+1 Kristina Greg Shatan:+1 Kristina avri doria:Kathy, why should they have to use a meaningless string? Greg Shatan:@Kathy, why restrict innovation? .AWS would be one kind of innovation. That doesn't exclude innovation based on words. Alexander Schubert:Maybe this discussion has to go OUTSIDE of this tiny circle of ICANN inisders who are clearly interest conflicted. Whenever I tell the "layman" out there that we are about to shut down ENTIRE VERTICALS by granting access to ONE player only - they look at me in gross disbelieve! Gg Levine (NABP):Would banning closed generics put the interests or potential registrants above those of gTLD applicants/potential registry operators? Alexander Schubert:Why don't we put this out to discussion outside of the inner ICANN circles? Greg Shatan:"I'm shocked, shocked that there are closed generics in this establishment." Alexander Schubert:E.G. a nice article in The Atlantic? Greg Shatan:@Alexander, because you would have to explain what a TLD is first. And they might ask, why should I care? Alexander Schubert:Maybe we lost contact with reality - and need some input from normal people from outside ICANN. avri doria:Really, I was cited? did not know. i was pretty sure that it was the case at the time. Alexander Schubert:Every single person I have told about "closed generics" commanded me to "stop that". Alexander Schubert:And the people out there aren't all stupid. Alan Greenberg:+1 Jeff Kurt Pritz 2:Hi Alexander. How are you? It is the norm today. We aare stil at the early stages of the DNS life. In a sense, isn't it HORRIBLE that stodgy Barnes and Noble monopolized this key internet space? Nonetheless, the marketplace worked around it.I think they are all web addressesthat Internet users can access. I find it really hard to put anyone in the governamce role to restrict usage. Heather Forrest:A blanket rule (to the extent based on the undefined concept 'public policy') is ineffective in any event, as proven by the disputes that came out of 2012 applications Alexander Schubert:To the GAC participants: Is GAC aware that we are about to allow generic term based new gTLDs being "shut down"? Jeff Neuman:I concede that some people were shocked.......I also know there were others that expected and in fact advocated it Greg Shatan:I thought that Co-Chairs participated in subgroups in their individual capacities, Kathy. Greg Shatan:Or is that only in the RPM group? avri doria:Greg, that is correct, except for when they specifically don their co-chair hats. Alexander Schubert:Well: We do all this FOR THE PUPLIC; so let's loop in the public. Because we are all conflicted in some way or other. Jeff Neuman:@Alexander - Whatever we come out with, we will of course ask the public in the form of public comments Jeff Neuman:We are just trying to come up with something to put out for public comment Annebeth Lange:But isn't that the difference between "true" generics and brands? Even if all words except of ccTLDs are considered gTLDs, brands in my mind are not generics Kathy Kleiman:Could you summarize it in one sentence again, Michael? Heather Forrest:@Michael - how can we base an applicant's fate on the necessity of proving something that they don't know what it means (ie, public policy)? This renders the entire application process so uncertain as to be worthless Jeff Neuman:It was interesting because ICANN asked all of the closed generics how they would "use the TLD" in the public interest, but did absolutely nothing with that information Jeff Neuman:Instead it played the waiting gale Jeff Neuman:game Jeff Neuman:Untilmany withdrew Jeff Neuman:or caved in Kathy Kleiman:@Greg, isn't there infinite room for innovation across the gTLD - why the push for doing it in Closed Generics? Alexander Schubert:Greg: I totally agree that IF the general public had somehow "fair an equal" access to 2nd level domains: everyone is fine. New business models: GREAT! But the reality will be that generic keyword terms will be shut down - or used in a way that ONLY promotes the brand that owns it! Greg Shatan:Your personal prediction of the future is not "reality". Alexander Schubert:".bank" is NOT closed - it is "restricted" Alexander Schubert:Any bank can have a .bank! Michael Flemming:Alexander, she is referring to .bank.au within that regard Alexander Schubert:SORRY! Greg Shatan:And why. is it bad thing if a TLD promotes only the company that owns it? Greg Shatan:That would seem to cover a lot of good business models. Alexander Schubert:Greg: Thank you for that comment :D Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):As I understand what Holly is describing, the gTLD analogue would be "open restricted" (I think). Holly Raiche:Thanks Kristina- correct Annebeth Lange:Alan, +1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr:middle ground is a good aim. IMO Gg Levine (NABP):Not hearing anything. Is audio working? Michael Flemming:Yes Michael Flemming:Gg, please try restarting Alexander Schubert:New business models are good - we just need to make sure to ensure access in my opinion. Denying access is alrady harm. Like with the beach: no access = harm. Greg Shatan:There are plenty of private beaches. Greg Shatan:Third party access to register second level domains in top level domains is not a divine right. Greg Shatan:Jeff, you say that with all the power of your personal capacity, right? Annebeth Lange:Greg, - but only one .beach Jeff Neuman:@Greg, that was actually my alter ego talking Greg Shatan:But also .beaches, .shore, .shores, .waterfront, .waterfronts, .coast, .coasts, etc., etc. Annebeth Lange::-) Heather Forrest:Sorry, all - I have to drop now. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:we have Paul on audio so we can capture Gg Levine (NABP):Then why not have all applicants show public interest? Annebeth Lange:I have to go - very interesting discussion tonight. And one that really shows that there is very diversified views here. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye ðŸ‘‹ Annabeth Annebeth Lange:Goodnight :-) Jon Nevett:I'm having a hard time understanding the rights to register a domain name concern -- isn't the harm the same w/r/t rights to register 2nd level names if Apple operates .apple as a brand TLD or apple operates .computer? Do folks think we should prohibit both? Kathy Kleiman:I think we should put the two difffernt models forward Jeff Neuman:@Jon - we established that last week that Brands being closed is ok Jeff Neuman:if they are using their brands Jon Nevett:so how is the harm different? Greg Shatan:"Prior restraint" is running through my head..... Julie Bisland:next call, Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Greg Shatan:BTW, prior restraint is not a good thing. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to drop to get to another building for a 3 PM meeting. Greg Shatan:More than two models, I expect. Jeff Neuman:Remember there is always competition law Kathy Kleiman:Bye All avri doria:thanks all, good conversation Greg Shatan:Bye all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thanks everyone bye ðŸ‘‹

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 05 October 2017
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 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 document is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kua4x0sLOXy5ZStMkzqG3oYnbkzbxCNMMIG…. Because of the large volume of comments in the chat room staff did not endeavor to capture excerpts. Please reference to the chat room transcript distributed by the GNSO Secretariat and on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-09-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 05 October 2017 1. SOIs: Kiran Malancharuvil: I have a new SOI. 2. Closed Generic Discussions: -- Last week we discussed If we allowed closed generics how would we allow objections to be filed against them. -- Difficult to find the standing or where those had a good basis to follow through with. What the leadership did was look at the case the Kathy Kleinman brought up as well as others. -- Looked at whether the objection to the closed generic had standing. If we can look at community objectioins and see the common themes maybe we can find a way to allow for objections. See Matrix: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kua4x0sLOXy5ZStMkzqG3oYnbkzbxCNMMIG… -- If you go down the list all except for one were community based objections. -- We can start to prepare a test, that could be similar to what was used in the last round. .BOOK Case Against Amazon: -- Ignore the standing requirement. Even if they found no standing they looked at the merits of the claim. -- Objector said that if you gave .book to Amazon they will engage in monopolistic practices. Panel says you can't judge an application for a closed generic for monopolistic actions until you have some activity. Can't assume that the closed generics in general will necessarily restrain trade or cause material detriment. Whether they are good or not is a matter of policy, not for the panel. -- Contrast with .mobile decision: In a case such as this where a party has shown it is a community and there is substantial opposition in that community to a particular party having a closed registry on that gTLD, there is a strong likelihood that there is a material detriment. Discussion: -- What will that get us if the GAC just rejects it again? How would we deal with that? -- The GAC has provided its advice. If you look at it the advice basically said -- it didn't outright ban closed generic. It said there should be a finding that the TLD is in the public interest. This is looking at the other side of the coin. Unless there is a likelihood of material detriment it can't be said that it is not in the public interest. Beijing GAC Advice: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-e… -- On .books: Sounds like the decision was exactly right, but our policies don't have to mirror the law. Given the lack of a clear direction in the policies it is not surprising that the panel would turn to the law. If you are talking about monopolistic behaviour then you are using legal terms. We need a clear statement of policy against which a prospective TLD can be measured. Absent that we will get the GAC's idea of what the policy should be and objectors saying what they think the law or policy should be, and panels that will go back to the law. -- Applications that are for the public interest -- the GAC has stated that dictionary terms with proposed exclusive access where it can be determined that there is harm to the public interest. If we can develop clear policy an applicant for a dictionary if the applicant can show it could help the public interest in some way that could help. -- The panel used the AGB for the test. On monopoly they were quoting the objector. That wasn't introduced by the panel. Everyone should read the limited public interest objector -- #8 on the matrix -- .broker. Using the criteria it found that it was not contrary to generally accepted norms -- couldn't be sustained by international law. -- We should look to the law for guidance anyway for policy as we do for other types of names and for the legal rights objections. These decisions tackle the pros and cons we are talking about. -- The community objection wasn't designed for closed generics. Monopolistic isn't a standard. But CTIA did show a material detriment before the fact. Go to the definition of generic word. -- Don't think we are looking at the outcomes from the objections as the path forward. We aren't looking at the community objection as the path forward, we are looking at the evidence presented. -- Having to prove a community up front takes away from the entrepreneurs and innovators. -- Are we looking at domain names and trademarks as the same thing? -- There are ways to take trademark law and apply it to domains when you aren't talking about a trademark. There is the question of whether we are making a policy preference for the use of top-level domains to sell second-level domains to the public. Or do we not show a preference for the second-level domain sales of top-level domains. It seems like there is a definite leaning that we want top-level domains to be used to give different people the right to second-level domains. If there is no principle how do you decide what is a closed generic? Are we only talking about nouns? How about adverbs? I think we need to figure out what we are trying to accomplish or prefer. I think we do need to avoid using the term monopoly. -- People are saying since only one party can use the space -- is it "use" or "register"? In the .music decision from AAIM against Amazon they state it is not possible to conclude that this is a case of likely or concrete damage. Different opinions on the same type of issue. Try to avoid etting a blanket rule without allowing any kind of showing something is in the public interest. -- We've looked at public interest objection, it doesn't quite fit; we've looked at community objections and it doesn't quite fit; we've looked at trademark law it doesn't quite fit. ICANN needs to decide if it won't choose the business model it likes or didn't consistently, if not then it needs to be clear what business model it likes and how it is applied. -- Interesting point: There is nothing in policy that deters the innovative business models or an exclusive operation of a registry. ICANN's core value is the registration of second-level domain names. That doesn't say how the registry has to operate. -- There are considerable misunderstandings of what was in the AGB. Why people said they wanted closed generics was to lock out competition. -- We are discussing having some form of visibility into the business plans within the boundaries being for the public interest. -- Don't think we were favoring one business model over another. We have to consider the public interest. -- We need to be careful about guessing the motivation of applicants. Closed generics provided the opportunity for the registry to innovate with new services. -- The trademark spec 13 discussion is considered outside of this discussion. -- Most people who were preparing applications, and working on the AGB, everyone thought of the business model. One of the decisions cites Avri while she was chairing the committee saying that this was a model that was expected. -- What matters is do we keep the general rule opposing all closed generics, or do we look at the public interest and see if there is a detriment. We should avoid a blanket policy. -- Do want to ask the same question again: Could we as a WG consider that we do agree with the concept of innovative TLDs, and not all should be for the registration by third parties. We need to consider all gTLD types as well. If we were to propose this within the public interest -- showing that the applicant can say how they plan to use this in an exclusive way in the public interest, could we see that as a path forward. -- First, we should not favor as a policy matter models that involve the sale of second-level domains to third parties. As to what is in the public interest I would not say that that model is more favorable to the public interest than other forms of innovation. If we foster the current model we won't end up with innovation. -- We (Australia) considered having .bank as closed and they only people who could use it were registered with our regulator. That was an example of the public interest in giving certainty that yes it was a generic but you could be sure that it was registered and regulated. -- Our challenge is to find the way in between. Evaluating whether something is in the public interest is difficult, but don't see how we can get around that. -- We should take the next step and figure out what the criteria would be for a closed generic that adds some benefit. Brainstorm some criteria that might indicate the level of innovation. -- ICANN operates on an "ask permission" model. prefer that they should be allowed unless they are showing harm. Should have criteria that we don't want -- to protect from. -- A permissionless Internet used to be what we said we believed in. Good to deveope criteria in the negative. -- We are arguing up front, not after the fact -- the threshold should be made up front that you will be operating in the public interest. -- The public interest shouldn't only be community interest. Don't think we should have a not-for-profit idea of what a closed generic might be. -- Not suggesting that we adopt the community-based criteria. -- If we went with the permissionless model could see an analogy with vertical integration. You can vertically integrate but you had to live by a code of conduct to make sure you are not taking too much advantage. Could set up criteria that you have to meet for a closed generic.

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Call at 20:30 UTC 5 October 2017
by Michael Flemming Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Dear All, Please note that the agenda for this week's call is as below. 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. Closed Generic Discussion 4. AOB Please note that this week will be a continuation of our discussion from last week on Closed Generics. In addition to the NGPC decision, there were several objections filed based against closed generics from the 2012 round. One of these, .mobile, was mentioned on the last couple of calls. Turns out there was more than one decision on this issue, but with opposite results. The assignment is to see if we can extract common themes in the findings to create a path forward that may allow certain closed generics to proceed while addressing the potential harms. I look forward to discussing with everyone. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

4 7

For SubPro Sub team 2: Continuing discussion on Closed Generics
by Kathy Kleiman Oct. 3, 2017

Oct. 3, 2017

*** This is intended for SubPro Subteam 2. If it has not reached the right list, could you kindly send me the email address. *** Dear Subteam 2, I’ve been reading the discussion of the last meeting, and want to share some thoughts before the call this week. I hope this helps to inform and share information in this important discussion. 1. “Actual harm” is a purposely impossible standard. Very little requires proof of “actual harm” in the real world – it’s proof of “likelihood of harm” that is the basis of most standards, particularly in trademark law. For example, the test for trademark infringement is a “/likelihood of confusion/.” The test for “imminent danger” is where the danger exists which could “/reasonably be expended to cause death or serious physical harm.” /If I build a swimming pool in my backyard, I don’t have to wait until a child drowns to build the fence – the danger is foreseeable and avoidable – and I must act now. 2. When it comes to a “Likelihood of Harm,” we have tons of evidence of the likelihood of harms of Closed Generics, and a great deal of precedent. A. The protections against monopolization of generic words used in their generic sense date back almost three quarters of a century (1946) in US trademark law and can be recited by every trademark attorney. /"Generic word are the weakest types of 'marks' (and cannot even qualify as 'marks' in the legal sense) and are never registrable or enforceable against third parties. //*Because generic words are the common, everyday name for goods and services and everyone has the right to use such terms to refer to their goods and services, they are not protectable. *//Be aware that if you adopt a generic term to identify your goods or services, you will not be able to prevent others from using it to identify potentially competing products or services."/Basic Facts about Trademarks, USPTO, /https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BasicFacts.pdf [emphasis added]/ *B. *Thus, the US Trademark Office would never allow one milk producer, milk pasteurizer, or milk distributor to monopolize or trademark the word “milk” for its own purposes. Milk for the limited purpose of a line of young children’s clothing, sure, but never to allow Borden Milk Products to monopolize the word “milk” as opposed to Horizon Organic Milk*. * 2)The high standard of the “likelihood of material detriment” WAS met when CTIA – The Wireless Association ®, representing the Mobile Industry, brought it’s Objection against Amazon for monopolize the gTLD planning to own all .MOBILE domain names to solely support its mobile business, and not that of the industry as a whole. /CTIA - The Wireless Association (R) (USA) vs/ Amazon EU S.A.R.L. (Luxembourg), Decision 1-1316-6133/. CTIA did meet the very high and difficult standard of showing that the Closed Generic application of Amazon for .MOBILE and the Panelist found that Amazon’s ==> “/would create a likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted."/ 3)Hundreds of commenters from around the world – a larger and wider spectrum than in any ICANN comment proceeding before – responded to the Board’s call for clarification and understanding of the issues of Closed Generics by stating clearly and precisely the “likelihood of harm” they would suffer if Amazon owned the Internet space of “.BOOK” or Google owned all the domain names of .SEARCH. In the comment period, some of the largest and best known companies in the world explained why Closed Generics were a “restriction of competition to the detriment of consumers.” One was the attorney Martin Broden, an attorney for Inter IKEA Systems B.V. presenting IKEA’s concerns with ICANN: “Preventing others from registering under descriptive gTLDs means restriction of competition to the detriment of consumers. The current proposal is contrary to ICANN’s intention with the launch of new gTLDs, namely to broad the domain name space and to spur competition for the benefit of all.” https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/msg00049.html *Others included Microsoft, the McCarthy Institute for Intellectual Property and Technology Law, Spanish Booksellers Federation, Asia Cloud Computing Association, Yves Rocher, Prudential Insurance Company, even the US Postal Service. The eloquent and informative Microsoft letter is attached. * 4) As was noted during the Subteam discussions, dozens of GAC Early Warnings were filed specifically on Closed Generics. The Governments shared with us the basic principles of competition and trademark outlined above. _Overall:_ We made a great compromise in the original round – we allowed .BRANDS to be Closed – defined as the Registry being the sole Registrant and owning all of the domain names. Thus we created the space for experimentation of the brand, and .AWS, among others, is well underway with their models – all of which tie their New gTLD to their products and services. We clarified the policy of the First Round that Generic gTLDs would be open – and that the Registry would sell domain names and service all within its industry or product/service group. You’ll see attorneys and companies long in the ICANN space tell us that this clarification by the ICANN Board was what they thought the rule was all along. Not new policy, but clarified one. They view the ICANN Board's work barring Closed Genrics as clarifying and restating the policy as originally intended – if a New gTLD Registry is not a .BRAND, then the Registry /cannot own all of the second level domains. /No single business can control all of the domain names of its industry. I hope this bit of history and analysis has been helpful to the discussion. I think the world would be happy to revisit these issues, if needed, but that would delay the next round of New gTLDs which none of us want to do. Best, Kathy

4 3

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call
by Julie Bisland Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 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, 28 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p8guf24g7vj/<https://participate.icann.org/p8guf24g7vj/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=96c8662b94871fcc…> 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/_xkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Liz Brodzinski:I hear you both! Michele Neylon:audio is loud and clear Karen Day:hello & happy Thursday/Friday everyone Julie Bisland:yes Michele Neylon:.office + .play are both trademarks though Alexander Schubert:Almost every premium keyword is trademarked in MULTIPLE TM registries! Jeff Neuman:.office itself is not a trademark that qualifies under Spec 13 Mike Rodenbaugh:I suspect Microsoft would disagree with that Jeff Neuman:The point is that we need to all understand and agree that the current rules are that if you have a valid trademark registration for a string that COULD have a generic connotation, but the trademark registration is for a use that is NOT for the use of the mark in connection with the potential generic connotation, that IS allowed as a closed gTLD Jeff Neuman:So the string apple, food, or any other term can be used as a closed TLD provided that the use of the TLD is consistent with the goods/services for which the string is trademarked Mike Rodenbaugh:There is NO definition whatsoever of "public interest" in ICANNland. It is whatever anyone wants to say it is on any given day and any given issue. Michele Neylon:Mike - yeah - it's a wonderfully fluffy term :) Mike Rodenbaugh:It's a ridiculously vague term Karen Day:IF you had a trademark REGISTRATION PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FILIING THE TLD APPLICATION ONLY. Mike Rodenbaugh:The so-called "rule against closed generics" is not one devised by the community. In fact, we came up with the opposite rule (that they should be allowed) in the run-up to 2012. Michael Flemming:Karen is correct. Michael Flemming:So pre-2012 Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sorry to be laye Cheryl Langdon-Orr:late Jim Prendergast:Is there standing GAC advice against closed generics? and where does overcoming that come into this. Mike Rodenbaugh:yes, so that GAC advice somehow became the new "rule" Michele Neylon:+1 Greg Alexander Schubert:The TM should be at least X years old (e.g. 5 years), and USED in at least X nations (not just registered, e.g. 25 nations). A simple 1 year old TM regisration is not good enough. Michele Neylon:the term is generic the usage in the case of apple isn't Michele Neylon:Apple using .apple doesn't bother me Kurt Pritz:The RPM Working Group uses the term "dictionary word" rather than "generic" Michele Neylon:IBM (for example) closing off .cloud just for their own use would bother me Trang Nguyen:@Jim, GAC category 2 advice says: "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal." Jim Prendergast:thx trang Mike Rodenbaugh:the Board then acted on this post 2012 applications Karen Day:@Alexander - and how will that foster innovation? Alexander Schubert:If a generic term is snacked up by a brand and "closed" - then it is inaccessable to the public. And that should not be! Michele Neylon:New TLDs to date haven't fostered much innovation unless you consider price gouging to be innovative Mike Rodenbaugh:@Alexander -- doesn't the same logic apply at the 2d level? Michele Neylon:the last innovative TLD I've seen was .tel and that was a roaring success Alexander Schubert:Industry giants will snoop up their industry related killer keywords - and shut them down. At about US $300k that is a STEAL! Michele Neylon:Alexander - exactly Mike Rodenbaugh:same thing has happened at 2d level Michele Neylon:and that bothers me Karen Day:@Michele that depends on your definition of success. For a brand, success has nothing to do with sales. Alexander Schubert:+1 Susan Payne:@Alexander I don't think thi si sthe place to unpick fundementals of TM law Susan Payne:companies can register TMs, they have to persuade the relevant TM office that it is valid and aceptable registration.That's it Jim Prendergast:http://domainincite.com/22114-loreal-is-using-closed-generic-ma… Susan Payne:and no-one is stopping you applying first for the purpose of running the TLD in a generic rather than a non-branded manner. There have been plenty of examples of that in round 1. Coach for example Jeff Neuman:Validated TLDs are not closed because they offer third party registrations Alexander Schubert:It is lawful to use a generic keyword for a TM - but not really advisable. Do it on your own risk. Don't tell the world that now that you use a generic term as a TM you need also to shut down the matching TLD. Doesn't fly with the general public, sorry. In TM law there are goods and service classes; in the DNS not! Therefore in the DNS generic keyword terms need to be accessable to the public! Jeff Neuman:That is very different than what we are talking about Mike Rodenbaugh:@Alexander the same argument can be made as to ..com? Greg Shatan:Maybe we need to clearly define "closed", if there's any doubt.... Alexander Schubert:Mike: Please specify! Mike Rodenbaugh:to be clear, I think it's a silly argument. why is DOTmakeup any worse to public interest than makeupDOTcom? Michele Neylon:Mike - I disagree - an entire TLD is the online equivalent of a country Mike Rodenbaugh:ok, then makeup.DE Michele Neylon:while a single domain is the equivalent of a bit of real estate Alexander Schubert:ICANN's mandate are TLDs - not the 2nd level namespace. Karen Day:Are we talking about GeneriPICs? Alexander Schubert:We are discussing the DNS evolution, on TOP-LEVEL! Michael Flemming:I Karen, I am not going to say no to that, but neither yes. Greg Shatan:@Alexander, I think Mike is saying we don't need any more regulation at the top level than there is at the second level, which is none. Karen Day:My question was to Michael - in the same way we are discussing GeoPICS Michael Flemming:Which Michael Karen Day:Thanks, Michael Michael Flemming:? Michael Flemming:Ok Karen Day:Flemming Mike Rodenbaugh:I see the public interest as the same. Frankly, generic.COM names are much more valuable than genericTLDs in many, many cases. Greg Shatan:Third parties have bought .makeup domain names. It's no more exclusive than .luxury. Mike Rodenbaugh:and nobody screams about that Susan Payne:@Jeff, the names aren't really free for L'oreal - they paid 185k for the registry Greg Shatan:So .makeup is a form of innovation.... Alexander Schubert:Greg: EXACTLY! That's why we ought to secure "equal access" - INSTEAD of enabling indsutry leaders to shut down generic keyword based namespaces. Greg Shatan:No one is "shutting down" anything. Mike Rodenbaugh:@Alexander you mean like CentralNIC with us.com, etc.? Kurt Pritz:@Michele: are you disagreeing with Jeff N's assertion that the restrictions on closed 'generics' can be gamed? Alexander Schubert:Mike: We can only regulate the top-level...... that's our only mandate. Mike Rodenbaugh:there is no mandate to regulate anything Michele Neylon:Kurt - I don't think so Alexander Schubert:Mike: We DO regulate the evolution of the DNS evolution, that's why we are in this call. Greg Shatan:ICANN is not a regulator. Mike Rodenbaugh:+1 GG Greg Shatan:Regulating innovation is an oxymoron. Jeff Neuman:ok, to clarify. Michele, you are saying as a general rule, you can not have an exclusive use TLD. However, you can have an exclusive use TLD, if you make it nearly impossible for every third party to register a name, but make it easy for you to register a name. For example, if I want .phone (and really just use it for myself), I cant say I am an exclusive use registry, but I can say that everyone else has to pay me $10,000,000 for a name, but I can give second level names to myself for free. Michele Neylon:Jeff - that's one way of summarising my thoughts Trang Nguyen:@Alexander, ICANN's stated Mission in its Bylaws specifically says that ICANN is not a regulator: "ICANN shall not regulate … For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority." Jeff Neuman:Overall the point is that the rule against closed generics to me (personally) does not make any sense when it can be so easily gamed. We have to choose one way or the other. If we allow closed generics, lets allow them. If we do not want to allow closed generics, then we need to make sure it is not gamed. Right now, we have huge inconsistencies Alexander Schubert:So when we deny ISIS to apply for .isis then that is ...... NOT "regulation"? Alexander Schubert:Maybe ISIS wants to "innovate"? Alexander Schubert:We do not want that - hence regulate the DNS in a way that thy can't do it. Mike Rodenbaugh:This was very widely and publicly debated prior to 2012 and there was no consensus to preclude 'closed generics'; so they were explicitly allowed. I have still never seen any real explanation as to harm caused by them. Alexander Schubert:Maybe the term "regulate" is wrong here - we issue "policies" Karen Day:Why any special objections other than what is already in place Michele Neylon:I don't think it's coming from my line anyway Karen Day:lots of beep beeps Julie Bisland:Reminder: please mute when not speaking :) Jeff Neuman 2:I personally believe an objection process needs to focu on the harms to end users (as opposed to harms to competitors, registrars, registrants, etc). Mike Rodenbaugh:before we consider an objection process, don't we need to agree on some substantive basis to object? Greg Shatan:Exactly, Mike. Greg Shatan:I want to clarify that I'm not "in favor of" closed generics. The question is whether there is an objective basis within ICANN's remit to restrict them. Jim Prendergast:Jeff - Im not so sure the ALAC would agree with your position on addressing registrants comments but they have to speak for themselves (and internet users) Michael Flemming:Just remember, everone, that today's call is for 90 minutes. Jeff Neuman 2:objections by competitors should not be "ignored"> They should be handled by existing competition laws with existing competition authorities Jeff Neuman 2:Its not about "domain names"..... avri doria:even if .cloud was takne for the private use of a meteorlogical sociaty? Michael Flemming:Steve, could we get the list of proposed cons up? Michael Flemming:I think Emily did a sheet for that. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:perhaps we need to proactivly engage with end users to do so, then Jeff .... not seeing a slew of their representatives in this call for example Steve Chan:@Michael, let me try and dig that up avri doria:even if .book was taken by the antique bookbinders of the world? Michael Flemming:I can send it to you. Greg Shatan:As a recovering antitrust lawyer, I don't. see an antitrust concern that would arise. Jeff Neuman 2:Harm in competition law is ONLY assessed after the harms are realized....not in order to prevent theoretical harms Michael Flemming:Greg, if I don't all on you after Jeff, please go ahead. Steve Chan:@Michael, I justed grabbed the document from the WIki Michael Flemming:Need to send a sheet to Steve Michael Flemming:ALright Michael Flemming:Nvm Steve Chan:Ready to go whenever you're ready Michael Flemming:I will stay here. Michael Flemming:Lets put it up Jon Nevett:Don't think Jeff correctly stated US competition law Karen Day:+1 Jeff Jeff Neuman 2:Greg said that better than I did Jeff Neuman 2:Having an advantage by virtue of having a TLD is not anticompetitive in and of itself Mike Rodenbaugh:Thanks for putting this doc up; some real good laughs in here. "The impact is greater" of TLDs over 2d level names? Mike Rodenbaugh:"search engines are likely to give priority...." Jeff Neuman 2:Mike - these are all drawn from comments we have received Jeff Neuman 2:NO value judgement by the WT leadership is exercized in putting this chart together Mike Rodenbaugh:"closed generics wil put entire cultural identities at risk"! Jon Nevett:I'm not taking a position on this issue at all, but US competition law will look at some conduct before it occurs avri doria:the problem with a rule is that is excludes names that would not be a competaative problem as well as those that might. Jon Nevett:neither here nor there, but that point was typed in the notes Jeff Neuman 2:Conduct yes......theoretical conduct no Greg Shatan:Antitrust authorities will block mergers before they happen. avri doria:ie. clouds for meteorologists and books for bookbinders Jon Nevett:yes theoretical -- happy to take it offline Jeff Greg Shatan:But that is a very specific legal construct under a specific arm of competition law. Jon Nevett:correct Greg -- the whole HSR process is pre-conduct Jeff Neuman 2:HSR is for business consolidations where the result of which is having true market power. avri doria:is no compromise postion possible? have we explored the middle space? Susan Payne 3:some of these proposed harms are ludicrous, so no Greg Shatan:I filed over 150 HSRs prior to "recovery". Julie Bisland:avri, cannot hear you Julie Bisland:no audio for you, Avri Michele Neylon:Can't decipher that noise Jon Nevett:@jeff just correcting the record -- you just went a bit too far in your statement -- no biggie avri doria:i was trying to speak. avri doria:will call in. Greg Shatan:And the economic/legal analysis to get a merger blocked is intense. Julie Bisland:ok, thank you avri doria:but there is alwasy a middle space, just have to look for it/ Mike Rodenbaugh:why aren't we looking specifically at the 'closed generics' that are now in the market? what harm has been caused by DOTmakeup? Gg Levine (NABP):Shouldn't the objector have to demonstrate harms? Julie Bisland:haha, you sound great Avri Phil Buckingham 2:..so how do we move this forward . do we say that every TLD is open unless ............ Jeff Neuman 2:@Phil - no we cant say that. That would be setting a policy that top level domains can only have one business model - that of selling second level domains Greg Shatan:I think we say every TLD is free to operate as it sees fit with regard to third party second level domains (or not), unless.... And the "unless" needs to meet a very high bar. Greg Shatan:But Jeff, if people and companies can't buy and sell any domain name they want, how will anyone make any money? Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@Avri good point there is often reaction to the who holds a generic name Jeff Neuman 2:@greg - I assume that was sarcasm Greg Shatan:From me -- yes. Mike Rodenbaugh:I've got lots more sarcasm where that came from Jeff Neuman 2:ICANN needs to be neutral. It can not make determinations based on "who" applied for a string. Greg Shatan:WTF is harm to the public interest? Mike Rodenbaugh:I wonder how every other cosmetics company has managed to stay in business despite L'Oreal owning and effectively closing DOTmakeup for so long now Susan Payne 3:@Mike - LOL Jeff Neuman 2:@Greg - arent you the chiar of that accountability subteam :) Greg Shatan:No, just the Jurisdiction subgroup.... Jon Nevett:@greg -- looking for a deal on .WTF? Mike Rodenbaugh:none of these purported harms are legitimate. period. Mike Rodenbaugh:where is the proof, based on what has happened in the market? Greg Shatan:@Jon -- LOL. Jon Nevett::-) Trang Nguyen:Implementation of GAC category 2 "exclusive access" advice is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… avri doria:that does opne the door to a middle postion. Susan Payne 3:it's because the GAC said "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal." Cheryl Langdon-Orr:it does @Avri... worth persuing... Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@ Greg, yes Innovation is a stated aim of new names programs, so pity to not allow for it ;-) Jeff Neuman 2:@Trang correct. But ICANN never evaluated those responses. It paints the picture that 100+ TLDs voluntarily withdrew their desire to be exclusive use application Jeff Neuman 2:but they did not. avri doria:e.g. require a CG to define and PI and subject it something equivlent to the giggle test. Jeff Neuman 2:They eventaully did when it became clear after months that ICANN was not going to approve their TLDs IF they insisted on staying closed Jeff Neuman 2:in essence ICANN sent the message "if you want to stay closed, you will not move forward in this round" avri doria:that is what i call the defacto policy Mike Rodenbaugh:@Jeff that is right, they withdrew beause they didn't want many years of delay or outright obstruction from GAC and Michele's army. they needed to get to market to recoup investment. (which seems funny now) Jeff Neuman 2:So faced with the choice, most said, ok we will say we are not exclusive use Karen Day:@Jeff that is 100% what happened. Karen Day:Told change you application language or go home and lose your money. Mike Rodenbaugh:yes, that is what happened Jim Prendergast:They made it perfectly clear by putting the prohibition into the contract Trang Nguyen:There were 189 applications that were mentioned in GAC category 2 advice. Trang Nguyen:Of those, here's a break-down: Trang Nguyen:139 indicated that the applied-for TLDs will not be operated as exclusive access TLDs; 12 indicated that the applied-for TLDs will be operated as exclusive access registries; 35 indicated that their applications currently state that the applied-for TLDs will be operated as exclusive access registries, but the applicants will not operate them as exclusive access registries. Mike Rodenbaugh:BTW the GAC list was very arbitrary.... there were many others that inexplicably were not included Michele Neylon:Amazon changed some of theirs for example Phil Buckingham:@ Trang - could we not put together a database . Exacly Mike Mike Rodenbaugh:and regardless of community policy development Cheryl Langdon-Orr:very true @m Kurt Pritz:@ Michele: but we have to differentiate ICANN missteps and creating an unworkable policy Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ichele, there was a lot of "pressures" in thee last round Julie Bisland:next WT2 call-- Thursday, 05 October 2017 at 20:30 UTC for 90 minutes :) avri doria:hard to tell Michele Michele Neylon:I'll just glare at my data retention waiver Michele Neylon:and how "easy" that was to get Jeff Neuman 2:Correct - but we need to make sure the record is accurately reflected Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye for now. Greg Shatan:Mike, thanks for chairing so many of these calls in your night! avri doria:bye

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 Sub Team Meeting 28 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 28 September. 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 meeting recording and chat transcript are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/9hkhB. The slides are attached and the chat room excerpts included below for reference. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 28 September 2017 Continuation of CC2 Comments and discussion on Closed Generics: Slide 3: What is a "Closed Generic"? Slide 6: Key findings -- Several cases where a generic string may operate in an exclusive manner. Slide 7: Path Forward -- In order to move forward with policy, we must address several elements Slide 8: Path Forward -- Some Ideas: Discussion: -- Back to slide 6: Even though there is a rule against closed generics. If you have a trademark in a term and that is registered in a certain class of goods and services. Provided an entity uses that TLD in accordance with those goods and services then they can be under Spec 13 an exclusive use TLD. Apple, United, etc. -- On slide 6 -- some trouble with the nomenclature and citation of .apple. That is not a generic string. It is an arbitrary string. We are overusing the term "generic". The issue of a closed generic needs to be separated from a closed arbitrary string. Needs to be confined to something being used in the dictionary sense, such as .makeup. Be clear what a closed generic is and is not. -- The idea for putting it on slide 6 is to separate them. Yes, in some cases it could be seen as a generic string, because it is operating with a trademark it is not a closed generic. We need to propose some changes to language so there can be misconceptions. -- Ignore what it says on the slide and move beyond that. Maybe call it "dictionary words". The point that we are trying to get across that any word, distionary or not, can be used as an exclusive use registry if used in accordance with trademark registration goods and services description. -- Do want to look at the claim that by making certain decisions you are rendering an open TLD closed. All registry operators have policies and processes that they apply to registration. As long as you follow them you can register a domain name. Look at .bank, which is highly validated. That is highly vetted, which is different. Same with pricing. -- We could at least recognize and discuss if there could be a way to mitigate harms while allowing the exclusive operation of generic strings while having mitigation measures for strings that may pose harm to the public interest. -- When we say "defacto closed" we are not talking about .bank. You could have defacto ways to close your TLD. Any TLD that charges any third party the same amount that would be the same rules for everyone. But .makeup can say everyone is $10K except for the registry itself. Different from a validated TLD. -- Is there harm to the public interest by allowing a TLD that has a term that is used in a dictionary sense but sets retrictions for any other party than itself. If there is harm what is it and how do we mitigate it? -- In the case of an exclusive use domain no mattter how much money you have you can't get one. Charging more doesn't make a term exclusive, some are arguing. If you are talking about equal treatment that opens up another can of worms. >From the chat: Michele Neylon: .office + .play are both trademarks though Alexander Schubert: Almost every premium keyword is trademarked in MULTIPLE TM registries! Jeff Neuman: .office itself is not a trademark that qualifies under Spec 13 Mike Rodenbaugh: I suspect Microsoft would disagree with that Jeff Neuman: The point is that we need to all understand and agree that the current rules are that if you have a valid trademark registration for a string that COULD have a generic connotation, but the trademark registration is for a use that is NOT for the use of the mark in connection with the potential generic connotation, that IS allowed as a closed gTLD Jeff Neuman: So the string apple, food, or any other term can be used as a closed TLD provided that the use of the TLD is consistent with the goods/services for which the string is trademarked Mike Rodenbaugh: There is NO definition whatsoever of "public interest" in ICANNland. It is whatever anyone wants to say it is on any given day and any given issue. Michele Neylon: Mike - yeah - it's a wonderfully fluffy term :) Mike Rodenbaugh: It's a ridiculously vague term Karen Day: IF you had a trademark REGISTRATION PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FILIING THE TLD APPLICATION ONLY. Mike Rodenbaugh: The so-called "rule against closed generics" is not one devised by the community. In fact, we came up with the opposite rule (that they should be allowed) in the run-up to 2012. Michael Flemming: Karen is correct. Michael Flemming: So pre-2012 Jim Prendergast: Is there standing GAC advice against closed generics? and where does overcoming that come into this. Mike Rodenbaugh: yes, so that GAC advice somehow became the new "rule" Michele Neylon: +1 Greg Alexander Schubert: The TM should be at least X years old (e.g. 5 years), and USED in at least X nations (not just registered, e.g. 25 nations). A simple 1 year old TM regisration is not good enough. Michele Neylon: the term is generic the usage in the case of apple isn't Michele Neylon: Apple using .apple doesn't bother me Kurt Pritz: The RPM Working Group uses the term "dictionary word" rather than "generic" Michele Neylon: IBM (for example) closing off .cloud just for their own use would bother me Trang Nguyen: @Jim, GAC category 2 advice says: "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal." Jim Prendergast: thx trang Mike Rodenbaugh: the Board then acted on this post 2012 applications Karen Day: @Alexander - and how will that foster innovation? Alexander Schubert: If a generic term is snacked up by a brand and "closed" - then it is inaccessable to the public. And that should not be! Michele Neylon: New TLDs to date haven't fostered much innovation unless you consider price gouging to be innovative Mike Rodenbaugh: @Alexander -- doesn't the same logic apply at the 2d level? Michele Neylon: the last innovative TLD I've seen was .tel and that was a roaring success Alexander Schubert: Industry giants will snoop up their industry related killer keywords - and shut them down. At about US $300k that is a STEAL! Michele Neylon: Alexander - exactly Mike Rodenbaugh: same thing has happened at 2d level Michele Neylon: and that bothers me Karen Day: @Michele that depends on your definition of success. For a brand, success has nothing to do with sales. Alexander Schubert: +1 Susan Payne: @Alexander I don't think thi si sthe place to unpick fundementals of TM law Susan Payne: companies can register TMs, they have to persuade the relevant TM office that it is valid and aceptable registration.That's it Jim Prendergast: http://domainincite.com/22114-loreal-is-using-closed-generic-makeup-in-an-i… Susan Payne: and no-one is stopping you applying first for the purpose of running the TLD in a generic rather than a non-branded manner. There have been plenty of examples of that in round 1. Coach for example Jeff Neuman: Validated TLDs are not closed because they offer third party registrations Alexander Schubert: It is lawful to use a generic keyword for a TM - but not really advisable. Do it on your own risk. Don't tell the world that now that you use a generic term as a TM you need also to shut down the matching TLD. Doesn't fly with the general public, sorry. In TM law there are goods and service classes; in the DNS not! Therefore in the DNS generic keyword terms need to be accessable to the public! Jeff Neuman: That is very different than what we are talking about Slide 8 -- Consideration for a path forward: -- Need to document all the places where public interest was mentioned. Feedback on: -- Is the string considered generic? -- Will the TLD be operated exclusively? -- Is there evident of harm against the public interest? -- Are there any mitigation measures that could be introduced. Discussion: -- As far as predictability, to take one business model and say you can't do that doesn't allow registry operators to run their business in a way that they wish as long as it is not causing negative affects on the technical operational of the Internet. -- Concerned with the use of the word "public interest". Careful about using terms that validate themselves. -- Don't think you could ask a registry if what they are doing is against the public interest. -- What about having an objection procedure? One issue with objection procedures unless you have super deep pockets there was no way to access them. There was no clarity as to how the comments would be handled. An objection procedure would need to be more accessible. -- People need to remember that this issue was addressed in GAC advice and there were a very large number of people who objected. Opposing an application and challenging to get exemptions, there is no reason that can't be a two-way street. -- Part of the issue is where do we stop? We have a number of different objection processes already in place. We would need to set criteria. -- Need to consider if there are other models that are troublesome. Don't look at closed generics in a vacuum. Just one of the ways registries could be run in ways that people don't like. >From the chat: Mike Rodenbaugh: This was very widely and publicly debated prior to 2012 and there was no consensus to preclude 'closed generics'; so they were explicitly allowed. I have still never seen any real explanation as to harm caused by them. Alexander Schubert: Maybe the term "regulate" is wrong here - we issue "policies" Karen Day: Why any special objections other than what is already in place Jeff Neuman 2: I personally believe an objection process needs to focu on the harms to end users (as opposed to harms to competitors, registrars, registrants, etc). Discussion on Harms: -- Before we focus on objections we need to agree on a basis to object. Need focus on harms. If we are talking to harms to registrants because they can't register a name -- is that really what we need to protect? At the end of the day it is to look at harms to end users because a TLD is closed. If we focus on that and come up with what we want to protect the global community from. -- Disagree that objections from competitors should be ignored. If you look at terms such as "harm", it can be construed as many things. You need to allow organizations to voice their objections whether or not competitors. -- ICANN is not the place to deal with competition law. Competition law can only look after the fact and then take steps to address that. - If you have monopoly power there are lots of things you can't do. ICANN is a place where competitors get together. If there is collusive behavior there could be an issue. There is no guarantee of a level playing field and there does not appear to be a legal issue here. -- Those in favor or against closed generics, the arguments have not changed. -- Could the challenge procedure be based on the proposed harms? - Existing policy recommendations did not provide a clear direction, though it was generally understood. Is there somewhere in between no problem with closed generics and should be completely disallowed? Is there some way to handle the public policy concerns and still allow? Is there room for compromise? - If we're getting into the business of challenging business models, should it be limited to just closed generics? And just because there is this rule, doesn't mean we need to continue it. There should be benefit and harms analysis. -- NGPC in relation to closed generics, was concerned about generics that did not serve the public interest. - Who's responsibility is it to determine the validity of harms? Jeff: After GAC Advice, ICANN asked applicants how the registry would be in the public interest or not harm the public interest. The burden was on the applicant to demonstrate. What may be more appropriate is for the challenger to demonstrate that intended usage is against the public interest. -- There was the assumption that TLDs would support third party registrations, or created marketplaces for 2nd-level domains. THere should be more substantial harms than just foreclosing a possible marketplace. There should not be a public interest arguement that a 3rd party registrant model should be the preferred model. -- ICANN Bylaws - nothing about closed generics specifically. - ICANN asked applicants why exclusive access is in the public interest. No evaluation of response about substance of arguments. Insistence on maintaining closed generic meant being on hold and majority changed their exclusive use rules. -- Understanding the numbers provided by Trang. 174 have reluctantly indicated they will not operate as exclusive use. How about the 12? All but 5 withdrew. 1 signed Spec 13. Rest signed RA. -- Even if the exclusive use was in the public interest, didn't seem to be a factor. -- Just because past procedure had mistakes does not necessarily mean entire process was broken. >From the chat: Mike Rodenbaugh: before we consider an objection process, don't we need to agree on some substantive basis to object? Jeff Neuman 2: Harm in competition law is ONLY assessed after the harms are realized....not in order to prevent theoretical harms Susan Payne 3: some of these proposed harms are ludicrous, so no avri doria: is no compromise postion possible? have we explored the middle space? Cheryl Langdon-Orr: @Avri good point there is often reaction to the who holds a generic name Trang Nguyen: Implementation of GAC category 2 "exclusive access" advice is here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/gac-cat2-advice-19mar14… Jeff Neuman 2: @Trang correct. But ICANN never evaluated those responses. It paints the picture that 100+ TLDs voluntarily withdrew their desire to be exclusive use application Jeff Neuman 2: but they did not. Jeff Neuman 2: They eventaully did when it became clear after months that ICANN was not going to approve their TLDs IF they insisted on staying closed Jeff Neuman 2: in essence ICANN sent the message "if you want to stay closed, you will not move forward in this round" avri doria: that is what i call the defacto policy Mike Rodenbaugh: @Jeff that is right, they withdrew beause they didn't want many years of delay or outright obstruction from GAC and Michele's army. they needed to get to market to recoup investment. (which seems funny now) Jeff Neuman 2: So faced with the choice, most said, ok we will say we are not exclusive use Karen Day: @Jeff that is 100% what happened. Karen Day: Told change you application language or go home and lose your money. Mike Rodenbaugh: yes, that is what happened Jim Prendergast: They made it perfectly clear by putting the prohibition into the contract Trang Nguyen: There were 189 applications that were mentioned in GAC category 2 advice. Trang Nguyen: Of those, here's a break-down: Trang Nguyen: 139 indicated that the applied-for TLDs will not be operated as exclusive access TLDs; 12 indicated that the applied-for TLDs will be operated as exclusive access registries; 35 indicated that their applications currently state that the applied-for TLDs will be operated as exclusive access registries, but the applicants will not operate them as exclusive access registries.

1 0

Agenda for Meeting at 15 UTC September 28, 2017
by Michael Flemming Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

Dear All, Noting that our meeting last week was cancelled, I resend the agenda for this week's call. Please note that we will have our WT2 meeting at 15 UTC September 28, 2017. The agenda for this week is below. 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. Continuation of CC2 Comments and discussion on Closed Generics 4. AOB If you have any questions, then please feel free to reach out to me. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

5 4

Agenda for Meeting at 21 UTC September 21, 2017
by Michael Flemming Sept. 22, 2017

Sept. 22, 2017

Dear All, Please note that we will have our WT2 meeting at 21 UTC September 21, 2017. The agenda for this week is below. 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. Continuation of CC2 Comments and discussion on Closed Generics 4. AOB The Closed Generics discussion is one we have spent a lot of time on and we are hoping to move forward to a path forward for policy development. I ask that everyone who has a high interest in this discussion to attend this week. If you have any questions, then please feel free to reach out to me. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

2 3

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] **MEETING CANCELED** Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 21 September 2017 at 21:00 UTC
by Jeff Neuman Sept. 20, 2017

Sept. 20, 2017

All, I just wanted to send a note around about this. After it being brought to our attention that this call was scheduled during the Jewish High Holidays and that we had a request from several people who wanted to discuss the subject matter to reschedule the call, the Leadership team decided to cancel this call and move the topic of Closed Generics until the following week and to add an extra ½ hour to the call on September 28th. I apologize for not having realized this issue sooner and to give more notice to the group. Best regards, 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: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Bisland Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 4:48 PM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] **MEETING CANCELED** Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 21 September 2017 at 21:00 UTC ***CANCELED*** Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 21 September 2017 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 14:00 PDT, 17:00 EDT, 22:00 London BST, 23:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/yboa3yzc[tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_yboa3yzc&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, Terri Agnew 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

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 14 September 2017 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 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, 14 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording : https://participate.icann.org/p18nw3eloxp/ 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/9hkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 September 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_9 hkhB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ 9hkhB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6T mF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCD hu0lujKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=m9SERfdwoFfC7OYAUL1PMT4uutjgecOFJpMWB8jgUt4&e=> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zm yci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lu jKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=m9SERfdwoFfC7OYAUL1PMT4uutjgecOFJpMWB8jgUt4&e= Jeff Neuman:Will we get to 15 participants? Michael Flemming:I'm only logged in on my phone so that must be an imposter me clo:sorry I am on my mobile phone we have lost landline phone lines it seems Michael Flemming:closed generics Michael Flemming:not registrant protection Justine Chew:Do we know if Jannik Skou represents any stakeholder group? Is his (potentially) the only comment from a non-commercial group? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin. com_in_jannikskou_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_ja nnikskou_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqs LT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6 _OCDhu0lujKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=7P8M-7KHhx0V1gwYTqvHlka9lz6RjFyVq44wSBjev9M&e=> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zm yci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lu jKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=7P8M-7KHhx0V1gwYTqvHlka9lz6RjFyVq44wSBjev9M&e= Emily Barabas:Jannik Skou SOI: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis play_gnsosoi_Jannik-2BSkou-2BSOI <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di splay_gnsosoi_Jannik-2BSkou-2BSOI&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6s Jms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsj Wv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lujKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=lqd0D43VH3fFcKNyAb-scHJQ B1XremYoXE9QTBz-zUw&e=> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zm yci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lu jKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=lqd0D43VH3fFcKNyAb-scHJQB1XremYoXE9QTBz-zUw&e= Justine Chew:Right, thanks. Then his is not a "community" comment. Justine Chew:@Jeff, yes that's what I wanted to get at. Thanks. Justine Chew:@Avri, thanks for the clarification. Heather Forrest:Norway Jim Prendergast:I agree we need to ask the GAC to clarify. I don't think anyone wants to try and interpret what the GAC says Heather Forrest:International law requires that jurisdictions protect signs 9including generic terms) that have acquired distinctiveness. Justine Chew:Yes, TM protection also based on classes of goods/service. Michael Flemming:yes distinctiveness Trang Nguyen:Implementation of GAC Category 2 Advice (exclusive access) can be viewed at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a pplicants_advisories_gac-2Dcat2-2Dadvice-2D19mar14-2Den <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_ applicants_advisories_gac-2Dcat2-2Dadvice-2D19mar14-2Den&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJ p6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqES Ge_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lujKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=q qu2ivanYpgfctUra76x5wU_C32cuItbRXSKNby4apE&e=> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zm yci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lu jKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=qqu2ivanYpgfctUra76x5wU_C32cuItbRXSKNby4apE&e= Heather Forrest:Yes - context is a significant part of consumer recognition Trang Nguyen:There were 12 applicants that stated that it was their intent to operate exclusive access registries. ICANN asked those applicants to provide a response for how the proposed exclusive registry access serves a public interest goal. Trang Nguyen:I can't recall how many of the 12 ultimately decided to stay exclusive access. Let me do some checking. Justine Chew:Fine balance between "changing goal-posts" and "moving forward with the times". Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):did everyone else just lose audio or just me? Michelle DeSmyter:Jeff, we are not able to hear you Justine Chew:Lost audio Jim Prendergast:hung up instead of unmuting Jim Prendergast:dialing back Jeff Neuman:Thanks Jim. Let us know when you are back in Michael Flemming 2:Our decisions can allow for paths that back track to 2012 applicants Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):no audio in Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):sorry Aug winds playing havock.... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hard to hear Michael Flemming 2:Thanks Jeff, gotta drop Trang Nguyen:Of the 12 that initially indicated they will operate as exclusive registries, 7 withdrew, 1 obtained a Spec 13 (FOOD), the remaining 5 signed the RA, which includes Spec 11. Spec 11 has a provision that says: "Registry Operator of a "Generic String" TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's "Affiliates" (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). "Generic String" means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others." Trang Nguyen:sorry about that copy/paste Trang Nguyen:Of the 12 that initially indicated they will operate as exclusive registries, 7 withdrew, 1 obtained a Spec 13 (FOOD), the remaining 5 signed the RA, which includes Spec 11. Spec 11 has a provision that says: "Registry Operator of a "Generic String" TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's "Affiliates" (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). "Generic String" means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others." Trang Nguyen:Sorry, that should say remaining "4" Trang Nguyen:The 4 are .GROCERY, .DVR, .DATA, .PHONE Justine Chew:@Trang, thanks, useful info. Emily Barabas:Full comment from NORID is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads heets_d_1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tXnl3qV0rc_edit-23gid-3D1963024039 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread sheets_d_1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tXnl3qV0rc_edit-23gid-3D196302403 9&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Z myci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0l ujKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=VZSMgalZMo--OttD8W15b-trWEbbjscQZ7aknhV_l4E&e=> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zm yci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=5NatGh4BgzA-POFAy6_OCDhu0lu jKGTXeD3PaGBRxN8&s=VZSMgalZMo--OttD8W15b-trWEbbjscQZ7aknhV_l4E&e= Trang Nguyen:Safeway's GROCERY was withdrawn. The one that was delegated is from Wal-Mart. Heather Forrest:None, thank you Jeff Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Good night. Justine Chew:Thanks! avri doria:bye

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 Sub Team Meeting 14 September
by Steve Chan Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 14 September. 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 meeting recording and chat transcript are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/9hkhB. Best, Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 14 September 2017 2. SOI Updates -- None -- Next plenary call on the 25 September. Note sent by Jeff re: replacement for Avri as she moves to the ICANN Board. Nominations needed by end of the next call. Description and suggested qualifications for co-chair versus vice-chair provided. 3. CC2 Comments: Closed Generics Slide 2 (Intro) -- Will discuss closed generics on 21 Sept meeting as well. Slide 4 (Recap) -- Recap of where we are now -- Requested to be discussed by NGPC. Unless consensus received to change, status quo remains. -- Support: business model innovation, consumer choice, free expression, avoids ICANN regulating business models, competition, word classification -- Against: harms competition, favors industry players, hunders free expression for potentional registrants -- There is no clear definition of who we are trying to protect (end-users, registrants, registrars, etc.) -- If path forward for some closed generics, circumstances will need to be defined while addressing public interest concerns Slide 5 -- Text of question Slide 6 (CC2 2.4.1) -- Hard to define generic. Change policy should prevent switching to open later (Jannik Skou) -- Too hard to define generics and ICANN should not be deciding what is a generic string (INTA) Slide 7 (CC2 2.4.1) -- Should not be blanket rule preventing, partly b/c difficult to define. Certain closed "generics" could be problematic and could be guarded against by objections measures (BC) -- Should be lifted to allow innovation (Afilias) Slide 8 (CC2 2.4.1) -- Unrestricted process migh allow for more utility. A more structured model could enhance security (Google) -- Objection measures provide adequate protections. Not a security or stability concern. Solidying the classic use case of selling domain names (RySG) -- Jim: Lots of cases of GAC concentrating on content and use (referencing Afilias comment). Maybe difficult to adhere to. Jeff: At least reducing focus on content and use could be helpful. Justine Chew: Do we know if Jannik Skou represents any stakeholder group? Is his (potentially) the only comment from a non-commercial group? Jeff: Some in the non-commercial support lifting (e.g., Milton Mueller) Avri: NC community split on issue. Emily Barabas: Jannik Skou SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Jannik+Skou+SOI[community.icann… Slide 9 (CC2 2.4.1) Support restricting closed generics -- Exclusive use should serve a public interest (GAC). Jeff: could be construed as allowing exclusive use if there is a public interest goal. Direct outreach to GAC might be needed. -- "True" generics should not be restricted for exclusive use. These words would not be accepted as a brand and received TM protection. Jeff: generic words can be trademarked if not used in their generic sense (e.g., apple). Heather Forrest: International law requires that jurisdictions protect signs 9including generic terms) that have acquired distinctiveness. -- Looking for triangular relationship. Connect term to a trader and to a good or service. Applicable to words that have more than one meeting. International law requires that this be recognized. Jeff: in TM law, context matters. Justine Chew: Yes, TM protection also based on classes of goods/service. Trang Nguyen: Implementation of GAC Category 2 Advice (exclusive access) can be viewed at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/gac-cat2-advice-19mar14… Trang Nguyen: There were 12 applicants that stated that it was their intent to operate exclusive access registries. ICANN asked those applicants to provide a response for how the proposed exclusive registry access serves a public interest goal. -- Jeff: applicants were allowed to provide response. Were any accepted? ACTION ITEM (Trang): will research to determine how many decided to stay exclusive and how many were allowed. Slide 10 -- Process was messy and open to improvement. Ban on closed generics should be maintained (Jim). Question of fairness of process for last round and going forward. There were those in 2012 round that had to withdraw or change their business plans. Need this backward looking component as future applicants could be advantaged. -- Jeff: Fairness argument is strong. If that could be addressed, is there an argument against closed generics otherwise? -- Avri: Not in scope to make decisions made in the past. If it's determined that rules should be changed, there is history of those changes being applied to the old. Focus should be on fair decisions going forward. Jeff: policy based on lessons learned. if, say starting from scratch, the WG would do it a certain way, but could acknowledge problems of fairness or other challenges. -- Impacts consumer choice and consumer confusion (ALAC) ACTION ITEM: get context of ALAC comment. -- Supports ban on closed generics for the foreseeable future (Nominet) Slide 11 (2.4.2) -- Text of question -- Michael: Is the current standard to restrict? Jeff: NGPC stated that exclusion was for the 2012 round, but did not specify about the future. There might not be a status quo in this case. Best case would be to get to a recommendation, but in absence of that, status quo could include policy and the way things were implemented. ACTION ITEM: Keep as an discussion topic if consensus recommendations are unachievable. Slide 12 -- If closed generics are retained, definition makes sense (NORID, RySG, ALAC) Slide 13 -- Not necessary to define if restriction lifted. (BC, Afilias, RySG) Slide 14 -- Restriction against closed generics should be maintained but exception to rule against closed generics.Some may qualify for Spec 9, but not Spec 13. -- Collisions, UA, TMs, service marks (John Poole) Slide 15 -- Brands are not "generic terms" or geo names. "True" generics should not be allowed to be closed (NORID) Trang Nguyen: Of the 12 that initially indicated they will operate as exclusive registries, 7 withdrew, 1 obtained a Spec 13 (FOOD), the remaining 4 signed the RA, which includes Spec 11. Spec 11 has a provision that says: "Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s “Affiliates” (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). “Generic String” means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others." Trang Nguyen: The 4 are .GROCERY, .DVR, .DATA, .PHONE ACTION ITEM: Examine how these 4 TLDs are being used. Slide 16 -- Questions for discussion on next call. -- Re: question 2. Spec 13 requires adherence to element of Spec 11. Is there a contradiction? Will review Spec 13 and 11 on the next call. >From the chat: Michelle DeSmyter: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Michelle DeSmyter: Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9hkhB[community.icann.org] Jeff Neuman: Will we get to 15 participants? Michael Flemming: I'm only logged in on my phone so that must be an imposter me clo: sorry I am on my mobile phone we have lost landline phone lines it seems Michael Flemming: closed generics Michael Flemming: not registrant protection Justine Chew: Do we know if Jannik Skou represents any stakeholder group? Is his (potentially) the only comment from a non-commercial group? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): https://www.linkedin.com/in/jannikskou[linkedin.com]/ Emily Barabas: Jannik Skou SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Jannik+Skou+SOI[community.icann… Justine Chew: Right, thanks. Then his is not a "community" comment. Justine Chew: @Jeff, yes that's what I wanted to get at. Thanks. Justine Chew: @Avri, thanks for the clarification. Heather Forrest: Norway Jim Prendergast: I agree we need to ask the GAC to clarify. I don't think anyone wants to try and interpret what the GAC says Heather Forrest: International law requires that jurisdictions protect signs 9including generic terms) that have acquired distinctiveness. Justine Chew: Yes, TM protection also based on classes of goods/service. Michael Flemming: yes distinctiveness Trang Nguyen: Implementation of GAC Category 2 Advice (exclusive access) can be viewed at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/gac-cat2-advice-19mar14… Heather Forrest: Yes - context is a significant part of consumer recognition Trang Nguyen: There were 12 applicants that stated that it was their intent to operate exclusive access registries. ICANN asked those applicants to provide a response for how the proposed exclusive registry access serves a public interest goal. Trang Nguyen: I can't recall how many of the 12 ultimately decided to stay exclusive access. Let me do some checking. Justine Chew: Fine balance between "changing goal-posts" and "moving forward with the times". Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): did everyone else just lose audio or just me? Michelle DeSmyter: Jeff, we are not able to hear you Justine Chew: Lost audio Jim Prendergast: hung up instead of unmuting Jim Prendergast: dialing back Jeff Neuman: Thanks Jim. Let us know when you are back in Michael Flemming 2: Our decisions can allow for paths that back track to 2012 applicants Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): no audio in Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): sorry Aug winds playing havock.... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Hard to hear Michael Flemming 2: Thanks Jeff, gotta drop Trang Nguyen: Of the 12 that initially indicated they will operate as exclusive registries, 7 withdrew, 1 obtained a Spec 13 (FOOD), the remaining 5 signed the RA, which includes Spec 11. Spec 11 has a provision that says: "Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s “Affiliates” (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). “Generic String” means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others." Trang Nguyen: sorry about that copy/paste Trang Nguyen: Of the 12 that initially indicated they will operate as exclusive registries, 7 withdrew, 1 obtained a Spec 13 (FOOD), the remaining 5 signed the RA, which includes Spec 11. Spec 11 has a provision that says: "Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s “Affiliates” (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). “Generic String” means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others." Trang Nguyen: Sorry, that should say remaining "4" Trang Nguyen: The 4 are .GROCERY, .DVR, .DATA, .PHONE Justine Chew: @Trang, thanks, useful info. Emily Barabas: Full comment from NORID is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tX… Trang Nguyen: Safeway's GROCERY was withdrawn. The one that was delegated is from Wal-Mart. Heather Forrest: None, thank you Jeff Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Good night. Justine Chew: Thanks! avri doria: bye 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/

1 0

[CORRECTION] Re: Agenda for WT2 Call at 3 UTC on 14 September 2017
by Michael Flemming Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 2017

My apologies, this call is at 14 September 3 UTC. Not 13 September. Kind regards, ――――――――――――――――――――――――――― GMO Brights Consulting Inc. IP Solutions Department, New gTLD Team, Chief Michael Flemming Office: +81-3-5784 1069 / Mobile: +81-80-4951-5306 FAX: +81-3-5521-0117 / Mail: flemming(a)brightsconsulting.com Cerulean Tower, 26-1, Sakuragaoka-cho Shibuya-ku Tokyo 150-8512, Japan ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― Thank you for 21 years! Internet for Everyone ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― GMO INTERNET GROUP https://www.gmo.jp/en/ ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― This message may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the named addressee of this message please let us know by reply and destroy it without reading, using, copying or disclosing its contents to any other person. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Michael Flemming < flemming(a)brightsconsulting.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Please forgive if this email has been sent to you numerous times, but I am > sending just to make sure it gets to everyone in the group. > > Please note the agenda for next week's call at 3 UTC 13 September 2017. > > > - Welcome > > - SOI Updates > > - CC2 Comments: Closed Generics > > - AOB > > Please note as previously communicated that September begins our weekly > call schedule as adversed to our biweekly calls. This call will be held at > 3 UTC outside of our normal 21 UTC Thursday schedule because of another > call scheduled for 21 UTC Thursday next week. I know this is rather tough > on everyone, but please understand that WT2 has a lot of material to cover > and limited time to do it in. Our goal is to review all CC2 comments as a > second pass through the topics before ICANN60. We are scheduled to have > initial consensus/deliberations in time for the initial report for > Subsequent Procedures PDP in the coming months. As such, we must review all > material and come to initial proposals for the full WG to review. I thank > everyone for their understanding and cooperation. > > Also, I must apologise as I have a conflict next week and will be unable > to host, but I should be able to attend the majority of the call. Either > Phil or Jeff will host next week's meeting. > > We look forward to discussing with everyone and will endeavour to send out > the material as early as humanely possible. > > Kind regards, > > Michael Flemming > > ――――――――――――――――――――――――――― > GMO Brights Consulting Inc. > IP Solutions Department, New gTLD Team, Chief > Michael Flemming > Office: +81-3-5784 1069 <+81%203-5784-1069> / Mobile: +81-80-4951-5306 > <+81%2080-4951-5306> > FAX: +81-3-5521-0117 <+81%203-5521-0117> / Mail: flemming@ > brightsconsulting.com > Cerulean Tower, 26-1, Sakuragaoka-cho > Shibuya-ku Tokyo 150-8512, Japan > ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― > Thank you for 21 years! Internet for Everyone > ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― > GMO INTERNET GROUP https://www.gmo.jp/en/ > ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― > > This message may contain information which is privileged or confidential. > If you are not the named addressee of this message please let us know by > reply and destroy it without reading, using, copying or disclosing its > contents to any other person. >

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Call at 3 UTC on 13 September 2017
by Michael Flemming Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 2017

Dear All, Please forgive if this email has been sent to you numerous times, but I am sending just to make sure it gets to everyone in the group. Please note the agenda for next week's call at 3 UTC 13 September 2017. - Welcome - SOI Updates - CC2 Comments: Closed Generics - AOB Please note as previously communicated that September begins our weekly call schedule as adversed to our biweekly calls. This call will be held at 3 UTC outside of our normal 21 UTC Thursday schedule because of another call scheduled for 21 UTC Thursday next week. I know this is rather tough on everyone, but please understand that WT2 has a lot of material to cover and limited time to do it in. Our goal is to review all CC2 comments as a second pass through the topics before ICANN60. We are scheduled to have initial consensus/deliberations in time for the initial report for Subsequent Procedures PDP in the coming months. As such, we must review all material and come to initial proposals for the full WG to review. I thank everyone for their understanding and cooperation. Also, I must apologise as I have a conflict next week and will be unable to host, but I should be able to attend the majority of the call. Either Phil or Jeff will host next week's meeting. We look forward to discussing with everyone and will endeavour to send out the material as early as humanely possible. Kind regards, Michael Flemming ――――――――――――――――――――――――――― GMO Brights Consulting Inc. IP Solutions Department, New gTLD Team, Chief Michael Flemming Office: +81-3-5784 1069 / Mobile: +81-80-4951-5306 FAX: +81-3-5521-0117 / Mail: flemming(a)brightsconsulting.com Cerulean Tower, 26-1, Sakuragaoka-cho Shibuya-ku Tokyo 150-8512, Japan ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― Thank you for 21 years! Internet for Everyone ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― GMO INTERNET GROUP https://www.gmo.jp/en/ ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― This message may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the named addressee of this message please let us know by reply and destroy it without reading, using, copying or disclosing its contents to any other person.

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call
by Julie Bisland Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 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, 7 September 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p4ajs4794ia/<https://participate.icann.org/p4ajs4794ia/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=f0f4dcd59786ab91…> 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/LgEhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 7 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 07 September 2017 at 21:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Michael Flemming:Are we expecting a small turnout because of Irma and Harvey? Michael Flemming:Could I get slide control please? Michael Flemming:Thx Steve Chan:@Michael, slides are unsynced so everyone has control of their own slides Jeff Neuman:I wish i had a small violin emoji for Adobe Connect Jon Nevett:For the record, i object to 2 meetings per week Jon Nevett:there are 5 subgroups and many of us participate on most, if not all of them -- thanks! Steve Chan:We'll be starting on slide 20 Steve Chan:Note, you can review the ICANN org feedback on the Background Screening topic in the Program Implementation Review Report here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… on page 57 Greg Shatan:Sound went crazy for a while. Julie Bisland:yes, seems Michael's audio got suddenly loud Greg Shatan:Good Julie Bisland:excellent Kiran Malancharuvil:It's fine now Julie Bisland:it does sound good now Julie Bisland:thank you Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Emily Barabas:Welcome Alan. We are on slide 24 Alan Greenberg:Where are we in the slide deck? Alan Greenberg:Thanks! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):a point well made in my view Michael Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with Michael Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):then I am also from AP :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Very true Paul! Jeff Neuman:@Paul - was that an issue of non-enforcement or poor language on affiliates? Kiran Malancharuvil:Good point Paul. ICANN needs to be transparent about how they respond to these complaints and submissions. Jeff Neuman:or both Michael Flemming:I agree with that. Transparency but at the same time flexibility for dotBrands. (personal opinion) Alexander Schubert:How about the opposite approach: and impose EXTRA coast on Fortune 500 Corps? Paul McGrady:I'm for finding ways to lowering application fees for anyone we can - too much wheel spinning in this program. Heather Forrest:To the extent that we can rely on public information (stock exchanges, court decisions, etc) that is most efficient and transparent Michael Flemming:+1 Greg (personal opinion) Heather Forrest:Good question Jim - ICANN is getting a legal opinion. We should see if that's going to be addressed Kiran Malancharuvil:Re: GDPR, Consent with certainly play a role, as would public/legitimate interest. Greg Shatan:TMI, Cheryl. Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with Heather to make sure that ICANN includes that question in the GDPR readiness project Kiran Malancharuvil:That was Heather's suggestion, not mine. :) But I agree with her. Heather Forrest:No problem! Alexander Schubert:OBJECTION: The applicant for .chicago might turn that around and claim that ICANN would check them out - so the city doesn't have to do it...... Jon Nevett:probably should add PDDRP loss or two Greg Shatan:Yes, now that that's a thing. Kiran Malancharuvil:PICDRP should probably be included in the evaluation. Although I tend to agree that it shouldn't be defacto. Paul McGrady:The cybersquatting bar is useless if never enforced by ICANN. Paul McGrady:Needs to be enforced in the next round. Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 paul. I'm really disturbed to hear that evidence of cyberquatting was ignored. Kiran Malancharuvil:I also think ICANN should be looking into that proactively and should not wait for submissions. Michael Flemming:No, we love the feedback. Anyone is welcome. Jon Nevett:not if a good faith dispute Greg Shatan:Paul, don't you mean the anti-cybersquatting bar? :-) Kiran Malancharuvil:Paul is correct. They should look at everything and evaluate whether it impacts their potential obligations as an RO. And the community should set what that means so it's not a subjective evaluation. Paul McGrady:@Greg - yep. Upside down... Greg Shatan:@Michael -- randomly, like drug tests? Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks Michael. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye ð the now Alexander Schubert:Tnx Greg Shatan:Thank you!

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 7 September 2017
by Steve Chan Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/LgEhB. Slides are attached for reference. Best, Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 2. SOI Updates - No updates 3. CC2 Comments: Registrant Protections (continued) - Background Checks - Hoping to get feedback from ICANN Org on their experience with background checks and areas for future improvements. CC2 Question 2.3.3 (beginning on slide 20) -- RySG - maintain current criteria for background screening -- John Poole - background requirements should be stricter. -- Valideus - applicants that are publicly traded corporations listed and in good standing on any of the worlds largest 25 stock exchanges should not be required to provide detailed information on the entity, officers, directors, and major shareholders if it will not be subject to background screening. -- BRG - Background check requirements not appropriate for all different types of applicants, especially things like personal address, DOB, etc. Same level of info for company directors as appears on corporate web sites should be adequate. -- Jannik Skou - geo TLDs and applicants listed on stock exchanges should not go through criminal background checks - already done by public authorities -- Michael F. - difficult, at least in APAC, to negotiate changes to applicant information. Did not always seem to be consistent. -- Paul - The standards of background checks don't mean anything if ICANN doesn't do anything with them (e.g., evidence of excessive cybersquatting activity). There should a formal response process when a complaint to the process is filed. - The standards should be different for publicly traded companies and other types of companies that have internal governance enforced by other third parties. Could apply to the financial review as well, especially as it relates to dot Brands. - Streamlining this process could also lower costs. -- Alan - Not all applicants are equal, do differentiating may be ok. Is there another way to achieve the goals without ICANN having to perform the background check itself. Challenges and ability to conduct reviews are different across the world. -- Michael F. - Opinions and laws on privacy are vastly different in the world. Availability of relevant information is impacted by this. -- Greg - Can waive background checks if there are existing mechanisms, that might be more rigourous, already in place (e.g., conducted internally or through a third party). There might be well recognized existing processes or practices that ICANN could rely on. Need to be flexible to other cultural norms rather than forcing applicants to confirm to ICANN's rules. -- Jim - Will GDPR, or other privacy laws, impact the level of information that ICANN can ask for? Michael F. Could depend on purpose and usage. -- CLO - Echoing Heather, relying on public information is most efficient and transparent. In certain locales and jurisdictions, there may be instability that will impact accessibility and and quality of information. The level of comfort is different in different locales as well. Might be helpful to again consider what purpose or goal is. -- Paul - Geo TLDs, run by public authorities, presumably do their own due diligence. Lower level of review by ICANN might be warranted. ACTION ITEM - Determine how GDPR might impact ICANN's ability to conduct background checks. See if that can or is already an element of the legal opinion it's seeking now. -- RySG - Barring cybersquatters makes sense. However, breach of RA or RAA should not, de facto, lead to disqualification. -- Valideus - Cybersuatting or registrants losing two or more UDRPs should not be officer of registry. -- Jannik Skou - -- Nominet - An applicant who operates a failed gTLD should be scrutinized carefully, but each application should not necessarily be considered dependent. -- Alan - How should the policy be adjusted based on the comments being reviewed? -- Paul - Claim is different than abjudication of breach. Or cured breach. There are breaches related to paying bills. Need to determine what level of breach should warrant action. ACTION ITEM - need to determine what types of breaches would warrant action. Maybe reach out to RySG -- Afilias - advocated for ensuring ICANN is aware of changes in mgmt structure and integrating compliance in to application review process, since they are aware of past and current performance. -- Alan - Compliance should be able to identify past bad actors but may be reluctant to play this role. More about enforcing contracts. -- BRG - due diligence should performed an early stage during the application process. ICANN may have to repeat process prior to signing RA. - Michael - This did occur -- John Poole- why screen twice -- RySG - At the time of application, changes, and post-contracting cchanges. -- ALAC - at application and at time of contract signing ACTION ITEM - were any applicants disqualified by background screening? Michael - background info needed upon changes, throughout process, during the 2012 round. Also had to be performed twice in many cases (e.g., at application and prior to contracting). >From the chat: Julie Bisland: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 07 September 2017 at 21:00 UTC Julie Bisland: Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/LgEhB Michael Flemming: Are we expecting a small turnout because of Irma and Harvey? Michael Flemming: Could I get slide control please? Michael Flemming: Thx Steve Chan: @Michael, slides are unsynced so everyone has control of their own slides Jeff Neuman: I wish i had a small violin emoji for Adobe Connect Jon Nevett: For the record, i object to 2 meetings per week Jon Nevett: there are 5 subgroups and many of us participate on most, if not all of them -- thanks! Steve Chan: We'll be starting on slide 20 Steve Chan: Note, you can review the ICANN org feedback on the Background Screening topic in the Program Implementation Review Report here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf on page 57 Greg Shatan: Sound went crazy for a while. Julie Bisland: yes, seems Michael's audio got suddenly loud Greg Shatan: Good Julie Bisland: excellent Kiran Malancharuvil: It's fine now Julie Bisland: it does sound good now Julie Bisland: thank you Alan Greenberg: Sorry to be late. Emily Barabas: Welcome Alan. We are on slide 24 Alan Greenberg: Where are we in the slide deck? Alan Greenberg: Thanks! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): a point well made in my view Michael Kiran Malancharuvil: Agree with Michael Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): then I am also from AP :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Very true Paul! Jeff Neuman: @Paul - was that an issue of non-enforcement or poor language on affiliates? Kiran Malancharuvil: Good point Paul. ICANN needs to be transparent about how they respond to these complaints and submissions. Jeff Neuman: or both Michael Flemming: I agree with that. Transparency but at the same time flexibility for dotBrands. (personal opinion) Alexander Schubert: How about the opposite approach: and impose EXTRA coast on Fortune 500 Corps? Paul McGrady: I'm for finding ways to lowering application fees for anyone we can - too much wheel spinning in this program. Heather Forrest: To the extent that we can rely on public information (stock exchanges, court decisions, etc) that is most efficient and transparent Michael Flemming: +1 Greg (personal opinion) Heather Forrest: Good question Jim - ICANN is getting a legal opinion. We should see if that's going to be addressed Kiran Malancharuvil: Re: GDPR, Consent with certainly play a role, as would public/legitimate interest. Greg Shatan: TMI, Cheryl. Kiran Malancharuvil: Agree with Heather to make sure that ICANN includes that question in the GDPR readiness project Kiran Malancharuvil: That was Heather's suggestion, not mine. :) But I agree with her. Heather Forrest: No problem! Alexander Schubert: OBJECTION: The applicant for .chicago might turn that around and claim that ICANN would check them out - so the city doesn't have to do it...... Jon Nevett: probably should add PDDRP loss or two Greg Shatan: Yes, now that that's a thing. Kiran Malancharuvil: PICDRP should probably be included in the evaluation. Although I tend to agree that it shouldn't be defacto. Paul McGrady: The cybersquatting bar is useless if never enforced by ICANN. Paul McGrady: Needs to be enforced in the next round. Kiran Malancharuvil: +1 paul. I'm really disturbed to hear that evidence of cyberquatting was ignored. Kiran Malancharuvil: I also think ICANN should be looking into that proactively and should not wait for submissions. Michael Flemming: No, we love the feedback. Anyone is welcome. Jon Nevett: not if a good faith dispute Greg Shatan: Paul, don't you mean the anti-cybersquatting bar? :-) Kiran Malancharuvil: Paul is correct. They should look at everything and evaluate whether it impacts their potential obligations as an RO. And the community should set what that means so it's not a subjective evaluation. Paul McGrady: @Greg - yep. Upside down... Greg Shatan: @Michael -- randomly, like drug tests? Julie Bisland: The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Kiran Malancharuvil: Thanks Michael. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): bye 👋 the now Alexander Schubert: Tnx Greg Shatan: Thank you! 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/

1 0

Agenda for 7 September 2017 WT2 Meeting at 21 UTC
by Michael Flemming Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear All, I hope you are doing well. Our agenda for the upcoming WT2 on 7 September 2017 at 21 UTC is as below. 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. CC2 Comments: Registrant Protections (Continued) - Background Checks 4. AOB Please refer to the slides that were shared for our last meeting for reference of CC2 comments. For many of us summer is coming to an end and fall is starting to kick in. For others, winter has become spring. All in all, please take care as it is easy to catch a cold when seasons change. We will be starting weekly calls from here on out. I thank everyone for their continued participation and look forward to speaking with you all soon! Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

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

Aug. 25, 2017

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

1 0

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

Aug. 24, 2017

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

1 0

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

Aug. 23, 2017

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

1 0

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

Aug. 11, 2017

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

1 0

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

Aug. 10, 2017

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

1 0

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

Aug. 8, 2017

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

1 1

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

July 27, 2017

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

1 0

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

July 27, 2017

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

1 0

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

July 27, 2017

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

1 1

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

July 13, 2017

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

1 0

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

July 13, 2017

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

1 0

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

July 13, 2017

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

3 2

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

June 22, 2017

Dear WT2 Members, During the work track’s meeting on 15 June, members were asked which topics they felt would be most productive to discuss at ICANN59. The topics raised by participants, in order of preference, include: Closed Generics (2 requests) Vertical Integration (2 requests) Registrant Protections (1 request) Registry/Registrar Standardization (1 request) For those that were unable to participate, or those that did not provide a selection, please let the WT2 co-leads know if you have a preference for topics to discuss at ICANN59. As a reminder, you can find the topics that WT2 is considering here: https://community.icann.org/x/FwSbAw Please provide your selection by 23:59 UTC on 20 June 2017. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

2 1

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

June 16, 2017

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

1 0

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

June 16, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p3o7u6zn6k2/<https://participate.icann.org/p3o7u6zn6k2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=aef002f837ee5497…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ExLfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 15 June 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Paul McGrady:Here we are again... Michael Flemming:Great to have you Paul! Julie Hedlund:Slides are now unsynced. Susan Payne:can you remind me what registrant protections covers? Paul McGrady:+1 Kristina. We won't even get it introduced in that timeframe Steve Chan:@susan, in brief, things like EBERO, COI Phil Buckingham:kristina , what topic would u like to do one perhaps we could get concensus on at jo burg ? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I get it. But I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion of whether we should have different base agreements until everyone has read and understood the existing RA. And we'll use the entire 22 minutes just getting through the questions. Susan Payne:ah yes, thanks Steve, I was having a mental block Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Phil: I think vertical integration would be one. Michael's listing of the potential topics is a good idea. Steve Chan:Answered in brief, not in detail! Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Can we take this to the email list? Phil Buckingham:thanks Kristina . i tend to agree . Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Paul's idea is fine, too Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):better idea Paul Phil Buckingham:Great idea , Paul - thanks . Steve Chan:If you take it to the list, those that are not on this call would also be able to participate. Susan Payne:vertical integration Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Registrant Protections Gg Levine (NABP):Registry/registrar standardization Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Vertical integration; and closed generics Paul McGrady 2:Closed generics Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Given Steve's point, perhaps Steve could identify the top 4 subjects identified here and take to the list so folks not on the call can "vote" Steve Chan:Unless there is objection to Kristina's suggestion, staff is happy to execute. Michael Flemming:Let us go with Kristina's suggestion. Michael Flemming:yes Paul McGrady 2:come through soft and a bit fuzzy Susan Payne:fine Paul McGrady 2:Oops. I turned up my volume, now he is fine... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):The Affiliate definition is in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement. Phil's summary of it was correct, but incomplete Susan Payne:is it just me or are the answers to 1a and b rather vague and open to interpretation? has anyone actually be found to be in breach Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Kristina Susan Payne:yes agree Kristina Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Susan: Not that I'm aware of, but Compliance should be asked that. Steve Chan:@Susan, Kristina, no, breaches. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I think that there may be more data that we could ask for that Compliance can provide: how many registry operators are vertically integrated; of that number, how many are within the same corporate family; how many complaints were there against ROs (overall - regardless of whether due to vertical integration); of the complaints referenced in the 1.b answer, how many ROs were those complaints against Steve Chan:The less than 10 complaints I believe is for all time, not just a period of time. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Steve: Really? That's 10 in 4 years. Steve Chan:Happy to confirm Kistina, but that's my understanding. Susan Payne:I think it would also be helpful to know how many registries if any have required to conduct remediation in some way. I think "no breaches" means no formal breach notice but there may have been action require Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Steve: And, to be clear, I'm not doubting the answer, I'm pleasantly surprised Steve Chan:@Kristina, :) Steve Chan:@Susan, I believe the answer is less than 10 complaints where remediation was required. Steve Chan:Of course, if we have follow up questions for Contractual Compliance, staff is happy to ask on the WT's behalf. Susan Payne:@Steve, yes I assume so. but it could actually be zero, which would be quite informative Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Can we agree that we'll each read the CC2 comments so we don't need to have Phil (or Michael) read them out? Jeff Neuman:Is the question you are asking whether all TLDs should be able to have 1 -3 registrars Jeff Neuman:As a PDP Working Group, we do have to respond to all the comments as to how we considered them. But we do not need to read all of the comments aloud. Susan Payne:you might also want to switch registrar, so for the period you switch you would have to have two. limiting just to one would be very restrictive Rubens Kuhl:It also comes down to bargaining power in the contract: having more than one gives a brand more negotiating power in the table. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I respectfully disagree with Phil. I'd like to see us use the 45 minutes in Joburg to work through the comments rather than hone in on one point made by one Commenter on one subpart Jeff Neuman:Lets see if we can group the issues into categories of types of comments Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Jeff Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with grouping the issues into categories and represnting various groups of views for discussion. Much easier Steve Chan:Nope, that's it Paul McGrady 2:Next step: beer Steve Chan:you're more generous than i was thinking michael. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now safe travels to those who are attending JNB meeting Kiran Malancharuvil:Coffee for michael Kiran Malancharuvil::) Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks all! Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Paul: Not fair to those of us who have several more hours to go . . . .Safe travels everyone. Jeff Neuman:Beer at 7 am.....breafast of champions Susan Payne:bed for me Heather Forrest:Bye all Phil Buckingham:bed for me

1 0

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

June 14, 2017

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

1 0

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

June 2, 2017

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

2 2

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

June 2, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 01 June 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-01jun17-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track2-01jun17-en.mp3> Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p8kqs7yp2y8/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ChLfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 01 June 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2- Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 01 June 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Steve Chan:Slides are unsynced Phil Buckingham 2:unsynced Steve Chan:Everyone can control themselves Jeff Neuman:@Steve - that is debateable Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Steve Chan:@Jeff, I have more faith in our WT members that you :) Michelle DeSmyter:yes Phil Buckingham 2:clear as a bell Jim Prendergast:Julie and Micele - I need to leave adobe but am dialed in as well thx Kathy Kleiman:Hi All . Kathy Kleiman:Is there a link to this document? Steve Chan:Doing it now... Kathy Kleiman:Great tx - a bit easier to read :-) Steve Chan:Slides available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Jeff Neuman:ugh - my computer is going crazy. my hand is NOT raised. Steve Chan:You can find the "public interest" Wiki here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Jeff Neuman:I am going to log out then back in. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jim: GAC "requested" them Kiran Malancharuvil:Who is speaking right now? I didn't catch a name. Jeff Neuman 2:i can answer Michael Flemming:Jim Pendergast Kathy Kleiman 2:When people say PIC, could they say Mandatory and Voluntary? Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks Michael. Phil Marano:GAC Beijing Communique Phil Buckingham 2: is there a list somewhere ? Jeff Neuman 2:list of what? Rubens Kuhl:Actually, some registries considered including PICs that contradicted parts of the agreement they didn't like, like sunrise protection only for brands. Rubens Kuhl:Fear of the GAC / Fear of the GAC / I have constant fear that something's always near Rubens Kuhl:Having such a list in a PIC allows people that dislike it to challenge it in a PDDRP. So for any stakeholders, it's better than being listed as a Registry Service. Jeff Neuman 2:Should we come up with a new name for these then? Rubens Kuhl:One of the PICs is the obligtion of only using ICANN-Accredited Registrars. So calling it public interest is pushing the term public interest very hard. Jeff Neuman 2:Just TLD Commitments Kathy Kleiman 2:And perhaps GAC Commitments Rubens Kuhl:Some PICs tried to address ALAC or IO concerns... Kathy Kleiman 2:@Alan: can you give some examples? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Has anyone reached out to Tony Harris to let him know that we're discussing Spec. 11? I've been in several meetings where he has expressed concern about the "must use ICANN-accredited registrars" requirement, and I think his input here on this issue would be valuable. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):To clarify: It's been in open sessions at ICANN meetings. Kathy Kleiman 2:@Alan: I may have missed a term. Did you say the "Category 1" Comments -- meaning highly regulated strings such as banking? Michael Flemming:*PICDRP*, for the notes Phil Marano:“The Panel notes that PIC (3)(a) of Specification 11 imposes no obligation on Respondent as the Registry Operator itself to avoid fraudulent and deceptive practices.” See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_uploads_… Jeff Neuman 2:Thanks Phil. Do you want to speak to that? Kiran Malancharuvil:The PICDRP functionality may be for WT3, but there is a LOT to be learned about the PICs generally from the PICDRP result. Kiran Malancharuvil:And there have been multiple, filed, only one made it to the panel. Jeff Neuman 2:@Kiran - Right......when we talk about how the dispute process works, that is for WT3. But the PICs themselves (which are the subject of the dispute) is for us in WT2 Rubens Kuhl:I think this is being discussed in the vertical integration topic, isn't it ? Jeff Neuman 2:correct Jeff Neuman 2:@alsn - correct Jeff Neuman 2:alan Jeff Neuman 2:by the time the next window opens, everyone should be on the 2013 RAA Jeff Neuman 2:not sure we need that going forward Kurt Pritz:Now that new TLDs are in use: Can anyone point to a potential abusive behavior that was prevented by a PIC? (I.e., has there been an abuse in a TLD (that didn’t receive Type 1 GAC Advice) that might have been replicated by a GAC Advice Type 1 TLD?) - or - Can anyone point to an abuse by a GAC Advice Type 1 TLD that could be avoided by enhanced PIC Specs? If the answer to both of these is no, we should question the benefit of having the PIC Specs. Jeff Neuman 2:@aLAN - tHEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE picS...THEY CAN JUST BE IN THE BASE AGREEMENT Jeff Neuman 2:Sorry for ALL CAPS Jeff Neuman 2:oops Rubens Kuhl:Or become resellers of Tucows... ;-) Alan Greenberg:Jeff, certainly. Don't much care where they are. Since this was inserted after the fact, someone thought it was convenient to put it in a pic. I don't much care. avri doria:but nothing we do is granfathers. or even gandmothered. Michael Flemming:grandrelated* Paul McGrady 2:Grandparented Michael Flemming:aagh avri doria:and we have to look at mandatory sperately from voluntary. and we need to discuss ICANN ability to enforce the voluntary. Rubens Kuhl:Those were grandfathered, but would a new procedure be grandfathered ? Michael Flemming:My English Trang Nguyen 2:Section 1.1.d.ii of the bylaws avri doria:yes, that is what i was saying. Kathy Kleiman 2:Going forward is a new world! Trang Nguyen 2:and 1.1.d.iv is the provision that says "ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements, including public interest commitments, with any party in service of its Mission." Kathy Kleiman 2:"in service of its Mission" Kathy Kleiman 2:Good call, tx you! Steve Chan:@Michael, Jeff, sure, action item is captured in the notes. Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks all Paul McGrady 2:Thanks all! avri doria:bye good discussion, good start on the issue. please continue the discussion on the list. Alexander Schubert:Tnx Phil Buckingham 2:thanks Michael - great discussion

1 0

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

June 1, 2017

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

1 0

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

May 25, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p4zpsx6knty/<https://participate.icann.org/p4zpsx6knty/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4020b23172121acd…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GNTRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 25 May 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki Page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Michael Flemming:I received apologies from Jon Nevett and Susan Payne. Julie Bisland:noted, thank you Michael Flemming:Annebeth, it looks like you were able to join us. Jeff Neuman:@Michael - You received apologies, but were they really sorry? Michael Flemming:Welcome Michael Flemming:I think so Annebeth Lange:Hi Michael, yes, my other meeting was cancelled Phil Buckingham:I ve dropped . can I have another dialout please. Julie Bisland:yes, Phil, dialing now Phil Buckingham:thanks Julie Emily Barabas:we are now on slide 3 Phil Buckingham:julie - cant get a connection . will hang up . Try again please Julie Bisland:trying again now. Phil Buckingham:back in Emily Barabas:In CC2, the WG asked: 2.8.1 - Noting that the role of Contractual Compliance is to enforce the registry agreement and any changes to that role are beyond the scope of this PDP, the WG is not anticipating policy development related to this topic. The WG expects that any new contractual requirements would be made enforceable by inclusion in the base agreement. Do you agree with this approach? Emily Barabas:checking . . . Steve Chan:Maybe this one Michael? 2.1.3 - Should the entire application be incorporated into the signed Registry Agreement? Should portions of the application, explicitly identified, be incorporated into the signed Registry Agreement? If changes are made between applying and executing the Registry Agreement, how should this be handled? If changes are made after executing the Registry Agreement, how should this be handled? If changes like these are contemplated, how can the needs of the community to properly consider the contents of an application be weighed against an applicant’s need to make either minor adjustments or fundamental changes to their registry? Annebeth Lange:Is this also a question about entering into a contract between ICANN and a registry under certain conditions, and then after the delegation the registry changes the policy considerately? This was relevant in the first round in connection with for example community TLDs or certain geographical TLDs that needed support from a public authority. Annebeth Lange:Post-delegation was on the table in the first round. Annebeth Lange:+1, Avri Jeff Neuman:Really hard to hear Phil Jeff Neuman:uts just quiet Samantha Demetriou:I'm glad Steve brought that point up. I'm not sure we should be digging too deeply into pricing at all. In terms of certain predatory practices, such as trademarked terms being marked as premium names with premium pricing, we should probably also consider whether this is in the purview of our PDP or the RPM review PDP. Annebeth Lange:Impossible to hear Julie Hedlund:@All: Slides are unsynced so you can move them yourself. We are on slide 1. Christa Taylor:Impossible to hear Christa Taylor:yes! Annebeth Lange:Yes, Phil Buckingham:sorry everyone avri doria:y Emily Barabas:now on slide 3 Emily Barabas:Here is the question in CC2: Emily Barabas:2.7.1 The Applicant Guidebook specified timelines by which applicants had to complete the contracting (9 months) and delegation (12 months) steps of the process. However, this requirement only means that the contract needs to be executed and nic.TLD be delegated. Are these timeframes reasonable? Is there still a need for these requirements? Please explain. Rubens Kuhl:That extension was given due to Spec 13 taking time to be finalized. Jeff Neuman 2:This issue was not just about the timeline, but also whether there needs to be a delegation deadline and what purpose does it really serve Rubens Kuhl:So from the perspective of Spec 13 applicants, they had the same lenght of time to act. Jeff Neuman 2:After all, does delegation alone, without any use actually discourage squatting? There were MANY TLDs that were sold after delegation, but before what most of us would call actual use Trang Nguyen:I believe the RA also provides for applicants (beyond Spec 13 applicants) to request for extensions to sign the RA. Rubens Kuhl:Non-delegated TLDs could be cheapear to hold as inventory, since they could pay less or no fees to a registry service provider. Steve Chan:Section 4.3: §4.3 Termination by ICANN(b) ICANN may, upon notice to Registry Operator, terminate this Agreement if Registry Operator fails to complete all testing and procedures (identified by ICANN in writing to Registry Operator prior to the date hereof) for delegation of the TLD into the root zone within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date. Registry Operator may request an extension for up to additional twelve (12) months for delegation if it can demonstrate, to ICANN's reasonable satisfaction, that Registry Operator is working diligently and in good faith toward successfully completing the steps necessary for delegation of the TLD. Any fees paid by Registry Operator to ICANN prior to such termination date shall be retained by ICANN in full. Rubens Kuhl:@Trang, did any applicants or contracted registries requested such extension ? Rubens Kuhl:Possible purpose is to increase the hold cost in order to stimulate usage. Jeff Neuman 2:Delegation is when you pay fees Christa Taylor:When delegated Jeff Neuman 2:Except the YMCH fees were upon signing Jeff Neuman 2:TMCH Phil Buckingham:Michael , blog post by Christine Willetts - April 16 Rubens Kuhl:The TMCH fee was a single time USD 5,000 fee. So time doesn't factor into cost. Jeff Neuman 2:I am just saying that the TMCH fees were billed at signing Jeff Neuman 2:I guess my question is whether the community still has concerns about TLDs not being "used" Christa Taylor:If we move to continuous rounds, could it impact the concern of not being used? Phil Buckingham:Q should there be a requirement to launch after a set number on months / years after delegation ? Trang Nguyen:ICANN org tracks delegation dates so we can provide average amount of time that it took for TLDs to get delegated if that is helpful to this discussion. Jeff Neuman 2:"Warehousing" is very different than taking a long time to use Annebeth Lange:Jeff, +1. There is also the question of the definition of "use" avri doria:Agree we should ask for data. Greg Shatan:Jeff, agree but the length of time is part of the difference. I'm not suggesting the current timeframes were good or bad, too long or too short.... Trang Nguyen:ICANN org has received requests for extension for delegations and have granted them. Michael Flemming:Samantha we can hear you. Trang Nguyen:Same with contracting. We received requests for extensions (from Spec 13 applicants and non-Spec 13 applicants), and have granted extension Phil Buckingham:+1 Alan . I have "found " PDT Service Level Targets ( SLTs) Should have been 28 days target 2/10 were missed may 16- march 17 Trang Nguyen:We can provide average timeframe for contracting and delegation. Rubens Kuhl:http://newgtlds.icann.org/newgtlds.csv has some indications that could point to TLDs that went beyond expected delegation dates. Jeff Neuman 2:@Greg, for some brands the timeline was too short....for others too long. It also relates to how long ICANN took to evaluate the applications and get to the point of signing agreements. Many of the sponsors of the TLDs at brands were long gone from those companies by the time ICANN was ready to sign agreements. That severely impacted brands who originally did want to "use" the TLDs, but lost interest after the 3 or 4 years it took to get through the process Rubens Kuhl:There are a number of reasons to not being put into use... for instance, our TLDs are not being used due to lack of RAA2013 registrars in our target market. Annebeth Lange:I agree, Rubens. Jeff Neuman 2:And some brands got in because they actually wanted to use it :) Jim Prendergast:Should note that .brands are also the leading type of TLD resignations. Rubens Kuhl:Has CCT-RT looked into this angle ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am not surprised at that Greg Jeff Neuman 2:@Jim....true....but that could just mean that they know when they should get out ..... as opposed to others that should be getting out :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Jim , so why / what are the reasons why they "resigned " ? avri doria:it may be necessary to ammend a strict policy with a list of possible circumstances for getting an extension. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):makes sense to me Avri Rubens Kuhl:"nogotiation" Greg Shatan:Needs a tell-all book, Jeff! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good discussion today... Thanks everyone... Bye for now then... Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 01 June 2017 at 21:00 UTC. avri doria:bye Annebeth Lange:Seeyou, goodnight from Norway Greg Shatan:Buh-bye! Phil Buckingham:thanks Michael

1 0

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

May 25, 2017

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

1 0

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

May 25, 2017

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

1 1

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

May 18, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p1il6y9rj8d/<https://participate.icann.org/p1il6y9rj8d/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4020b23172121acd…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FtTRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 18 May 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Phil Buckingham:hi , im in - all working Michael Flemming:I am right here Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed you are Michael Flemming:We have 20 on, we should get started soon. Jeff Neuman:Lets go :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):morning Phil Michael Flemming:Phil, people can just raise their hands if they have a question. Jeff Neuman:Do we have control of the slides Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: They are unsynced. Julie Hedlund:-- Now... Kathy Kleiman:Is anyone else having trouble hearing Phil? Michael Flemming:Where are we? Julie Hedlund:Yes. Kathy Kleiman:It's as if he is muffled Julie Hedlund:Not on a particular slide -- asking about the meeting schedule -- meeting weekly at this time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we do Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):but it is a bit muffled Jeff Neuman 2:To sum up: We are meeting every week for the next 4 weeks Kathy Kleiman:I was wondering what information/data/studies exist to inform the very good questions being raised above? Jeff Neuman 2:Lots of topics to cover in WT2 Jim Prendergast:Ill do what I can but I know I have 1 or 2 conflicts Jeff Neuman 2:We are losing you Phil Jim Prendergast:maybe do a poll to all WT members since nto everyone is on the call? Jeff Neuman 2:yep Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):as long as my calendar gets booked I will comply Kathy Kleiman:yes Steve Chan:Here is the Google sheet that provides guidance on schedule of topics: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Karen Day (SAS):hear you fine, Phil Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Steve please Skype links to me the android AC doesn't support links that work Jeff Neuman 2:The leadership team has thought about this quite a bit and we agree that starting from scratch would not be a good idea. The train essentially has left the station on registry/Registry Cross-Ownership Steve Chan:@Cheryl, done. Please let me know if that works. Jeff Neuman 2:Essentially Registries were not allowed to own Registrars, but Registrars could own registries Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and the letters VI still make me shudder somewhat.. The WG was an "interesting experience" Jim Prendergast:very polite of you Cheryl "interesting experience" Jeff Neuman 2:Jon Nevett and I still had the best proposal in the Working Group :) Jim Prendergast:do we have any statistics on how many Vertically integrated Registries there are? Jim Prendergast:is that something ICANN tracks? Jeff Neuman 2:@Jim, that is a good question....we should collect that info Jeff Neuman 2:ICANN should have that from the certifications that are required to be filed every year from integrated entities Jeff Neuman 2:Trang? Michael Flemming:They do, I think. Michael Flemming:There are questions that ask about ownership. Trang Nguyen:I believe it should be possible to get this data. Will check. Rubens Kuhl:I'm not hearing Phil. Rubens Kuhl:Is it just me ? Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry):Did Phil drop? Sarah L:phones gone quiet? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):audio Alexander Schubert:he dropped Kathy Kleiman:yes Rubens Kuhl:On the audio bridge I can hear Jeff and some others. Phil Buckingham:so sorry i ve lost you . could I have another dial out . Karen Day (SAS):Phil, the A.C room will call you directly if you click on the phone icon Phil Buckingham:thanks Karen Julie Bisland:I'm attempting to call Phil Steve Chan:Here is the first link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Steve Chan:And the second link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Gg Levine (NABP):This approach makes sense. Jim Prendergast:good question Kathy Jon Nevett:Are these issues within the picket fence? Michael Flemming:Exactly what I was gonna say :) Kathy Kleiman:That would be great - tx you! Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry):Let's stick with complaints that Compliance determined had a foundation. Anyone can file a complaint with Compliance about anything. Michael Flemming:Well, I'd be interested to know if there wre any complaints filed in the first place. Jon Nevett:jeff, do you have an opinion about the picket fence? Rubens Kuhl:It's a stepped away mark. Alan Greenberg:VI was explicitly included within the picket fence if I recall correctly. Rubens Kuhl:Alan, if you want to respond to the current thread, please move ahead of me. I'm introducing a new thread. Christa Taylor:I believe VI was a PDP back at that time. If it wasn't in the 'picket fence' than it wouldn't have been a PDP Jon Nevett:I just checked and it's in the Picket Fence -- see Spec 1, Sec 1.2.6 Jeff Neuman 2: @Jon: I was just goiong to say that too: restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are affiliated. Rubens Kuhl:We call it registrar 9998 in RA lingo. Alan Greenberg:Spec 1, section 1.2.6. ConsensusPoliciesshallrelatetooneormoreofthefollowing: [...] restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are affiliated. Michael Flemming:It used to be 9999 Rubens Kuhl:9999 is the one for nic, www, whois etc. Michael Flemming:Ah, yes, you are correct. Christa Taylor:Page 18 of the scope discussed whether this would fall within policy development (picket fence) https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu… Kathy Kleiman:Depending on the presmise that major abuses have not taken place Kathy Kleiman:Are there registrars on the call? Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry):I don't think we can answer this without compliance data. Michael Flemming:Yes and we have not seen any problems but agree with Kristina on getting that data. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Kristina Rubens Kuhl:Kathy, are there non-VI registrars on the call ? They are more likely to oppose than the ones that are already VI. Steve Chan:CRA Report here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_topics… Rubens Kuhl:What I heard from folks at VI registries, that had a registrar but registry was their primary business, is that following the equal access was so complex they saw no advantage in being one. They in effect sold their registrar business sometime after. Phil Buckingham 2:MMX - right ? Steve Chan:That's it Julie Hedlund:No more slides Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Kathy Kleiman:good meeting - useful slides! Steve Chan:25 May, 1 Jun, 15 Jun Jeff Neuman 2:Thanks Michael Phil Buckingham 2:Contractual compliance , Global Public Interest TLD Rollout Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... bye for now then... avri doria:bye Trang Nguyen:Thanks, all! Bye! Phil Buckingham 2:Sorry . Thanks Jeff for stepping in

1 0

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

May 18, 2017

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

1 0

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

May 18, 2017

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

1 0

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

April 28, 2017

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

1 0

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

April 27, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): <https://participate.icann.org/p2hoivyjjkj/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=270a392f7eacd741 b08abf3f2654f84519ad6e8cf34f5cf5e6c5e8497ddb0bc4> https://participate.icann.org/p2hoivyjjkj/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/CrHRAw> https://community.icann.org/x/CrHRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 27 April 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_C rHRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ CrHRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=QlbBwdawy6LX1PMUZTN3vRdLZMoEKxUFoM5yZGQsaV s&s=9oGePU4gxyyDGZXNWvnFiOMcgUqIwWWZpAQr76uZLtg&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=QlbBwdawy6LX1PMUZTN3vRdLZMoEKxUFoM5yZGQsaVs&s=9o GePU4gxyyDGZXNWvnFiOMcgUqIwWWZpAQr76uZLtg&e= Terri Agnew:We would like to introduce Julie Bisland as GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator. She has started training with us this week. Michele Neylon:evening Alexander Schubert:nicht Alexander Schubert:*night Jeff Neuman:Welcome everyone! Jeff Neuman:We have some phone numbers listed without names....is it possible to match up numbers with names Michele Neylon:the 353 one is me Milton Mueller:is that an IPv6 address? ;-) Cecilia Smith:I'm 858 Michele Neylon:Milton :) Steve Chan:The recordings, transcripts, and slides from the two geographic names sessions are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group -2Dactivities_calendar-23apr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou p-2Dactivities_calendar-23apr&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7 xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=QlbBwdawy6LX1PMUZTN 3vRdLZMoEKxUFoM5yZGQsaVs&s=Ycfa-Up_0CEFNswZUk3eGbbKZhP0Tuj8VKiSs8u2LFc&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=QlbBwdawy6LX1PMUZTN3vRdLZMoEKxUFoM5yZGQsaVs&s=Yc fa-Up_0CEFNswZUk3eGbbKZhP0Tuj8VKiSs8u2LFc&e= Kathy Kleiman:NCSG was deeply divided on this issue. Jeff Neuman:Steve - Can we post a link to the statement that Milton is referring to Paul McGrady:@Kathy - so was the IPC. Tricky topic. Steve Chan:@Jeff, sure. NCSG comment to the Closed Generics public comment here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_c omments-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2D05feb13_msg00061.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_ comments-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2D05feb13_msg00061.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrc rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk &m=QlbBwdawy6LX1PMUZTN3vRdLZMoEKxUFoM5yZGQsaVs&s=BguCu0SjH3q38gI4KxfvCsFR1PI 0HUiSs_NtTHsIeo4&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=QlbBwdawy6LX1PMUZTN3vRdLZMoEKxUFoM5yZGQsaVs&s=Bg uCu0SjH3q38gI4KxfvCsFR1PI0HUiSs_NtTHsIeo4&e= Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - thanks for pointing that out. The reason I introduced it as the NCSG comment is because that is how it was filed "Comments of Noncommercial Stakeholder Group members on 'Closed generic' TLD applications" Kathy Kleiman:@Jeff, it's not an NCSG comment, but a comment signed by certain NCSG members. Kathy Kleiman:There are a lot of NCSG members who work for the principle (and have for years) that Generic Words are not owned by anyone. Steve Chan:Apologies Kathy, you're right. This is a comment from members of the NCSG rather than on behalf of the NCSG. Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - understood. I am not taking sides...just trying to make sure everyone is able to present their positions. If I am coming across another way, I apologize Robin Gross:There is no such thing as a "generic" word in any non-fuzzy sense. Michele Neylon:I recall it being a bone of contention at the time Kathy Kleiman:In the proceeding that the ICANN Board opened for the discussion of this topic, there was an outpouring of concern - from around the world -- booksellers, furniture makers, cloud computing platforms. Michele Neylon:Well one "cloud" company wanted to have .cloud for themselves Kathy Kleiman:The other major view in NCSG was that Generic Words belong to everyone, and that Generic Words can't be registered at trademarks for their generic purposes. They are open to everyone in the industry, field or area. Robin Gross:I don't understand why ICANN should want to regulate business models in this way. Milton Mueller:remember that any "generic" term regulation has to apply to multiple languages and character sets Robin Gross:Requiring a specific business models seems anti-innovation and anti-competitive. Kathy Kleiman:I have never seen such a huge outpouring of concern - including for .BOOK as just mentioned - from around the world (until we got to proxy/privacy) Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Alexander, let's use .write, please. I have concerns about using one of Amazon's TLDs for your example to avoid misunderstandings later. Paul McGrady:@Alexander - price gauging isn't unqiue to closed generics. Ask any brand owner that went through certain recent Sunrises... Rubens Kuhl:Nope, a registry can increase price for one domain. Susan Payne:I've experineced unilaterally imposed huge price increases in the ccTLD space too. I don't see what this has to do with closed generics - but it's late here and I'm tired Michele Neylon:I'm confused Michele Neylon:(which happens a lotO) Kathy Kleiman:@Michele, right, and the Cloud Industry Forum wrote to the ICANN Comment Forum to bemoan the locking up of a "highly generic phrase that is referred to by the industry as a whole and is not under restriction or ownership by any organizations, but has become in essence an industry classification." Milton Mueller:sure Alexander Schubert:Kristina: Have read your comment only now - didn't read the comments during the discussion. Rubens Kuhl:One way is to tell GAC that governments are the ones with anti-trust authority and better equipped to handle possible issues. Paul McGrady:@Rubens, much of these things were tried in the last round. But when your objections are not based in law, they are impervious to good arguments Kathy Kleiman:I would like to raise my hand, but having trouble with browser Alexander Schubert:Question to all: How could you raise the price for a single SLD WITHOUT raising the price for others AFTER a domain was registered? To my understanding that is not possible right now with gTLDs! Robin Gross:All of the examples provided by those who want to kill closed generics are by competitors of the applicant not wanting their competitor to have the name. This is clearly a gaming system. Alexander Schubert:And regarding "Market Domination": If Amazon registers .book - and doesn't use it; that creates a leverage for Amazon because there will be less options for online sales and distribution for books! Rubens Kuhl:Alexander, it's possible. The registry only needs to send a notice of increase 6 months ahead to registrars, and that notice can specify specificlabel.TLD as the only that have increased. Milton Mueller:Kathy, domain names are not trademarks Robin Gross:Registration is about providing EXCLUSIVE use. Not saying someone can't use a word. That point is missing from this argument. Alexander Schubert:And when we are at it: Why do we laws garnting public access to beaches ? Why not selling all beaches to the rich - and the poor can't go to the beach anymore? Milton Mueller:right Robin whether a TLD is open or closed, it is exclusively controlled by the registry Robin Gross:It is a conflation of concepts of right to exclusive use with right to use at all. Big difference legally. Susan Payne:@Alexander, even if you increase the prices across the TLD as a whole, it has an impact on the individual registrant. If that is the domain you have built your online presence on it is not a cheap or simple matter to switch so your choices are limited Alexander Schubert:Rubens: You can raise prices ACCROSS the board - but not for a SINGLE domain, right? Milton Mueller:Alexander: there are lots of private beaches. They co-exist with public beaches. I think we can have both Rubens Kuhl:Note that this per-label pricing had more occurences of lowering prices than raising prices. Most premium domains have seen not much market demand and the price was reduced. Kathy Kleiman:Tx Jeff Kathy Kleiman:Could you post the chart you are talking about again? Rubens Kuhl:Alexander, wrong. It's per label pricing on 2012-round gTLDs. Alexander Schubert:Rubens: Please define "per label"? Michele Neylon:Rubens - correct Michele Neylon:Alex - per domain thing.tld Michele Neylon:label - domain Alexander Schubert:OK Michele Neylon:same thing Alexander Schubert:Didn't knew that..... Rubens Kuhl:alexander.gay can cost differently from iam.gay Michele Neylon:you can raise or lower prices on your premium lists Michele Neylon:move them between tiers etc etc Alexander Schubert:Why would then somebody be so stupid to invest Millions into a domain.newgTLD - if it could be taken away at any given time by raising the price to a Billion USD? Milton Mueller:indeed, Alexander why? Michele Neylon:*some* registries have increased prices for existing registrations Michele Neylon:others have frozen the price Alexander Schubert:I think you just made me a BIG .com fan - again..... Rubens Kuhl:Alexander, because they don't know that ? ;-) Milton Mueller:long-term contracts offer protection against hold-up pricing Kathy Kleiman:I think they did comment ... Jeff Neuman:Milton - did I misquote you when saying that something cant be anti-comptitive in advance ? Michele Neylon:I've commented on this topic at length in the past Michele Neylon:not sure if anyone wants me to rehash what I said previously Michele Neylon:4 years later :) Rubens Kuhl:The only way a registry can guarantee it wouldn't happen is filing a PIC saying so. That would make that committment enforceable by registrants. Jeff Neuman:Michele - If you want to discuss your comments you filed, please do Michele Neylon:Jeff - happy to if people want me to Michael Flemming:Michele, would you like me to call on you next? Michael Flemming:Your feedback is very important. Michele Neylon:I don't mind :) Michele Neylon:https://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/23/5-reasons-why-closed-generic-n ew-gtlds-should-be-opposed/ Robin Gross:I haven't seen a single free speech group come out for banning closed generics. It is a business gaming issue, not a free speech issue. Jeff Neuman:@Michele - you bring a registrar perspective as well. Its rare we get registrars offering their perspective here ;) Michael Flemming:Alright, I will call on you right after Alexander. Michele Neylon:Jeff - lol Michele Neylon:Jeff - you are a registrar officially :) Jeff Neuman:I dont voice my opinion as chair Michele Neylon::) Alexander Schubert:can I respond? Rubens Kuhl:Same happens with community TLDs... Milton Mueller:yes Milton Mueller:you are just choosing to call it a community TLD instead of a closed generic. Milton Mueller:The community TLD is closed in the same sense that a closed generic is closed Kathy Kleiman:Good point Michele Neylon:a regulated TLD can be as well Kathy Kleiman:to the speaker... Alexander Schubert:Milton: If you need restrictions: Just file a ton of pics - and you are done. Like in a community TLD (obviously you do not need to identify as community priority). I just don't see why you need to completely "close" a TLD. Milton Mueller:how is that different from a closed generic Michele? Alexander Schubert:In a closed generic gTLD sooner or later ALL "rights" to registrants will vanish - and the domains will NOT be "registered" but "leased" - and the terms will be shady and intransparent. Kind of the "payday loan" of the DNS. Rubens Kuhl:The deterrence for single registrant is not the registrar equal access clause, since the policy could prescribe that only one registrant is allowed no matter the registrar... what prevents it today is one of the PICs, 3c and 3d: Rubens Kuhl:c. Registry Operator will operate the TLD in a transparent manner consistent with general principles of openness and non-discrimination by establishing, publishing and adhering to clear registration policies. d. Registry Operator of a "Generic String" TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's "Affiliates" (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). "Generic String" means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others. Paul McGrady:@Milton - thanks for joining the call today. Very interesting stuff. Lots to think about, Robin Gross:The argument for banning closed generics does seem to be very anti-choice. Alexander Schubert:Milton: Choices are fine. But there is only ONE ".music" and ONE ".gay" - and we shouldn't toy around with those strings.... Alexander Schubert:Thanks Milton! Paul McGrady:@Robin - yes. It was a way for less creative competitors to make sure that a competitor that had the foresight to apply did not get the commercial advantage that it paid for as an early adopter. Susan Payne:@Alexander - it's a closed TLD. There aren't registrants in the traditional sense. So it's not a question registrants losing rights and being at the mercy of the RO Alexander Schubert:Susan: The Centralnic thrid level domains (based on ll.com) are sold as "normal registrations" at registrars - and the consumer doesn't notice what happens in the background... Alexander Schubert:The same will happen with "closed generics": Domains will b sold at registars! Jeff Neuman:So you were ok with The Food Network getting .food? Jeff Neuman:And using it in connection with the Food Network avri doria:Susan, they are basically just platform users? Kathy Kleiman:.FOOD was the only closed generic to stay as a closed generics. Jeff Neuman:Yes Michele thanks Kathy Kleiman:Dozens opened up to their competitors. Robin Gross:Dictacting how people should use words like this is complete micro-management that kills innovation. Susan Payne:@Avri - Perhaps, but it depends on circumstances. What I was trying to say was that we shouldn't be assuming that the only use for a TLD is a retail "pile em high" model Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Preventing an RO from limiting registrations to itself and its affiliates prevents the RO from experimenting with using the DNS in innovative ways. It's effectively impossible to innovate if 3Ps already have registered domains in the TLD. Alexander Schubert:Robin: Can you give an example how innovation would be killed? Doesn't minimum wage then also "kills innovation"? Paul McGrady:I still think the Pros/Cons documents needs a "GAC Management" Section. Otherwise, we are just driving ourselves off the same old cliff. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):You can't try something new if you have to take 3P interests in their domains into account. If the experiment doesn't work and the TLD is "closed", only the RO is harmed. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):And Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I'm using "harm" very loosely. Alexander Schubert:And closed TLDs are maybe fine if they are NOT generic cathegory keyword strings. Susan Payne:which case? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):be good tonpost the details Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):to post Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):And, of course, numerous objection proceedings had exactly the opposite outcome. Rubens Kuhl:I don't think the penalty box is forever. I think this PDP determines the fate of those applications. Kathy Kleiman:It was an independent review by an international panel Alexander Schubert:It would also really be nice to have a link to a source whoch decribes potential "innovations" which would ONLY work in a "closed generic"...... Jeff Neuman:Sounds like Michael has a crowd Rubens Kuhl:Alexander, I have one closed generic idea I won't disclose since it's a trade secret... Paul McGrady:This has been a fabulous call. I think it was really thoughtful. I know I walked away with a bunch to think about. Alexander Schubert:Thannks! Alexander Schubert:1:00 am here Rubens Kuhl:... and other people might have other ideas like that. avri doria:bye and thanks all for the discusssion Michele Neylon:11pm here Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx everyone bye for now Robert Burlingame:Bye Rubens Kuhl:Bye all! Kathy Kleiman:Bye All

1 0

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

April 27, 2017

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

2 1

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

April 15, 2017

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

3 6

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

April 13, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 13 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): <https://participate.icann.org/p96pyjrn60g/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=436763efcaabf56f d0227f108d44d3c705d81ed2dd669eac5ee8f7b29a7d3189> https://participate.icann.org/p96pyjrn60g/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/B7HRAw> https://community.icann.org/x/B7HRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 April 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 13 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_B 7HRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ B7HRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=hYPNbusNs1aZNiWMt5YLdxDjanNXesFnRf6fmhomND w&s=vm5gV3gjsKgjXRvhkTmcfU1EovHJOj1MvA2dolJuMT4&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=hYPNbusNs1aZNiWMt5YLdxDjanNXesFnRf6fmhomNDw&s=vm 5gV3gjsKgjXRvhkTmcfU1EovHJOj1MvA2dolJuMT4&e= Michael Flemming:Terri, I think Phil Buckingham is also only on the phone Susan Payne:hi, I'm trying to get a dial out Heather Forrest:I had trouble with the Adobe link in my calendar entry, but then the reminder email sent 2 minutes before we started had a link that worked just fine Heather Forrest:(sorry, not like that info is useful to Kathy, who isn't in Adobe) Terri Agnew:Thanks Heather, I will send another email to all JUST In case (including Kathy) Steve Chan:Michael, happy to assist. Terri Agnew:@Susan, if I can help dial out, please chat me your telephone number (sending you a private AC chat) Susan Payne:thanks Terri, now sorted Terri Agnew:@Susan, thank you for the update Kathy Kleiman:Finally made it in! Steve Coates:Can't hear you, sir! Paul McGrady:How about "alleged" or "proposed"? Heather Forrest:Based on Phil's comment and Michael's reply, we need to update the language in teh document on screen Paul McGrady:Perfect Heather Forrest:Paul, sorry Paul McGrady:GNSO Policy on new gTLDs actually didn't prohibit or even mention closed generics. Paul McGrady:No problem Heidi, er Heather... Heather Forrest:you bet, buddy Kathy Kleiman:Many drafters of the Applicant Guidebook felt very strongly that Closed Generics were barred by the rules. Paul McGrady:Why were non of the pro-closed generics comments from the last round included in this document? Seems either a big oversight or one-sided designed to lead us all to a particular conclusion. Susan Payne:@Kathy, that might have been the intention of some, but I don't think that was what the wording of the AGB said Kathy Kleiman:First, belatedly, tx you for the opportunity to join you today! Kathy Kleiman:@Susan, the response in 2012 and 2013 was considerable! Kathy Kleiman:https://iccwbo.org/publication/exp_499_icann_116_expert-determinatio n/ Kathy Kleiman:I think the determination stands on its own - worth reading! Susan Payne:@Kathy, what do you mean the response in 2012/2013? Kathy Kleiman:The letters and articles written in 2012 and 2013 - some circulated earlier today. Kathy Kleiman:Many with group signatures. Susan Payne:yes but my point is that is not what the AGB says, that is what some people wrote after the event surely carlos Gutiérrez:sorry butMcGrady does not come through right carlos Gutiérrez:terrible echo avri doria:Even if we don't reopen it, we need to be explicit. One of the deficits in the previous policy is that we were not specific about approving closed generics, we just assumed that of course they would be ok. Heather Forrest:I think Carlos means that Paul's mic cuts in and out avri doria:note: we did not even have a name for them back then. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Avri Paul McGrady:+1 Avri Paul McGrady:But we are only seeing what 1 side has said. Why aren't we looking at what the other side said? Michael Flemming:We have gone over the Pros in the last call. Could you be clear what the other side would be? Paul McGrady:@kathy - the Board never said that Terri Agnew:@Carlos, I also sent you a private AC Chat, try logging out and back into adobe connect, maybe even try a differrent browser to see if echo clears up Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):not sure we have any consensus on that Kathy... I don't agree they are " by definition " Good Steve Chan:@Paul, the NGPC was empowered by the Board to pass resolutions. Therefore, NGPC resolutions are ICANN Board resolutions. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):rather that this needs discussion Paul McGrady:@Kathy - that was the pre-round 1 model Greg Shatan:It might be a good idea to prepare a Greg Shatan:pros document that parallels the cons document in the AC room. Kathy Kleiman:ICANN bans closed generic gTLDs, for nowKevin Murphy, June 24, 2015, 09:28:31 (UTC), Domain Policy -- ICANN has slapped a de facto ban on so-called closed generic gTLDs, at least for the remaining 2012 round applicants. 6/24/2015 Paul McGrady:+1 Greg. Having them side by side would be terrific. THis document, accidently I think, seems super-one-sided. Terri Agnew:@Carlos, did logging back in help? Susan Payne:thats a headline from a blog, not a fact. please stop mischaracterising Kathy Greg Shatan:I'll go back and look at the prior document. Paul McGrady:@Kathy - Kevin's headline isn't the same thing as a Board resolution, No need to revisit, I suppose, because the Chair just read the actual resolution which defers, not rejects Kathy Kleiman:Dozens of gTLDs (maybe more) became open. I'm not sure why this is a controversial fact. Paul McGrady:@Kathy - closed generic applicants throwing in the towel on the issue in order to preserve what they could from their application costs isn't the same thing as the Board rejecting closed generics. The options - as read by the Chair into the record were, withdraw, capitulate, or be deferred. avri doria:and we are now at the point to which they were defered. Paul McGrady:+1 Avri Kathy Kleiman:what's the question again? Steve Chan:The Code of Conduct is not loaded into the AC room...please give us a moment. Kathy Kleiman:It's Specification 9 in new gTLD Registry Agreements Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):my AC has bad lag today... sorry Julie Hedlund:Unsynced Steve Chan:Specification 9 is page 282 Michael Flemming:So, I think the main point here is on 6 in relatiomn to the comment made. Rubens Kuhl:Although not always mentioned, closed generics can bring inovation as well to the DNS. .frogans is one example of the usage type that can go in that direction. Paul McGrady:@Kathy - I love him, but Michele's business is selling second level domain names, so closed generics are contrary to his business model, but that doesn't make them against the public interest Susan Payne 2:the difficulty is that all of these arguments assume that all we want are a whole series of .com alternatives. where is the innovation in that Liz Brodzinski:+1 Susan Rubens Kuhl:So the question is how to close the door to misuse without forbidding possible good uses. Paul McGrady:@Kathy - no competitors were blocked out of closed generics - all were welcome to apply for them Kiran malancharuvil:Agree with Paul and Susan Payne 2 (identity theft??) Greg Shatan:The basic argument seems to be that TLDs shouldn't be treated like second level domains. Emily Barabas:Michele's full blog post is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.internetnews.me_201 3_02_23_5-2Dreasons-2Dwhy-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2Dnew-2Dgtlds-2D <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.internetnews.me_20 13_02_23_5-2Dreasons-2Dwhy-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2Dnew-2Dgtlds-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=Fm Y1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AI gn-H4xR2EBk&m=hYPNbusNs1aZNiWMt5YLdxDjanNXesFnRf6fmhomNDw&s=ZmuH0rj5SVrKDDRF cJU6_7bM-ckCEurMrS6o1iYztrU&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=hYPNbusNs1aZNiWMt5YLdxDjanNXesFnRf6fmhomNDw&s=Zm uH0rj5SVrKDDRFcJU6_7bM-ckCEurMrS6o1iYztrU&e= should-be-opposed/ Susan Payne 2:lost connection Kiran Emily Barabas:https://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/23/5-reasons-why-closed-generic- new-gtlds- should-be-opposed Rubens Kuhl:Also of notice is that most of the anger against closed generics came specifically regarding .book. Emily Barabas:pardon the broken link -- https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.internetnews.me_201 3_02_23_5-2Dreasons-2Dwhy-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2Dnew-2Dgtlds-2Dshould-2Dbe-2Do pposed_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.internetnews.me_20 13_02_23_5-2Dreasons-2Dwhy-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2Dnew-2Dgtlds-2Dshould-2Dbe-2D opposed_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSF pCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=hYPNbusNs1aZNiWMt5YLdxDjanNXesFnRf6fmhom NDw&s=kZf9cyi03zgwTFXoIUOQTsua6pvC5PTdsyD8ZvJV3OY&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=hYPNbusNs1aZNiWMt5YLdxDjanNXesFnRf6fmhomNDw&s=kZ f9cyi03zgwTFXoIUOQTsua6pvC5PTdsyD8ZvJV3OY&e= Kathy Kleiman:@Paul - of course we are closing off competitors -- to basic generic words that no one would be able to trademark as generic to their goods, services and industries. Kathy Kleiman:Tx for including me! Rubens Kuhl:@Kathy, Apple sounds pretty generic to me... (ducks) Susan Payne 2:Rubens - only for apples Paul McGrady:@Kathy - all were free to apply. Terri Agnew:Next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. avri doria:we will of course need to talk about this issue until we fnd a way forward. Greg Shatan:Competition shouldn Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now.... yes indeed Avri Robert Burlingame:Bye avri doria:bye & thanks Greg Shatan:Sorry will complete thought on list.

1 0