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

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

April 13, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 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 attached slides and PDF referenced below. Excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 April Closed Generics -- Looked at the pros and cons on our last call based on the public comments. There was an update to the RAA that restricted closed generics. -- On the last call we didn't have a lot of feedback on the cons, more on the pros. Intention today is to take another looking at the cons and see what kind of harms there are. -- Asked staff to put together the types of harms that are identified. Found different categories of harm. -- Are these harms asserted as potential harms, or identified harms? Rather than identify we will say "mentioned". From what we gathered from the public comments these are how commenters identified potential harms. -- Let's call these "alleged harms." -- Majority of the comments talked about a harm to competition. There also mention of harm to the public interest and legal principles referenced, mentions of ICANN Bylaws and GNSO advice. Also the RAA code of conduct. Threat to open internet, cultural harm, trademark-related harm. Harm to competition (page 1 of the document) -- Comments from last call we noted harm to competition was raised by competitors. -- Might want to look at a finding by the International Chamber of Commerce on .mobile. CTIA objected to at least one application on the grounds that it was a closed generic will all traffic going to one CTIA member. Language about harms to business communities: https://iccwbo.org/publication/exp_499_icann_116_expert-determination/. -- Think there were several community objections did relate to unfair competition. -- Something to bear in mind in relation to competition: there was to some extent some benefit that another brand owner might seek a closed generic might not be a bad thing for us (BBC). Some spaces could be safeguarded from greater abuse. -- When you are faced with a number of TLDs and defensively registering your brand. Say you are in the food industry and .food is a closed generic it saves you the money on registrations. -- Kathy's example is not fully helpful. I think that decision came in a pre-determined outcome. There is nothing prohibiting closed generics -- it wasn't until after applications came in. Then the GAC piled on citing competition harms without real hard data. Then the snowball effect. If we going to reopen this issue I do think we owe it to open it from the beginning. I think we have to go back and do a real review, but I'm not sure it's worth it. -- There was a request that we look into this. As for going back and doing a review, I am open to suggestions. NGPC resolution (since disbanded). Don't know if it would carry as a Board resolution. -- Do want to make sure we are looking at what has been said about alleged harms. -- Not in a postion for laying out the case for why this exploded the Internet community in 2012/2013. So the ICANN Board stepped in. Need to hear the arguments. -- The intention in this call is to address the cons on closed generics -- pros were covered on the last call. -- If there were no prospects and an application for a closed generics was on hold an applicant might have decided to withdraw it. -- Board told everyone that you would have to open up your string or sit in the penalty box until the next round. Don't think we need to stick to the .com model. There are newer models. >From the chat: Paul McGrady: GNSO Policy on new gTLDs actually didn't prohibit or even mention closed generics. 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. 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? 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: @Susan, the response in 2012 and 2013 was considerable! https://iccwbo.org/publication/exp_499_icann_116_expert-determination/ 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. 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 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. note: we did not even have a name for them back then. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Avri Paul McGrady: +1 Avri 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 ICANN Bylaws, Affirmations of Commitments, GNSO Advice, and Registry Agreement Code of Conduct (page 3) -- Two things here: Not sure what relevant GNSO Council advice there is on this. -- Why don't we read the Code of Conduct and see if there is anything about it? While we are looking for the exact text, that certainly was one of the items that was discussed. One of the comments people were making is it could be open to all registrars, but I don't think we ever dug deeply down that line of argument in terms of to what degree -- when you make a deal with a registrar you have to make the same deal with everyone. Don't think that one was resolved. (reading from the Code of Conduct, Specification 9, page 282-283) -- Doesn't seem to restrict closed generics. -- Not very specific comments relating to Bylaws, etc. Threat to Open Internet (page 4) (Reading from post from Michele Neylon: https://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/23/5-reasons-why-closed-generic-new-gtl….) >From the chat: 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 Rubens Kuhl: Also of notice is that most of the anger against closed generics came specifically regarding .book. 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. Kiran malancharuvil: Agree with Paul and Susan Payne 2 (identity theft??)

1 0

recording, Attendance, AC recording and AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 30 March 2017
by Terri Agnew March 30, 2017

March 30, 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, 30 March 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): <https://participate.icann.org/p7ewzny0u4m/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=40844f1d049ed36d 8b5428de305871e4377fc5dc11a1c7741645e01567ccb573> https://participate.icann.org/p7ewzny0u4m/ 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/BLHRAw> https://community.icann.org/x/BLHRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 30 March 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 30 March 2017 at 21:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_B LHRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ BLHRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=F3OBX_sw3Shh2PhomHVXEzl7EpTVRzLIeSPylhD5B1 A&s=D2nMqTyVRu6G7NyMp6dieDECbwAYRmo2Wghfz9bp9Nk&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=F3OBX_sw3Shh2PhomHVXEzl7EpTVRzLIeSPylhD5B1A&s=D2 nMqTyVRu6G7NyMp6dieDECbwAYRmo2Wghfz9bp9Nk&e= Michael Flemming 2:Terri lets give it another 2 minutes Steve Coates:Loud and clear. Karen Day:sounds fine Jeff Neuman:were with you Steve Chan:Summary of public comments available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system _files_files_report-2Dcomments-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2D08jul13-2Den.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste m_files_files_report-2Dcomments-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2D08jul13-2Den.pdf&d=DwIF aQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9 Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=F3OBX_sw3Shh2PhomHVXEzl7EpTVRzLIeSPylhD5B1A&s=9cBLIAsRs OLljcnwailwNfXlwHLCVegLOi3IJ60H4nU&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=F3OBX_sw3Shh2PhomHVXEzl7EpTVRzLIeSPylhD5B1A&s=9c BLIAsRsOLljcnwailwNfXlwHLCVegLOi3IJ60H4nU&e= Emily Barabas:everyone can now scroll through the document Jeff Neuman:pros Steve Coates:Pros Kurt Pritz:I think we should assume people read them Jeff Neuman:I think we should go through them all and get thoughts as to which people view persuasive Phil Buckingham:Ag,ree Michael - that is what these new GTLDs are about , right Emily Barabas:Michael, there are a few more Pros on the next page as well Michael Flemming 2:I will make sure to get those. Michael Flemming 2:Thank you. Jeff Neuman:So in theory, although a closed generic may harm a registrant's ability to get a domain name in that TLD, but at the end of the day, the use of the TLD in a closed generic may actually be more beneficial for the end user (the closed TLD's customer) Steve Coates:I don't understand this one. Phil Buckingham:Jeff , I am confused ! These are CLOSED generics - so the end users are not customers - there is no arms length transaction. Steve Coates:Who the domain owner is, if it's a closed generic. Emily Barabas:Steve -- I will see if I can find the original comment that this came from Emily Barabas:If ICANN regulates the right of domain name registrants to operate closed generics, ICANNwould actually limit free expression by imposing collective obligations and top-down regulationson domain owners. NCSG Members (4 Mar. 2013); M. Rodenbaugh (6 Mar. 2013) Gg Levine (NABP):Wouldn't a closed generic be operated as a .brand? Steve Coates:If registrants are barred from a closed generic, then I don't see how the collective obligations/top down regulations come into play. Steve Coates:That seems much clearer to me, Jeff. Perhaps "domain owners" then should be "TLD applicants." Michael Flemming 2:Jeff, could I ask you to speak for another minute, please? I need to get a drink of water. Michael Flemming 2:I'm back Samantha Demetriou:It seems to me that if ICANN wades into making decisions on behalf of a "consumer" in this context it gets into content regulation, which is outside its remit Phil Buckingham:There fore there is a direct relationship between the top level ( the owner ) and the end user . Therefore the owner (can ) CONTROLS who their end users are. Surely this is anti competitive , limit consumer choice . Michael Flemming 2:Jeff, you are in the can again. Steve Coates:Cant hear you, Jeff. Terri Agnew:@Jeff, you have become muffled Terri Agnew:@Jeff, audio is better Phil Buckingham:lots better Jeff Karen Day:@Phil - how is it anti competitive? You aren't limiting who can offer similar services? Just like with a trademark, to companies can offer identical services, but can't use the same name. Why can't 1 compnay have a TLD and not another? Steve Coates:What does the CCT say about public interest? Anyone? Jeff Neuman:They have not addressed this topic Steve Coates:Barely. Jeff Neuman:yes Karen Day:barely Terri Agnew:@Samantha, much better Phil Buckingham:Agree , Samantha , but where do you draw the line Samantha Demetriou:Not at all, Jeff, just trying to keep the convo going :) Kurt Pritz:@ Jeff - The rules were set out in advance - "closed generics" were allowed Gg Levine (NABP):Don't the safeguards, which the board requires, address the interests of end users? Jeff Neuman:Gg - in the safeguard, the end users are those that go to websites, email, etc. IN this case, ICANN decided that "safeguards" were needed for registrants in the form of protecting their right to register domain names Samantha Demetriou:You could interpret that once icann made the decision to disallow CGs, they defined public interest as protecting the open marketplace for registrants Gg Levine (NABP):Jeff - right, but is that consistent with their other decisions? Emily Barabas:For those following along in the report, arguments for the case-by-case approach are on page 23 Jeff Neuman:I think case by case would be too difficult and put ICANN in a very tough if not impossible position Samantha Demetriou:+1 to Jeff Kurt Pritz:@ Jeff - no kidding. Can you imagine a public interest review panel? Jeff Neuman:I would like to serve on that panel ;) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:shudder Karen Day:Totally agree jeff. Just look at the Spec 9 decisions - totally inconsistant. avri doria:i was trying to imagne a public nterest panel Steve Coates:I would rather watch a public interest panel. Steve Coates:I'd love to see some metrics on this for Round 1. How many traditional domain industry insiders filed for closed generics, versus new players to the industry. Jeff Neuman:nope Jeff Neuman:I would think industry insiders applied for open generic TLDs because that was the model they were used to and that is how they make money (selling registrations).s Jeff Neuman:I cant think of any industry insider that applied for a closed generic Steve Coates:Do we have a list of closed generics? Jeff Neuman:@Steve - you mean the list of those that initially applied as closed generics> Jeff Neuman:because there are no closed generics now Kurt Pritz:Two comments: (1) Isn't the world's largest book seller operating .book the wet dream of the new gTLD program? We would have already seen innovation, not to mention the attention it would have brought to the new gTLD program (which is sorely lacking in public recognition); why should that be stifled? (2) at the end of the day, these are just domain names. What is the difference between .book and book.com? Everything is temporary. One party might have control for a while but resources always flow to the parties that value them most highly. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:thanks everyone... bye for now then... Karen Day:bye all! Jeff Neuman:thanks avri doria:guess everyone else needs to stay on line. Cecilia Smith:bye!!

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 30 March
by Julie Hedlund March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 30 March. 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 PDF referenced below. Excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 30 March 1. Recap for ICANN58 -- Focused on polishing questions for CC2. -- Added new questions. -- CC2 published and out for public comment. -- No comments that would result in a new focus. 2. Closed Generics Recap of what was discussed: Closed Generics -- Background Information (slide 4) -- "Closed Generic" is referred to in the community as a "TLD string that is a generic term and is proposed to be operated by a participant exclusively for its own benefit. What's in writing? (slide 5) -- No reference in the AGB. -- Registry Agreement has Spec. 11.3.d. "defined as 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, organizationor things from things of others." Exceptions to the RA that allow for "Exclusive Use" (slide 6) -- Granted to Code of Conduct. -- Registry qualifies as a "Brand TLD" as defined in Sepc 13 as a string where... Closed Generics --- Pros and Cons (slide 8) -- From the public comment forum on closed generics. -- Find if there is or not potential harm in allowing closed generics as well as any other notable findings from the public comments. Summary of public comments available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-closed-generic-… Pros: Allow Closed Generics (reading from the PDF) -- There definitely seems to be a different definition of a user depending if you are in favor or against. Those in favor of not having them define the user as the registrant -- the registrant's right to register those names. Those who favor having Closed Generics look at the user as the end user who goes to the web site, as opposed to the registrant. We need to be definitive on competition -- is it registrants or end users? -- When we look at the end user it could be described as the customer of the registry offering closed generics. End users are the individuals looking at the web site in a closed generic TLD. -- At the time the Closed Generics came into play the applications were already submitted for operating Closed Generics. Example was .search. There were a number of complaints saying the Google and other companies should not be able to take a generic name and use it for their own purposes internally as that would harm consumers. A lot of people who filed comments said that ICANN shouldn't change the requirements midway. -- On the consumer argument: If you look at one of the cons says [third on the PDF list] "closed generics favor large industry players..." You are talking about big registrars, but people will want to buy produces at the second level web site. -- Is ICANN supposed to protect registrants as users or the end users as users (those who use the web site)? Not sure that ICANN made that determination. -- Part of ICANN's mission is to act in the public interest and it is public interest to limit closed generics because it limits consumer choice. Is it ICANN's public interest to protect registrant's rights to register a name or to get new and innovative content supplied by the registry who is also the registrant. -- The term "public interest" can be confusing in a general context and especially the ICANN content. If we start to look at what types of content people can put online we have stepped out of bounds. But it seems that this is what ICANN did in this case. The public interest weighed in favor of registrants being able to register a generic string, rather than a registries innovative model operated for end users. -- Take a step back and not assume the ICANN got it right. If we believe ICANN shouldn't be involved in that kind of regulation wouldn't that overturn what ICANN did and allow Closed Generics. -- Also seems to apply to reguirements for monitoring abuse -- Spec 11.b. Applies in safeguards and the definition can change depending on the topic. -- Need kind of common definition -- registrant or consumers/end users. Cons: Restrict Closed Generics (reading from PDF): -- The rule was that if you are a generic ICANN covers its tracks -- it still has the right if it determines your string is generic (Spec 11.3.d.) Don't think it was meant to be on a case-by-case basis, but that ICANN wanted a rule. -- There is a problem in the implementation itself because it is not being implemented for certain strings -- registration policies for some strings. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: So in theory, although a closed generic may harm a registrant's ability to get a domain name in that TLD, but at the end of the day, the use of the TLD in a closed generic may actually be more beneficial for the end user (the closed TLD's customer) Steve Coates: I don't understand this one. Phil Buckingham: Jeff , I am confused ! These are CLOSED generics - so the end users are not customers - there is no arms length transaction. Steve Coates: Who the domain owner is, if it's a closed generic. Emily Barabas: Steve -- I will see if I can find the original comment that this came from. If ICANN regulates the right of domain name registrants to operate closed generics, ICANNwould actually limit free expression by imposing collective obligations and top-down regulations on domain owners. NCSG Members (4 Mar. 2013); M. Rodenbaugh (6 Mar. 2013) Gg Levine (NABP): Wouldn't a closed generic be operated as a .brand? Steve Coates: If registrants are barred from a closed generic, then I don't see how the collective obligations/top down regulations come into play. That seems much clearer to me, Jeff. Perhaps "domain owners" then should be "TLD applicants." Samantha Demetriou: It seems to me that if ICANN wades into making decisions on behalf of a "consumer" in this context it gets into content regulation, which is outside its remit Phil Buckingham: There fore there is a direct relationship between the top level ( the owner ) and the end user . Therefore the owner (can ) CONTROLS who their end users are. Surely this is anti competitive , limit consumer choice. Karen Day: @Phil - how is it anti competitive? You aren't limiting who can offer similar services? Just like with a trademark, to companies can offer identical services, but can't use the same name. Why can't 1 compnay have a TLD and not another? Steve Coates: What does the CCT say about public interest? Anyone? Jeff Neuman: They have not addressed this topic. Kurt Pritz: @ Jeff - The rules were set out in advance - "closed generics" were allowed Gg Levine (NABP): Don't the safeguards, which the board requires, address the interests of end users? Steve Coates: I'd love to see some metrics on this for Round 1. How many traditional domain industry insiders filed for closed generics, versus new players to the industry. Jeff Neuman: I would think industry insiders applied for open generic TLDs because that was the model they were used to and that is how they make money (selling registrations). I cant think of any industry insider that applied for a closed generic. Steve Coates: Do we have a list of closed generics? Jeff Neuman: @Steve - you mean the list of those that initially applied as closed generics, because there are no closed generics now. Kurt Pritz: Two comments: (1) Isn’t the world’s largest book seller operating .book the wet dream of the new gTLD program? We would have already seen innovation, not to mention the attention it would have brought to the new gTLD program (which is sorely lacking in public recognition); why should that be stifled? (2) at the end of the day, these are just domain names. What is the difference between .book and book.com? Everything is temporary. One party might have control for a while but resources always flow to the parties that value them most highly.

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Meeting 30 March 2017 at 21:00 UTC
by Michael Flemming March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Dear All, This week on 30 March 2017 at 21 UTC we will be continuing our discussion on Closed Generics. Below is the agenda. 1. *Welcome * 2. *SOI * 3. *Closed Generics* 4. *AOB* Also, I send to everyone the slides that I plan to use for the meeting. I look forward to speaking with everyone and having an exciting conversation! Kind regards, Michael Flemming

2 3

recording, Attendance, AC recording and AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 02 March 2017
by Terri Agnew March 2, 2017

March 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, 02 March 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): <https://participate.icann.org/p6ksb5h5weq/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d2bb332eb83bd37e 112e25e7751c52e54fb922234e519726f89516ceebbbd6db> https://participate.icann.org/p6ksb5h5weq/ 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/7ZLRAw> https://community.icann.org/x/7ZLRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 02 March 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 02 March 2017 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_7 ZLRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ 7ZLRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=G5NCNIjPh8JfDXAGjCT7WnPi6lqh2L4zFNA-8MoKX5 o&s=7bvJjK1XwWpPFO0UKjiSy10Kq25506GfXRVEqkyEqjo&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=G5NCNIjPh8JfDXAGjCT7WnPi6lqh2L4zFNA-8MoKX5o&s=7b vJjK1XwWpPFO0UKjiSy10Kq25506GfXRVEqkyEqjo&e= Emily Barabas:a little quiet Susan Payne:sounds fine Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):we can hear you. Karen Day:sounds fine Julie Hedlund:Your voice is quiet Michael Emily Barabas:but audible Julie Hedlund:Much better! Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):yes Karen Day:wow! Emily Barabas:yes Jeff Neuman:Hereis the report: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system _files_files_report-2Dcomments-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2D08jul13-2Den.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste m_files_files_report-2Dcomments-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2D08jul13-2Den.pdf&d=DwIF aQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9 Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=G5NCNIjPh8JfDXAGjCT7WnPi6lqh2L4zFNA-8MoKX5o&s=yn2GD2Jlq rqmAqbb6TOdU80R_pi9WebcFMf17o3pLi0&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=G5NCNIjPh8JfDXAGjCT7WnPi6lqh2L4zFNA-8MoKX5o&s=yn 2GD2JlqrqmAqbb6TOdU80R_pi9WebcFMf17o3pLi0&e= Jeff Neuman:(Public comments) Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):That's the link I sent around by email before the call. Jeff Neuman:you dont have to read it Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):You don't need to read it. Everyone can find it on ICANN's website. Emily Barabas:we see what you are doing Emily Barabas:(scrolling, zooming, etc) Steve Chan 2:We'll unsync now though... Alexander Schubert:The AG should exclude generic keyword strings! Alexander Schubert:.makeup - L'Oréal - totally unused Susan Payne:Alexander, do you have voice capability - would be good for you to expand on makeup Karen Day:@Alexander should exclude generic strings or just closed generic strings? Alexander Schubert:Some corporate platers buy these strings up to close them down.... Alexander Schubert:You will also see registries who will rather keep ownership of all domains and "lease" them out; instead of having regular registrations. Which kills all rights for domain registrants. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):of course they do and that as a model for them is Ok... but it does have a chilling effect on others and contributes nothing to diversity trust competition or choice Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that last comment was re buy and shut down name use Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Jeff that is a real risk IMO Karen Day:@CLO - I disagree as regards stiffling competition, it may well 'chill' competition amongst the buy/sell side but it infact encourages competition between business and those who can innovate in the domain space by offering a tangible reward for devloping a viable innovative buisness model. Susan Payne:correct :Paul - Board chose not to make really a decision on this which is why they tasked GNSO to form a policy for future. No-one in round one could proceed as a closed generic but they were given option eventually (after most had already agreed they would open up) to go on indefinite holdd pending this PDP. Karen Day:@Alexander the .makeup space isn't being used b/c L'Oreals model was not operate an open registry. Perhaps it would be a very cool space if they hadn't been forced to open?? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Here's the Amazon letter I mentioned: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_c omments-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2D05feb13_pdfgIbbsgX7WQ.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_ comments-2Dclosed-2Dgeneric-2D05feb13_pdfgIbbsgX7WQ.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp 6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR 2EBk&m=G5NCNIjPh8JfDXAGjCT7WnPi6lqh2L4zFNA-8MoKX5o&s=FmZ3F6AhElQbth0lFxBUsqt um7qEbwWzgHXCWXpv7BY&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=G5NCNIjPh8JfDXAGjCT7WnPi6lqh2L4zFNA-8MoKX5o&s=Fm Z3F6AhElQbth0lFxBUsqtum7qEbwWzgHXCWXpv7BY&e= Paul McGrady:@Susan, except what the Board did was undo the decision that they had made to allow it when the AGB was published. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):possibly @Karen, Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):+1 Paul Susan Payne:@Paul - Yes, I agree the AGB did not prohibit Alexander Schubert:If it is not a generic keyword based string: operate it like you want. But category killer keyword strings should not serve to cut out your competition or have some fishy business models which deprive registrants of certainty. A Heather Forrest:Hi everyone - apologies for joining late! Alexander Schubert:Closed Generics WILL be abused - big time. Yes: There MIGHT be some benefitial cool new business models. I doubt it: There were zero new business models in 2012. Likely this simply opens the floodgates to abuse. Karen Day 2:+1 Kristina - there is too much inconsistancy as is. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Alexander: I think it's too early to say that zero new business models came out of the 2012 round. Paul McGrady:@Alexander - maybe the cool new business models were shutdown when the Board shutdown new generics... Alexander Schubert:Say 99% run the .com model :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that is a risk that parts of the ICANN community will be most concerned about @Alexander... yes Alexander Schubert:Then: If someone needs a closed gneric for a category killer keyword string - let them propose their model - give the Internet community opportunity to oppose it! Kevin Kreuser (GoDaddy):Dish Paul McGrady:An 8 year hold is a death sentence. Let's not pretend that what the Board did was anything other than killing off closed generics... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jeff: You can figure it out by reading the Spec. 13 application. That's public. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Well, you can see what they argued. Not what ICANN's rationale was. Paul McGrady:The difference between now and then is that the USG was part of the GAC that advised to kill off closed generics. The USG was, at the time, the final say in what got in and what did not. There would have been no point in allowing closed generics to proceed if the USG was not going to let them in the root in any event. However, the USG is no longer in that role. Karen Day 2:Guess we need to ask Apple too then @Jeff - it's a brand. Michael Flemming:I think Jeff is aware of that. He just wants us discuss about those brands that overlap with generic strings. Alexander Schubert:ICANN provides registrants with certain rights! If domains aren't anymore REGISTERED (via registrars) then all these rights are gone. The domain is then "leased" - maybe according to some Offshore legal entity that you can't even sue in the U.S.! Does the registrars constituency know that they are about to be thrown under the bus? Maybe someone should tell them.... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I don't think it's necessarily your role to have to come up with all the questions. We, as a group, do. Paul McGrady:@Jeff, its a competition law issue. Mary Wong:@Paul, what would be the specific legal question(s) to be asked? Susan Payne:OK - Question to get ball rolling: Is there a harm to allowing closed generics and if so what is that harm avri doria:what the harm is, or what the harrm is beleived to be. Karen Day 2:That wasthe percieved harm, but maybe Susan is asking do we have evidence of actual harm? Mary Wong:Going back to basics - does the group have a common understanding of what "closed generics" means as a term and category? Alexander Schubert:ONE SImple example: In the current registry-registrar-registrant model a domain is registered; and can be renewed infinitely. The registrant invests money and builds a brand around the domain. In the closed generics model a registry could simply retain the right to "sell" the domain at any time - and cancel the lease! So if you make books.com a big brand - the registry can kind of sell the besis of your brand! Just an example how registrants rights might be violated! Heather Forrest:In my mind this all feeds into a broader question, which is: what do we do with those areas of the Guidebook that progressed/changed after the GNSO PDP recommendations were agreed upon (ie, through GAC/Board change)? Paul McGrady:@Mary Wong, happy to help think through your question and get a more robust/specific response, but what immediately comes to mind is: Does the post-IANA transition ICANN (the corporation) have a legal basis to restrict the nature of the business models adopted by gTLD registries other than requiring registries to comply with applicable law? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Many of us have long flights coming up in which we could read the public comment report. ;-) Karen Day 2:@Mary, I think that is a debatable question as some will argue that "generic" only applies to those specific tlds that the GAC called out. avri doria:i have heard of no actual harm. Food is a good example. while it is a brand, it looks like a close generic and if being run as a closed generic, has there been any harm? Mary Wong:@Karen, that's why staff is asking the question - if there is no agreed understanding of what the term means, it's hard to see how conclusions can be reached via consensus. Mary Wong:@Paul, thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good plan Jeff Karen Day 2:@Mary totally agree avri doria:and are there other cases of branded generic words that are being run closed? Paul McGrady:@Jeff, I think we need to answer the basement question first. Can the new ICANN actually do this (harm or not)? Jeff Neuman:Paul - I dont think that we can get into the overarching questions Jeff Neuman:@paul - that question would apply to everything ICANN does Paul McGrady:@Jeff, how so? Jeff Neuman:I guess their answer would be that they can do anything that anyone contractually agrees with Jeff Neuman:Does ICANN have the right to require PICS? Jeff Neuman:Does ICANN have the right to require a public whois? Jeff Neuman:What I am saying is that it cant be for our group to research whether icann has the right to regulate Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Oh Jeff, I don't have the energy for an existencial crisis right now. :-) Jeff Neuman:@Kristina - exactly :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hell no Paul McGrady:@Jeff, its not the right to regulate that is the concern. It is the right to exclude that is the problem being discussed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):the energy not the answer to the questions Jeff Neuman:By signing the Applicant Terms and conditions, every applicant gives ICANN the right to exclde for any reason Jeff Neuman:(which I do not agree with) Jeff Neuman:But that is what they would argue Paul McGrady:@Jeff, if I don't want to sign the Applicant Terms & Conditions, where else can I "buy" a TLD registry contract? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I think we have only a few minutes. Can we agree on an action plan for our next meeting? avri doria:For the moment can we accept there is as of yet no proof of harm? Alexander Schubert:This is how for example .de.com domains are sold in a way that completely "feels" like a "normal regisration" - but if someone buys "de.com" up - all registrantions are gone... https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.namecheap.com_domai ns_registration_cctld_de-2Dcom.aspx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.namecheap.com_doma ins_registration_cctld_de-2Dcom.aspx&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPS S6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=G5NCNIjPh8Jf DXAGjCT7WnPi6lqh2L4zFNA-8MoKX5o&s=ZN1VkJqj2_DBTqG3FYb4iozjz7BZwhrmOaVGzA_zTB 0&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=G5NCNIjPh8JfDXAGjCT7WnPi6lqh2L4zFNA-8MoKX5o&s=ZN 1VkJqj2_DBTqG3FYb4iozjz7BZwhrmOaVGzA_zTB0&e= Michael Flemming:Yes, Avri. So we will ask for it. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now then... safe travels to those who are attending CPH meeting Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):bye. Safe travels. Jeff Neuman:my computer is not letting me lower the hand :) Alexander Schubert:TNX Alexander Schubert:Bye Robert Burlingame:Thank you. Karen Day 2:bye all

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 02 March
by Julie Hedlund March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 02 March. 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 referenced below. Excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 02 March 1. CC2 Questions (slides 4-8) -- Any questions about the questions? [None] 2. Closed Generics Background (slide 10) -- What is a "closed generic"? -- is referred to in hte community as a "TLD string that is a generic term and is proposed to be operated by a participant exclusively for its own benefit". Also see definition of "generic string" in the Registry Agreement Specification 11.3.d. Background Information, Cont. (Slides 11, 12, 13, 14, & 15) -- No reference to closed generics in GNSO Policy -- No reference in the Applicant Guidebook -- Registry Agreement Specification 11.3.d -- Public Comment report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-closed-generic-… (See summary on slide 13) -- Where are we now? NGPC requested in their 06 June 2015 meeting that the GNSO include the issue of closed generics in this PDP. -- Exceptions to the RA that allow for "Exclusive Use" (Slide 15) -- Registry qualifies as a "Brand TLD" as definined in Specification 13 as a string (Slide 15) Million Dollar Question: (Slide 16): Should there be restrictions around exclusive use of generic TLDs? -- Point out that whether we decide to allow or not allow we need to account for certain things that have happened -- such as .food granted under Specification 13. -- Should decide how to allow exceptions. Board has asked for a policy for the next round. -- One of the options is to say "no, we are fine with what the Board did with a tweak here or there." -- Amazon's view: restricting closed generics raises the issue of what is closed and what is generic. Could put ICANN in the position of deciding that some business models are better than others. Also could hinder innovation, such as using a TLD as an incubator for new business models. See: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/pdfgIbbsgX7WQ…. -- Questions: 1) If we allow closed generics are we getting ICANN into regulation of certain business models? 2) What is the difference between closed generic TLD and a generic TLD that has a ton of restrictions? -- Comments: In the last round they were not allowed but there was never a good reason given. Governments maybe had competition concerns, but could not spell out what that could be. GAC advice that modified a huge portion of the AGB after the AGB was supposed to be fixed. Doesn't seem to be any reason to continue with the way the last round turned out. -- What if we keep what we have today -- keep Specification 3d as is? IIt would be a bad idea of ICANN being in the way of healthy competition. We need to look at the broader issue. -- The Board punted to the GNSO. There wasn't really a rationale. Important that the PDP examines this issue. -- Almost impossible not to regulate. -- Question #1: What is the basis upon which ICANN has the power to decide which business models make it and which don't? Answer: If they don't have any legal basis to restrict closed generic that answers the question. But if there is a legal basis what are the perceived harms? -- Don't know of any research that ICANN did. Could see if there was a Board memo that was public, but probably because it came in as GAC advice -- rather than disagreeing with the GAC tried to find a way to say yes. Did not say no, but put applications on hold until the model was changed. Somehow .food got through. -- The distinction with .food it was a Spec 13 application. It was a valid trademark registration by the US PTO. Be cautious about suggesting that we/ICANN should be imposing its judgment over that of national trademark offices. -- Strongly urge going back to Paul's suggestion to go back to questions we need to answer. -- We need to ask the questions, but be aware of who we will ask. Need to ask an outside law firm, not ICANN. -- On research: We may have to ask for research to be done, but not sure this question involves a legal issue. It is policy based. But could be a competition law issue. Need to narrowly tailor questions. Look at the pros and cons, what are the benefits and harms. -- Maybe we don't have an understanding of what is a closed generic. Action Item: Need to come back and look at what is a closed generic. There is a definition in Specification 13 and Specification 11. Categorize the harm and benefits. Prepare something for the next call. >From the chat: Alexander Schubert: The AG should exclude generic keyword strings! Example: makeup - L'Oréal - totally unused. Some corporate platers buy these strings up to close them down...You will also see registries who will rather keep ownership of all domains and "lease" them out; instead of having regular registrations. Which kills all rights for domain registrants. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): of course they do and that as a model for them is Ok... but it does have a chilling effect on others and contributes nothing to diversity trust competition or choice -- that last comment was re buy and shut down name use. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Jeff that is a real risk IMO. Karen Day: @CLO - I disagree as regards stifling competition, it may well 'chill' competition amongst the buy/sell side but it infact encourages competition between business and those who can innovate in the domain space by offering a tangible reward for developing a viable innovative business model. Susan Payne: correct: Paul - Board chose not to make really a decision on this which is why they tasked GNSO to form a policy for future. No-one in round one could proceed as a closed generic but they were given option eventually (after most had already agreed they would open up) to go on indefinite hold pending this PDP. -- Need to look at where the law might apply and we need to have a basis for our policy. -- What is the harm? Answer could be in the public comments -- that closed generics will harm the open Internet -- could collect the pros and cons. Karen Day: @Alexander the .makeup space isn't being used b/c L'Oreals model was not operate an open registry. Perhaps it would be a very cool space if they hadn't been forced to open?? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Here's the Amazon letter I mentioned: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/pdfgIbbsgX7WQ…. Paul McGrady: @Susan, except what the Board did was undo the decision that they had made to allow it when the AGB was published. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): possibly @Karen, Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): +1 Paul Susan Payne: @Paul - Yes, I agree the AGB did not prohibit Alexander Schubert: If it is not a generic keyword based string: operate it like you want. But category killer keyword strings should not serve to cut out your competition or have some fishy business models which deprive registrants of certainty. Closed Generics WILL be abused - big time. Yes: There MIGHT be some benefitial cool new business models. I doubt it: There were zero new business models in 2012. Likely this simply opens the floodgates to abuse. Karen Day 2: +1 Kristina - there is too much inconsistancy as is. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Alexander: I think it's too early to say that zero new business models came out of the 2012 round. Alexander Schubert: Say 99% run the .com model :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that is a risk that parts of the ICANN community will be most concerned about @Alexander... yes Alexander Schubert: Then: If someone needs a closed gneric for a category killer keyword string - let them propose their model - give the Internet community opportunity to oppose it! Kevin Kreuser (GoDaddy): Dish Paul McGrady: An 8 year hold is a death sentence. Let's not pretend that what the Board did was anything other than killing off closed generics... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jeff: You can figure it out by reading the Spec. 13 application. That's public. Well, you can see what they argued. Not what ICANN's rationale was. Paul McGrady: The difference between now and then is that the USG was part of the GAC that advised to kill off closed generics. The USG was, at the time, the final say in what got in and what did not. There would have been no point in allowing closed generics to proceed if the USG was not going to let them in the root in any event. However, the USG is no longer in that role. Karen Day 2: Guess we need to ask Apple too then @Jeff - it's a brand. Michael Flemming: I think Jeff is aware of that. He just wants us discuss about those brands that overlap with generic strings. Alexander Schubert: ICANN provides registrants with certain rights! If domains aren't anymore REGISTERED (via registrars) then all these rights are gone. The domain is then "leased" - maybe according to some Offshore legal entity that you can't even sue in the U.S.! Does the registrars constituency know that they are about to be thrown under the bus? Maybe someone should tell them.... Mary Wong: @Paul, what would be the specific legal question(s) to be asked? Susan Payne: OK - Question to get ball rolling: Is there a harm to allowing closed generics and if so what is that harm? avri doria: what the harm is, or what the harrm is beleived to be. Karen Day 2: That wasthe percieved harm, but maybe Susan is asking do we have evidence of actual harm? Mary Wong: Going back to basics - does the group have a common understanding of what "closed generics" means as a term and category? Alexander Schubert: ONE SImple example: In the current registry-registrar-registrant model a domain is registered; and can be renewed infinitely. The registrant invests money and builds a brand around the domain. In the closed generics model a registry could simply retain the right to "sell" the domain at any time - and cancel the lease! So if you make books.com a big brand - the registry can kind of sell the besis of your brand! Just an example how registrants rights might be violated! Heather Forrest: In my mind this all feeds into a broader question, which is: what do we do with those areas of the Guidebook that progressed/changed after the GNSO PDP recommendations were agreed upon (ie, through GAC/Board change)? Paul McGrady: @Mary Wong, happy to help think through your question and get a more robust/specific response, but what immediately comes to mind is: Does the post-IANA transition ICANN (the corporation) have a legal basis to restrict the nature of the business models adopted by gTLD registries other than requiring registries to comply with applicable law? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Many of us have long flights coming up in which we could read the public comment report. ;-) Karen Day 2: @Mary, I think that is a debatable question as some will argue that "generic" only applies to those specific tlds that the GAC called out. avri doria: i have heard of no actual harm. Food is a good example. while it is a brand, it looks like a close generic and if being run as a closed generic, has there been any harm? Mary Wong: @Karen, that's why staff is asking the question - if there is no agreed understanding of what the term means, it's hard to see how conclusions can be reached via consensus. avri doria: and are there other cases of branded generic words that are being run closed? Paul McGrady: @Jeff, I think we need to answer the basement question first. Can the new ICANN actually do this (harm or not)? Jeff Neuman: Paul - I dont think that we can get into the overarching questions. @paul - that question would apply to everything ICANN does. Paul McGrady: @Jeff, how so? Jeff Neuman: I guess their answer would be that they can do anything that anyone contractually agrees with. Does ICANN have the right to require PICS? Does ICANN have the right to require a public whois? What I am saying is that it cant be for our group to research whether icann has the right to regulate. Paul McGrady: @Jeff, its not the right to regulate that is the concern. It is the right to exclude that is the problem being discussed. Jeff Neuman: By signing the Applicant Terms and conditions, every applicant gives ICANN the right to exclde for any reason (which I do not agree with). But that is what they would argue. Paul McGrady: @Jeff, if I don't want to sign the Applicant Terms & Conditions, where else can I "buy" a TLD registry contract? avri doria: For the moment can we accept there is as of yet no proof of harm? Alexander Schubert: This is how for example .de.com domains are sold in a way that completely "feels" like a "normal regisration" - but if someone buys "de.com" up -- all registrantions are gone... https://www.namecheap.com/domains/registration/cctld/de-com.aspx Michael Flemming: Yes, Avri. So we will ask for it.

1 0

Agenda for WT2 Meeting 2 March 2017 at 21:00 UTC
by Michael Flemming March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Dear All, My apologies in sending this out so late. I have run into some urgent family matters that have kept me from sending out emails in a timely fashion. This week on 2 March 2017 at 21 UTC we will be covering Closed Generics. I look forward to this being one of our more active discussions. As always, please note the agenda below. 1. *Welcome * 2. *SOI * 3. *CC2 Questions (Very brief follow up and time given for questions needing clarification) * 4. *Closed Generics * 5. *AOB (I don't think we will have much time for that this week, though).* Also, I send to everyone the slides that I plan to use for the meeting. I look forward to speaking with everyone and having an exciting conversation! Kind regards, Michael Flemming

2 1

Please Review CC2 Questions
by Michael Flemming Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Dear All, While it has been circulated to the overall group, I thought it wouldn't hurt to mention it here, as well. We have not had a lot of time to touch on CC2 questions per WT2 because we are having such fruitful discussion in regards to the current material. I actually am very happy to say that. Still, *PLEASE REVIEW *CC2 Questions per WT2 and make suggestions to the current questions. I know everyone is very busy, but the deadline for this is right around the corner (before ICANN58). The link is below. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… Thank you so much! Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Take Away and Policy Statement for Terms and Conditions Discussion
by Michael Flemming Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Dear All, I want to once again thank those who were able to make last Thursday's meeting in regards to the Terms and Conditions. While staff have already done a great job summarizing the discussion notes of Thursday's call, I want to follow up in a separate email about possible policy statement/recommendations per the discussion. *Overall Meeting Flow* We covered briefly a summary of all of the Terms and Conditions. I am attaching the revised slides (there was a typo or two and I am leaving out the CC2 questions) that dealt with our discussion. The table provided is my own quick summary and does not capture the more specific legal wording of each section. *Section 3: *ICANN reserving the right to determine not to proceed with any and all applications discussion take away: >From our discussion, something like the following could be considered as an applicable policy statement to ICANN. *"ICANN needs to have discretion within the confines of policy, the applicant guidebook, and the security and stability of the Internet when determining whether or not an applicant should not proceed. The current Terms and Conditions allows ICANN to arbitrarily determine that no applications could proceed to delegation. ICANN's determination must be limited only within the rules outlined in the Applicant Guidebook. Furthermore, ICANN should not be allowed to determine that no additional gTLDs will be created; rather, ICANN should consider any application for delegation that is submitted within the requirements of the applicant guidebook and follows all applicable rules of the application process."* *Section 6:* Covenant not to sue ICANN: Jeff Neuman provided a policy statement that we could further wordsmith as necessary. *" ICANN must build into the new gTLD Program appeals mechanisms to include the ability for applicants to challenge the decisions of the ICANN staff, the ICANN Board, and/or any entities delegated decision making authority over the assignment, contracting and delegation of new gTLDs. Such appeals mechanism must include the ability to review those decisions on the merits and not only with respect to whether ICANN violated the Bylaws . Only with such an appeals process performed by an independent entity could ICANN then include a covenant not to sue in the Applicant Terms and Conditions. However, the covenant not to sue shall not apply to cases alleging fraud, negligence or wilful misconduct."* *Section 14:* This section looked at the right of ICANN to make changes to the AGB as long as it does not cause hardship to those who have already submitted an application while at the same time allowing ICANN to work with such applicants to mitigate those hardships. Our discussion points concluded that while ICANN did make changes to the AGB and those did in fact cause hardship to applicants, ICANN did little to mitigate such hardship. Also, as a part of the overall WG, one of the areas we are looking at is predictability in the process. If predictability allows us to foresee certain changes to an extent, then this section will likely make more sense. All the same, I wonder if we could have more input on this topic before coming up with any possible possible recommendation if it would be deemed necessary. *Other Sections:* We also concluded to focus further discussion on the following sections, which relate to one of the above or need further clarification. *Section 5* - Up for consideration (in relation to Section 6). *Section 10* - This warrants looking at. It was mentioned that there was an issue of applicant assigning rights hasn't been honored. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

- GDD Response to EBERO questions
by Steve Chan Feb. 17, 2017

Feb. 17, 2017

Dear WT2 Members, On the 19 January 2017 meeting of this Work Track, WT2 discussed Registrant Protections and in particular, the EBERO. During the course of the meeting, several questions were identified that the WT wanted to put forth to the GDD: Ask ICANN 1) has the Emergency Threshold been breached 2) has EBERO been triggered? 3) If someone went above the threshold and EBERO wasn't used, then why? Below, please see the response from GDD: “Section 6 of Specification 10 of the Registry Agreement for new gTLDs provides emergency thresholds for the 5 critical registry functions. Per the Registry Agreement, reaching any one of these thresholds could trigger an EBERO event. ICANN monitors registries’ performance of these critical registry functions, and regularly engages with Registry Operators and Registry Service Providers when service outages occur. Not all services outages reach emergency thresholds. If emergency thresholds are reached, ICANN evaluates each individual case and make decisions regarding whether to trigger an EBERO event based on the unique circumstances. Since the launch of the New gTLD program, an SLA has reached or exceeded the emergency threshold 27 times. However, no EBERO events have been declared to date. In each of these 27 cases, ICANN technical teams were already working with the registry before the threshold was reached. In many of the cases, the TLD had no registrations. In the cases in which there were registrations, ICANN considered the EBERO option. However, ICANN determined that it would have less of a security and stability impact to assist the RSP through resolution rather than activating an EBERO event.” Hopefully this response adequately addresses your questions. If you have any additional questions or require clarifications, please do not hesitate to let the policy staff support know and we will be sure to liaise with our GDD colleagues. 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/

6 7

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 16 February 2017
by Terri Agnew Feb. 16, 2017

Feb. 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, 16 February 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): <https://participate.icann.org/p3tw0auf0j4/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=35164ca55b0b4325 1de3126b2595278b4418e8a455ee85906e150b73fd5ffb72> https://participate.icann.org/p3tw0auf0j4/ 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/qbPDAw> https://community.icann.org/x/qbPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 16 February 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 16 February 2017 at 21:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_q bPDAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ qbPDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WM0d8ulWZC0TuPqSgB7jchPcrOgKmMQ-EY5HEGe4_0 0&s=CbEFokLhGUykcmR11WlYaAcuXXmYo203oOQPftznlqA&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WM0d8ulWZC0TuPqSgB7jchPcrOgKmMQ-EY5HEGe4_00&s=Cb EFokLhGUykcmR11WlYaAcuXXmYo203oOQPftznlqA&e= Steve Chan:I'll work on that... Steve Chan:@Michael, all set to be able to display Module 6 Steve Chan:Available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a pplicants_agb_terms-2D04jun12-2Den.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_ applicants_agb_terms-2D04jun12-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfk bPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WM0d8ulWZ C0TuPqSgB7jchPcrOgKmMQ-EY5HEGe4_00&s=RgHTmU8ApAMiQEQnwHAvomYTRrlhRZOf8-vQEQ7 yDAs&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WM0d8ulWZC0TuPqSgB7jchPcrOgKmMQ-EY5HEGe4_00&s=Rg HTmU8ApAMiQEQnwHAvomYTRrlhRZOf8-vQEQ7yDAs&e= Jeff Neuman:If I remember correctly, ICANN displayed this and required express agreement with these when submitting an application Steve Chan:@Jeff, if I recall, it was built into TAS. Jeff Neuman:Right. So before you ould hit "Submit", you had to agree to the Ts and Cs. Rubens Kuhl:So an applicant can challenge a decision in court before it's final ? ;-) Jon Nevett:on 14, should be material hardship to applicant Rubens Kuhl:"May not assign applicant rights" is an interesting reading considering .web and .blog. Mike Rodenbaugh:typo in 14 near end, should be "hardship to Applicant"? Rubens Kuhl:Mike, Michael mentioned it. You and Jon are on point. Jon Nevett:Last sentence is ok Rubens Kuhl:"Any fees submitted" implies some sort of 100% refund. Did it happen ? Susan Payne:@rubens I don't think so Mike Rodenbaugh:First two sentences, if taken literally, makes the entire contract illusory... ICANN has no obligation unless it chooses. Jon Nevett:I don't often say this, but Alan +1!! Mike Rodenbaugh:+1 Alan. More than unusual... illusory, unfair. Rubens Kuhl:But if we specify it, it might generate a situation where something arises that justifies not approving, but was not foreseen. Mike Rodenbaugh:ICANN has relied on this language (though from Module 3) in IRP proceedings against my client Alan Greenberg:Ah com'on Jon, we have agreed on occasional things in the past. Jon Nevett:absolutely -- just kidding! Jeff Neuman:How so Mike? Mike Rodenbaugh:"Unfettered discretion" destroys the whole point of the Guidebook, which was to take that discretion away from the Board (after the .XXX debacle) Alan Greenberg:Admittedly less often nowadays... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):different circumstances exist in future 'rounds' Ifrom the one that this part of the module covers for the earlier one Jeff Neuman:this is not based on policy recommendations Mike Rodenbaugh:@Jeff they have relied on Sec. 5.1 (not Module 3) in Islam/halal matter Mike Rodenbaugh:see their latest brief, p.20 Susan Payne:Name collision? home etc? Rubens Kuhl:There is also GAC Advice, which is also a different module. Jim Prendergast:wonder where mail, corp and home fit in. Jeff Neuman:Agree with Susan that if there were a challenge by .home and .corp, this clause would be invoked Susan Payne:also what about any closed generics who have not agreed to open up? Steve Chan:For context it might useful to review the T&Cs from the very first Applicant Guidebook in 2008. The language is not dramatically different: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__archive.icann.org_en_top ics_new-2Dgtlds_terms-2D24oct08-2Den.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__archive.icann.org_en_to pics_new-2Dgtlds_terms-2D24oct08-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzg fkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WM0d8ul WZC0TuPqSgB7jchPcrOgKmMQ-EY5HEGe4_00&s=0_BXkKKozVxdQf8RUi1aNP1e7SFK3xeuISXcq xEPWSk&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WM0d8ulWZC0TuPqSgB7jchPcrOgKmMQ-EY5HEGe4_00&s=0_ BXkKKozVxdQf8RUi1aNP1e7SFK3xeuISXcqxEPWSk&e= Jeff Neuman:@Susan, that is more clause 14 Rubens Kuhl:Covenant not to sue should actually be strengthned instead of removed. Steve Chan:And there was a Board resolution from Trondheim in 2010 that relates to this subject. Steve Chan:"The Board approves the inclusion of a broad waiver and limitation of liability in the application terms and conditions." - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources _board-2Dmaterial_minutes-2D2010-2D09-2D25-2Den <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource s_board-2Dmaterial_minutes-2D2010-2D09-2D25-2Den&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwl l3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m= WM0d8ulWZC0TuPqSgB7jchPcrOgKmMQ-EY5HEGe4_00&s=i3clxGkQDeJfsUxKHvWAHLqNRp90GU rRLmUAwo9AqgI&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WM0d8ulWZC0TuPqSgB7jchPcrOgKmMQ-EY5HEGe4_00&s=i3 clxGkQDeJfsUxKHvWAHLqNRp90GUrRLmUAwo9AqgI&e= Mike Rodenbaugh:@Jim I believe .home etc. are also in this netherworld of 'unfettered Board discretion' Mike Rodenbaugh:@Rubens I think I disagree strongly Susan Payne:@Jeff, sort of. that accounts for the changed position, but if the applicant has refused to open up they cannot proceed Jon Nevett:if ICANN had a fair dispute process, then I wouldn't disagree with Rubens as much Rubens Kuhl:@Mike, I understand why an US lawyer would prefer, so I think you might get why non-US applicants are not fond of it. Mike Rodenbaugh:please explain Rubens Kuhl:Home court advantage, using another meaning of the world "court". Mike Rodenbaugh:sorry but I don't understand. the covenant applies in any court. Rubens Kuhl:Jon, that's what WS2 is all about, I believe... and what WS2 fails to deliver, to possible activations of the Empowered Community. Jon Nevett:more than that Rubens Mike Rodenbaugh:It makes ICANN entirely unaccountable Rubens Kuhl:Which created a problem because then current accountability mechanisms only allowed procedural grounds. Alexander Schubert 2:we might add that speculator can't sue for private auction revenues either! Rubens Kuhl:And there might be substantive, not procedural issues, that might need to be challenged. Alexander Schubert 2:Rather applicant speculators can't sue ICANN for loss of private auction proceeds...... Trang Nguyen:@Mike: under the new Bylaws, IRP decisions are binding and enforceable in any court with proper jurisdiction (4.3.a.viii) Mike Rodenbaugh:resources are not an issue for ICANN wrt defending its actions in the New TLD Program. 1/3 of application fees setaside for that purpose... at least a hundred million dollars Rubens Kuhl:Fraud, neglience and grossful misconduct are likely already exclued by California law anyways... but mentioning it in writing is a good thing. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):exactly Jeff.., yes Trangie, thx for pointing that out Kevin Kreuser:I like Trangie - let's make that stick Mike Rodenbaugh:@Trang that refers to the procedure, not to the permissible content of such a decision... Susan Payne:agree Jon Mike Rodenbaugh:ICANN still argues that an IRP panel can't recommend any affirmative relief, but can only decide whether the Board violated Bylaws... Rubens Kuhl:Perhaps binding 3rd parties to ICANN Bylaws for those willing to become contractors to the program ? Rubens Kuhl:@Mike, most IRP panels disregarded that affirmative relief can't be awarded. But I believe one or two bought into JD standard argument to that. Mike Rodenbaugh:@Susan I think it's about half and half... Trang Nguyen:Ultimately, that's why the community asked the Board removal right, as the ultimate path of recourse. Mike Rodenbaugh:that is ridiculous Trang Nguyen:*for the Board.... Rubens Kuhl:@Trang the board removal is too much of a nuclear option to be considered in dealing with one single decision. The community might do that for a consistent pattern of misconduct. Trang Nguyen:The bylaws do provide for other paths...reconsideration, community IRP, the EC can take ICANN to court...these are the actions available to the EC under the new Bylaws. Jon Nevett:so they could double the application fee after receiving applications and not provide a refund? Jeff Neuman:Policy Statement: ICANN must strengthen its appeals mechanisms to include the ability for applicants to challenge the decisions of the ICANN staff, the ICANN Board, and/or any entities delegated decision making authority over the assignment, contracting and delegation of new gTLDs. Such appeals meachnism must include the ability to review those decisions on the merits and not only with respect to whether ICANN violated the Bylaws . Only with such an appeals process performed by an independent entity could ICANN then include a covenant not to sue in the Applicant Terms and Conditions. Rubens Kuhl:@Trang: is reconsideration still limited to procedural issues ? Jon Nevett:i don't think that recon is limited to procedural issues Trang Nguyen:@Rubens, the scope of the reconsideration process under the new bylaws has been expanded. Mike Rodenbaugh:yet remains untested Steve Chan:All, re: the drafting team Jeff is describing right now, there is only one volunteer at the moment. Trang Nguyen:...to include actions/inactions that contradict ICANN's Mission, Commitments, Core Values and/or established ICANN policy Rubens Kuhl:@Mike, all AGB changes will be definition be untested until the next procedure. Steve Chan:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_do cument_d_1g-2DOoBec-5FQ6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh62SYo_edit-23&d=DwIFaQ&c =FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa 0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WM0d8ulWZC0TuPqSgB7jchPcrOgKmMQ-EY5HEGe4_00&s=kFy_jxgaIgS7o YJ-XuKGAo_CoqsORcstDGWIqMU2sQY&e= Rubens Kuhl:(by definition) Jeff Neuman:I will also review again as a proofreading exercise Rubens Kuhl:@Trang, so the only difference from what Jeff suggested is Board Governance Commitee x Independent 3rd party making a call. Jon Nevett:could we table that? Jeff Neuman:I think the rest of the Ts and Cs are mostly legal boilerplate Jon Nevett:i'd like to take a closer look Mike Rodenbaugh:me too Jim Prendergast:and give people not on call chance to respond Jeff Neuman:of course....we are not making final decisions here....just trying to have a discussion and trying to elicit known issues now Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, could you please clarify the reference to "strengthen its appeals mechanisms" in your proposed policy language? Mike Rodenbaugh:Indemnity deserves a closer look, at least should be consistent with narrower release of claims and covenant not to sue Jeff Neuman:@Trang, I am talking about appeals of decisions under the guidebook...NOT accountability mechanisms Rubens Kuhl:@Jeff, in the part where there is a covenant not to sue, we could suggest reinforcing it so it really stands if/when someone actually files a lawsuit. Trang Nguyen:Got it....thanks, Jeff! Jeff Neuman:SO I can reword that part Mike Rodenbaugh:Sec. 10 obviously needs some clarification Jon Nevett:what if ICANN breaches the terms of the AGB? Jon Nevett:what if ICANN deliberately reveals applicants proprietary financial information? Jon Nevett:or negligently? Jeff Neuman:Revised Statement: ICANN must build into the new gTLD Program appeals mechanisms to include the ability for applicants to challenge the decisions of the ICANN staff, the ICANN Board, and/or any entities delegated decision making authority over the assignment, contracting and delegation of new gTLDs. Such appeals mechanism must include the ability to review those decisions on the merits and not only with respect to whether ICANN violated the Bylaws . Only with such an appeals process performed by an independent entity could ICANN then include a covenant not to sue in the Applicant Terms and Conditions. However, the covenant not to sue shall not apply to cases alleging fraud, negligence or misconduct. Rubens Kuhl:"Applicant may not assign applicant rights" could even be read as preventing applicants from getting some types of risk capital. Mike Rodenbaugh:More thinking needs to happen about the CNTS Jon Nevett:Section 10 was a big part of the .web issue Mike Rodenbaugh:'negligence' and 'misconduct' are really vague Jeff Neuman:I had originally gross negligence and wilful misconduct but Jon said that was too narrow Mike Rodenbaugh:I agree with Jon, but 'misconduct' can mean literally anything Susan Payne:no Rubens Kuhl:Doesn't that limit ICANN's options on legal firms ? Jeff Neuman:ok.....I will revise the statement again...stay tuned Jon Nevett:if ICANN is negligent in doing the evaluation, shouldn't there be some recourse? Rubens Kuhl:(Sec. 13) Susan Payne:@Rubens I don't think it does, it just means you cannot prevent them using JD by citing conflict Rubens Kuhl:Ok, then it's not a problem. Steve Chan:As a reminder, the language on screen is in summary. Mike Rodenbaugh:@Jon, it is pretty easy to allege negligence as to just about any action or inaction whatsoever Jeff Neuman:Further Revised: Revised Statement: ICANN must build into the new gTLD Program appeals mechanisms to include the ability for applicants to challenge the decisions of the ICANN staff, the ICANN Board, and/or any entities delegated decision making authority over the assignment, contracting and delegation of new gTLDs. Such appeals mechanism must include the ability to review those decisions on the merits and not only with respect to whether ICANN violated the Bylaws . Only with such an appeals process performed by an independent entity could ICANN then include a covenant not to sue in the Applicant Terms and Conditions. However, the covenant not to sue shall not apply to cases alleging fraud, negligence or wilful misconduct. Steve Chan:Here again is the link to the complete language: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a pplicants_agb_terms-2D04jun12-2Den.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_ applicants_agb_terms-2D04jun12-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfk bPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WM0d8ulWZ C0TuPqSgB7jchPcrOgKmMQ-EY5HEGe4_00&s=RgHTmU8ApAMiQEQnwHAvomYTRrlhRZOf8-vQEQ7 yDAs&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WM0d8ulWZC0TuPqSgB7jchPcrOgKmMQ-EY5HEGe4_00&s=Rg HTmU8ApAMiQEQnwHAvomYTRrlhRZOf8-vQEQ7yDAs&e= Jeff Neuman:Everyone please go to the CC2 Questions ASAP Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, on fraud/negligence, perhaps California law could be the basis for the phrase ? Jeff Neuman:and look at them to ake sure we have asked everything you wanted it to ask Jeff Neuman:@Rubens........Under California law, technically you can waive those rights...that is why i included them herer Steve Chan:@Michael, I think I'd prefer to send a reminder to the full WG, along with some explanation of timeline. Hope you don't mind? Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 02 March 2017 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Jeff Neuman:Agree this is a good stopping point. PLEASE Review the notes and let us know any other issues! Jeff Neuman:This was a great call. Lets not lose momentum Robert Burlingame:Thank you. Good discussions today. Jon Nevett:thanks all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good progress today... thanks all, bye for now Jeff Neuman:Thanks Michael. Susan Payne:thanks all Rubens Kuhl:Thanks all, bye!

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 16 February
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 16, 2017

Feb. 16, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 16 February. 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 referenced below. Excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 16 February Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. SOI 3. Terms and Conditions 4. CC2 Questions 5. AOB Notes: 1. Terms and Conditions (slide 4) -- Part of the ABG -- module 6: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/terms-04jun12-en.pdf. -- Binding document. Background Information (Slides 5 and 6) >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: If I remember correctly, ICANN displayed this and required express agreement with these when submitting an application Steve Chan: @Jeff, if I recall, it was built into TAS. Jeff Neuman: Right. So before you ould hit "Submit", you had to agree to the Ts and Cs. Rubens Kuhl: So an applicant can challenge a decision in court before it's final ? ;-) Jon Nevett: on 14, should be material hardship to applicant. Mike Rodenbaugh: typo in 14 near end, should be "hardship to Applicant"? Mike Rodenbaugh: First two sentences, if taken literally, makes the entire contract illusory... ICANN has no obligation unless it chooses. Jon Nevett: I don't often say this, but Alan +1!! Rubens Kuhl: "May not assign applicant rights" is an interesting reading considering .web and .blog. Jon Nevett: Last sentence is ok. Rubens Kuhl: "Any fees submitted" implies some sort of 100% refund. Did it happen ? Susan Payne: @rubens I don't think so. Discussion Point 1 (slide 7) -- In regards to section 3 on ICANN reserving the right to determining not to proceed with any and all applications for new gTLDs. (See Section 3 of Module 6) -- Can see a rationale for ICANN having a right to reject anything. What seems to be the right to unilaterally reject a single application without a mention of why they can do that does sound unusual. -- Recommend that ICANN has some disgression within the confines of the policy and applicant guidebook. Shouldn't be as unfettered as it is now. It there is predictability there is no need for this. -- Relates to Work Track 3 as well on objections. -- Question: Does any GNSO policy provide recommendations that came out in the T&Cs? Answer: No. -- How they used this language -- makes them unaccountable whether the applicant has succeeded or not. -- Need a recommendation to ICANN that it needs to be accountable to decisions that they make within the scope of the AGB. >From the chat: Mike Rodenbaugh: First two sentences, if taken literally, makes the entire contract illusory... ICANN has no obligation unless it chooses. Jon Nevett: I don't often say this, but Alan +1!! Mike Rodenbaugh: +1 Alan. More than unusual... illusory, unfair. Rubens Kuhl: But if we specify it, it might generate a situation where something arises that justifies not approving, but was not foreseen. Mike Rodenbaugh: ICANN has relied on this language (though from Module 3) in IRP proceedings against my client. "Unfettered discretion" destroys the whole point of the Guidebook, which was to take that discretion away from the Board (after the .XXX debacle) Alan Greenberg: Admittedly less often nowadays... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): different circumstances exist in future 'rounds' Ifrom the one that this part of the module covers for the earlier one. Jim Prendergast: wonder where mail, corp and home fit in. Jeff Neuman: Agree with Susan that if there were a challenge by .home and .corp, this clause would be invoked Susan Payne: also what about any closed generics who have not agreed to open up? Steve Chan: For context it might useful to review the T&Cs from the very first Applicant Guidebook in 2008. The language is not dramatically different: http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/terms-24oct08-en.pdf. And there was a Board resolution from Trondheim in 2010 that relates to this subject: "The Board approves the inclusion of a broad waiver and limitation of liability in the application terms and conditions." - https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-2010-09-25-en. Discussion Point 2 -- Section 6: "Covenant not to sue ICANN" (Slide 8) -- This makes ICANN entirely unaccountable. -- In general, there is a strong need for a convenant excluding fraud and gross negligance. Previous case practically bankrupted ICANN. Include the ability to enforce an IRP/appeals mechanism. Also need to include an appeals mechanism (Work Track 3). -- ICANN needs to be more accountable to the applicants, but with a strong appeals mechanism then a covenant may not be so bad. -- Being negligent is not a violation of ICANN Bylaws. -- Need to be borders of what ICANN is, and is not, responsible for. -- Discuss policy recommendation language over email. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: @Mike, I understand why an US lawyer would prefer, so I think you might get why non-US applicants are not fond of it. Mike Rodenbaugh: please explain Rubens Kuhl: Home court advantage, using another meaning of the world "court". Mike Rodenbaugh: sorry but I don't understand. the covenant applies in any court. Rubens Kuhl: Jon, that's what WS2 is all about, I believe... and what WS2 fails to deliver, to possible activations of the Empowered Community. Jon Nevett: more than that Rubens Mike Rodenbaugh: It makes ICANN entirely unaccountable Trang Nguyen: @Mike: under the new Bylaws, IRP decisions are binding and enforceable in any court with proper jurisdiction (4.3.a.viii). Mike Rodenbaugh: @Trang that refers to the procedure, not to the permissible content of such a decision...ICANN still argues that an IRP panel can't recommend any affirmative relief, but can only decide whether the Board violated Bylaws... Rubens Kuhl: Fraud, neglience and grossful misconduct are likely already exclued by California law anyways... but mentioning it in writing is a good thing. Rubens Kuhl: Perhaps binding 3rd parties to ICANN Bylaws for those willing to become contractors to the program ? @Mike, most IRP panels disregarded that affirmative relief can't be awarded. But I believe one or two bought into JD standard argument to that. Jeff Neuman: Further Revised: ICANN must build into the new gTLD Program appeals mechanisms to include the ability for applicants to challenge the decisions of the ICANN staff, the ICANN Board, and/or any entities delegated decision making authority over the assignment, contracting and delegation of new gTLDs. Such appeals mechanism must include the ability to review those decisions on the merits and not only with respect to whether ICANN violated the Bylaws. Only with such an appeals process performed by an independent entity could ICANN then include a covenant not to sue in the Applicant Terms and Conditions. However, the covenant not to sue shall not apply to cases alleging fraud, negligence or wilful misconduct. Discussion Point 3 -- Section 14: In regards to section 14 that ICANN reserves the right to make reasonable updates and changes to the applicant guidebook and the application process (slide 9) -- The problem with this one, which was hard to explain, you are expecting them (applicants) to put a lot of resources behind it and expecting them to be bound by provisions that you don't know what they are. If the rules changed and the applicant withdrew they are not recompensed. -- One of the things we are working on in the overall issues is a mechanism for better predictability and a better change process. Then this section would be subject to that change process. Other Sections to Review: -- Section 5 -- Up for consideration (slide 5) -- Section 10 -- (slide 6) -- warrants looking at. Issue of applicant assigning rights hasn't been honored. 2. CC2 Questions -- Staff will circulate the link to the full WG. -- Some of our most important work to get as much feedback as possible.

1 0

Agenda for 16 February 2017, 21:00 UTC WT2 Meeting
by Michael Flemming Feb. 16, 2017

Feb. 16, 2017

Dear All, I hope February is going well for everyone. I am submitting the agenda for the 16 February WT2 meeting at 21:00 UTC. Just so everyone knows, from this week we will begin using the 21 UTC rather than the previous 20 UTC slot. We will try to make adjustments when this conflicts with other high interest meetings. >From this week we will begin looking at the Terms and Conditions (Module 6) of the Applicant Guidebook. The aim is to limit meeting time per this subject to this one meeting and continue any additional discussion through the mailing list. We will also be looking at CC2 questions, as well. Below is the agenda for the meeting. 1. Welcome 2. SOI 3. Terms and Conditions 4. CC2 Questions 5. AOB Please note the slides we will use in the meeting are attached. For further background material, please review Module 6 of the Applicant Guidebook. This can be found on the ICANN New gTLD microsite or in the link below. https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/terms-04jun12-en.pdf I look forward to speaking with everyone during the meeting. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

2 1

Relative article in regards to Terms and Conditions of Applicant Guidebook
by Michael Flemming Feb. 15, 2017

Feb. 15, 2017

Dear All, Prior to our call this Thursday to discuss the T&Cs (Module 6) of AGB, there was a suggestion to share this article in regards to the most recent episode of the .africa court case. The previous ruling that stated the "covenant not to sue" was unenforceable, has now been overturned in the latest ruling on the case. As such, by this ruling, the covenant is now enforceable. http://domainincite.com/21529-africa-to-finally-go-live-after-judge-denies-… My own understanding and interpretation of this is as it resonates in the article, the covenant not to sue ICANN is enforceable. However, I would very much like to hear back from our participants with a more legal background on this. I don't think this is case closed for us on the T&Cs, but perhaps will provide for better discussion material this Thursday. Any thoughts? Regards, Michael Flemming

5 4

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 02 February 2017
by Terri Agnew Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 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, 02 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): <https://participate.icann.org/p8dnk5nag5m/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3301ff0f1fff3dfc 78bdba634380b2dc21423ab6ed922f1b623118fc8ae11f01> https://participate.icann.org/p8dnk5nag5m/ 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/prPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 02 February 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 02 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_p rPDAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ prPDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=T6p4UvBXSCVwUHKVMQH4VeG2AKTS_nazmTXmhKIxnS o&s=hjDsSi7w-Zdrpb43IhiqlwJnuRG0L5nQtNJvuXuds2s&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=T6p4UvBXSCVwUHKVMQH4VeG2AKTS_nazmTXmhKIxnSo&s=hj DsSi7w-Zdrpb43IhiqlwJnuRG0L5nQtNJvuXuds2s&e= Phil Buckingham:can u call me again . I ve lost you . Terri Agnew:@Michael, I have been unable to dial out to you on the telephone number you provided alexander.gay:Looks like neither the CIA nor the Kurdish PKK could apply...... Gg Levine (NABP):Says nothing about how registry is to be run. Mary Wong:Hi! Mary Wong:Here's Paul Paul McGrady:Sorry to join late Jeff Neuman:Paul: Did you file a reconsideration request or any other type of appeal? Phil Buckingham:Good point , Heather .. I ll follow up with the GDD Steve Chan:Note, there is a section of the Program Implemenation Review Report (PIRR) that touches on Background Screening (section 2.2): https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system _files_files_program-2Dreview-2D29jan16-2Den.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste m_files_files_program-2Dreview-2D29jan16-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrw ll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m =T6p4UvBXSCVwUHKVMQH4VeG2AKTS_nazmTXmhKIxnSo&s=xerXvz68yRfQ2Jhnilcv181Ae5D7h s2ZZvP0Tr3tid4&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=T6p4UvBXSCVwUHKVMQH4VeG2AKTS_nazmTXmhKIxnSo&s=xe rXvz68yRfQ2Jhnilcv181Ae5D7hs2ZZvP0Tr3tid4&e= Susan Payne:can we have ability to scroll the slides? Susan Payne:thnx Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll slides themselves Steve Chan:@Michael, we will take the question back to GDD. Phil Buckingham:So it has only to be one "director " who is disqualified that means the whole application is thrown out ? Jeff Neuman:Have there been any cases where ICANN required a change request to cure any deficiencies in the background checks Christa Taylor:I think the business model around a TLD is completely seperate from background screening Steve Chan:The nature of the applying entity may play a role, however, Jeff Neuman:There were llots of ways to get around the cybersquatting background check. UDRPs are generally against entities, not the people who are principals in that entity. Thus, if an individual is a principal in a company that was subject to 10 cybersquatting cases, that individual would not faill the background check if he or she were part of a new gTLD application. Jeff Neuman:not just worked for it, but was an owner of it or other principal Phil Buckingham:when we are talking about criminal history - does that even include a driving ban . Needs to be defined more clearly.next time . Steve Coates:What is criminal in one place may not be in another. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):it's the eastern Australian whip bird Michael Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Agree Jeff re not just protection for registrants Steve Coates:Have to drop off. Apologies. Paul McGrady 2:I can't. sorry Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):finish what we can Susan Payne:do we get to do a CC3 at some point for further topics? avri doria:hope not Susan Payne:ok, so we definitely need to ask about closed generics then Jeff Neuman:@susan - yes. And if you review the questions and have additional ones, please submit them :) Terri Agnew:The next two WT2 calls will take place on: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 16 February 2017 at 21:00 UTC AND Thursday, 02 March 2017 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Both email/ calendar invites will be sent today for place holder. We will also send reminder email day before each call. Susan Payne:when is CC2 due to go out? Paul McGrady 2:So sorry all. I have to drop. Christa Taylor:Sorry I'm out of time. Also need to drop. Have a great day everyone. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you everyone. Jeff Neuman:Thanks everyone :) Susan Payne:thanks all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks all bye for now alexander.gay:Bye! avri doria:bye

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 02 February
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 02 February. 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 referenced below. Excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 02 February 1. Registrant Protections -- Background Screening Background Information: See slides 4-9. Question: Are the background checks a sufficient mechanism for protecting registrants? Yes/No/Other (slide 10) -- Paul McGrady had a specific issue he wanted to discuss relating to cybersquatting -- item (m) on slide 8. If you look at the public comments he had questions about the background screening that in his view was not applied. Not sure if there was a formal dispute, but we should look at the comments that there made and whether we would need some clarification in this language. Short answer is we don't know if the background checks were sufficient because ICANN didn't follow the AGB. If ICANN isn't going to follow the vetting process no amount of improvements will help. Did not file a reconsideration request. -- Interested to know if Paul's case is the only instance of this type of difficulty. Can we get those data? -- The amount of information that ICANN requested created a stressful process, but not aware of any specific examples. Could ask for as much data as possible. >From the chat: Phil Buckingham: Good point , Heather .. I ll follow up with the GDD Steve Chan: Note, there is a section of the Program Implementation Review Report (PIRR) that touches on Background Screening (section 2.2): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf Question: Has ICANN ever come across an applicant with an individual found to be involved in any of the activities in a-m? If so, were any of those applicants disqualified from the application process because of the background screening? If so, out of how many found, how many were disqualified. (slide 11) Action Item: Ask ICANN for data on the results of the background checks. Staff will take the question back to GDD. -- Good question to ask ICANN staff in the aggregate without getting any identifying information. Might not get any responses from the question in the community. -- Believe the answer is zero because ICANN presented stats throughout the process on the status. Think that is public. -- Change the question? Ask how many applicants were required to provide additional information with regard to these background checks. -- Is what we are driving at here is how seriously ICANN took the answer of "no". Are we worried about the fact that everyone answered "no"? Not sure where we are going with this? More responsibility on ICANN? On the applicant? -- Another reason to ask the question is whether ICANN followed what was in the applicant guidebook. Are these sufficient mechanisms? -- If the number is zero that zero doesn't really tell us anything. We should be asking if ICANN can produce the process flow they went through. -- Change the first question to ask ICANN to provide us with numerical information, what areas ICANN looked at, and what checks were carried out. -- Steve Chan (Staff): Formulate what we are trying to understand. In terms of how to answer it would e good to get data to understand that question, but not make the data request prescriptive. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Have there been any cases where ICANN required a change request to cure any deficiencies in the background checks? Christa Taylor: I think the business model around a TLD is completely seperate from background screening Steve Chan: The nature of the applying entity may play a role, however. Question: Do the requirements for background screening in regards to 1) general business diligence and criminal history ; and 2) history of cybersquatting behavior prove sufficient? (slide 12) -- Question is: when ICANN carried out the process did anything come up? -- One of the issues: If I am a Sr. VP of a company (owner or other principle) ABC and ABC had 10 cybersquatting cases it loses if I go on to found a company that applies for a TLD I don't fail the background because I am not implicated as an individual. -- Also, does one person who was found responsible for cybersquatting cause a company with which he is associated to fail the background check? -- Potentially a missing question: Have you had a contract with ICANN terminated or are being terminated for compliance issues? Could expand on that question -- not sure where to put it. -- It does make another good criteria to add -- substitute for (o) and change current (o) to (p) -- "Have you or your company been part of an entity found in breach of contract with ICANN?" >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: There were lots of ways to get around the cybersquatting background check. UDRPs are generally against entities, not the people who are principals in that entity. Thus, if an individual is a principal in a company that was subject to 10 cybersquatting cases, that individual would not faill the background check if he or she were part of a new gTLD application. Phil Buckingham: when we are talking about criminal history - does that even include a driving ban . Needs to be defined more clearly.next time. Steve Coates: What is criminal in one place may not be in another. Question: Could it be considered that the background screening is unnecessary for TLDs where Registrant Protections may not be necessary, such as Brand TLDs or those operating with a Code of Conduct exemption? (slide 13) -- Such as where registrants are not applicable for those TLDs. -- In ALAC the answer would be "yes" that it is a concern and should be questioned further. -- It is not just registrants that are protected by the background screening, it is ICANN as an organization. Don't want to enter into a contract with someone who has a conviction. >From the chat: Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Agree Jeff re not just protection for registrants. 2. CC2 Questions (slide 16) -- Built on what we have already discussed. -- Need to use the opportunity to see detailed feedback in areas not covered. Topics to cover (slides 17-19) -- Will there be a CC3? The plan is not to do a CC3, but we will have a preliminary report that will go out for public comment. Keep up a calendar indicating what we hope to cover through Copenhagen. -- Steve Chan (staff): Can share the calendar with the full group. On CC2, we haven't covered all the topics. The questions will have to be agreed upon by the full group. -- When is CC2 due to go out? The drop dead date is before ICANN58, but we are targeting middle or late February (such 20 February). >From the chat: Susan Payne: do we get to do a CC3 at some point for further topics? avri doria: hope not Susan Payne: ok, so we definitely need to ask about closed generics then Jeff Neuman: @susan - yes. And if you review the questions and have additional ones, please submit them :)

1 0

Agenda for 02 February 20:00 UTC WT2 Meeting
by Michael Flemming Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

Dear All, Once again, I am late in sending this out. However, better late than never, please find our agenda and materials for the call at 20 UTC on 2 February 2017. 1. Welcome 2. SOI 3. Registrant Protections - Background Screening 4. CC2 Question Discussions: Where should we concentrate our questions and what type of questions should we have? 5. AOB I was hoping to get to the Terms and Conditions this week, but CC2 takes priority over that at the current time. While we have had little input over email for Registrant Protections, I felt it necessary to take today's meeting and focus on the Background Screening as well as CC2. We will only be introducing the CC2 topics on today's call, with the goal to solidify the questions over email. I know that there are many calls, but once again, I encourage everyone to participate today and to provide input over the mailing list. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

WT2 Meeting Time Rotation Consideration
by Michael Flemming Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 2017

Until now, the majority of our WT2 Meetings have taken place on Thursdays at 20 UTC. This meeting slot has proven useful as our attendance has not faltered too much up until now. However, for some of our members, including myself, 20 UTC can also be a rather difficult time to attend these meetings. For this reason, I would like to make the proposal to begin looking at a rotation for WT2 meetings. Other Working Tracks have been rotating meetings at a 3:00 UTC, 15:00 UTC, and 20:00 UTC schedule. I think it would be useful to begin using this rotation or one at a similar time slot. If others wouldn't have a problem with this rotation, then I would like to have a Doodle Poll sent out to begin adjusting the already scheduled meeting time on February 2nd at 20 UTC. Any thoughts? Kind regards, Michael Flemming

5 6

Registrant Protections Discussion
by Michael Flemming Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 2017

At our last meeting on January 19th at 20 UTC we introduced the Registrant Protections (EBERO, COI, and When Registrants don't apply topics). While these topics are vast and much can be discussed, we are unable to spend all of our time discussing during our bi-weekly hour meetings. Therefore, I would like to continue this discussion over email. I attach here the same presentation material we used in the meeting in order to provide everyone with the necessary background information. However, I have pulled out the questions from the presentation and listed them below. These same questions will be copied to the Issues Area Working Document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YsbOmz06YbXBkUQpj1rljVo-bTH-Br5Ju6cVJvp…>. Perhaps it is easier, however, to have a discussion on a consistent email thread. Key feedback will also be moved to the document. I invite everyone to provide their opinion to the questions below. *Critical Registry Functions:* *Are the current Critical Registry Functions still sufficient or do changes need to be made? * *Has any registry gone above the Emergency Threshold before?* *Has the level of the Emergency Threshold ever been reached that would initiate an emergency escalation or EBERO?* *COI:* *Are the cost measurements for the COI still sufficient to cover the critical functions for EBERO?* *Is the time period for the COI sufficient (i.e. 6 years from the execution date of the RA)?* *Are the requirements for the Letter of Credit still sufficient?* *Can other models besides the Letter of Credit and the Cash Escrow Deposit be considered for the COI requirements?* *In regards to TLDs like Brand TLDs and Code of Conduct exempt TLDs where Registrants may not be necessary to protect:* *Should more relevant rules be established for certain specific cases or categories of TLDs?* Below are additional questions I would like to add on material we were not able to cover in the last meeting. These are kind of last minute additions and the questions could probably be refined. *In regards to Background Checks on applicants:* *Are the background checks a sufficient mechanism for protecting Registrants?Do the requirements for Background Checks in regards to (1) General business diligence and criminal history and (2) History of cybersquatting behavior prove sufficient and/or necessary for TLDs where Registrant Protections may not be necessary?* I have a few other additional questions I would like to ask, but need more time to formulate them. Please let me know your thoughts. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 2

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 19 January 2017
by Terri Agnew Jan. 19, 2017

Jan. 19, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 19 January 2017 at 20:00 UTC. 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/oLbDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 January 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues on Thursday, 19 January 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Heather Forrest:Thanks, Terri - good morning to you Steve Chan:Sure, just say next slide, and I can move it forward for you. Jeff Neuman:Principle D is from the 2007 GNSO Policy Rubens Kuhl:While at NTAG, applicants concluded that ICANN COIs likely violated international guidelines against money laundring. I still think it is true. Trang Nguyen:@Rubens, I believe the issue was around the specific criteria in the AGB that states: The LOC ust name ICANN or its designee as the beneficiary." Many banks, U.S. and international viewed the "designee" as problematic because most if not all banks need to perform certain checks on the beneficiary, and they cannot do that for an un-named beneficiary. ICANN issued an advisory (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… ) stating that it would be acceptable to name only ICANN as the beneficiary provided that the LOC is fully transferable. Trang Nguyen:Nonetheless, COIs were an issue for most applicants. Q50 received the most number of clarifying questions, by far. 82% of apps received a CQ on Q50. Kurt Pritz:My understanding is that If a Donuts rgistry went into EBERO, the registery would no longer be registering names, therefore the DPML would no longer be critical Jeff Neuman:@Kurt - Is that an argument that the SRS is not a critical function? Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, the SRS is still required to update already registered domains. Rubens Kuhl:But any policy layer is not critical. Jeff Neuman:@Rubens - correct.....that is the critical part, but not the rest of the SRS Rubens Kuhl:DPML, registrant verification and all other systems, processes and human resources that are in the policy layer are not critical. Kurt Pritz:@Jeff - no. It was an argument that we need not augment the existing core set with DPML. There might be renewals in an EBERO environment, does that require SRS? Jeff Neuman:I want to make sure we capture Trang's statistics for the recprd Steve Chan:@Jeff, I believe Trang's statistics are from the Program Implementation Review Report, but it's also captured in the notes. Rubens Kuhl:Kurt, from a pratical standpoint I think it would be better for EBERO both not accept renewals and do not expire domains. Kurt Pritz:@ Rubens The hoped for ending is that someone else picks up the EBERO operated registry. If domains are not renewed or expired, would that complxity deter a successor from standing up Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Steve and Julie: Joined late because earlier call ran long. Can you include me among those who ran into issues with the COI during the application process? Thanks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that needs teasing out then Jeff Julie Hedlund:@Kristina: I've added you. Alexander Schubert:i heard nothing for 10 minutes. are the phone and audio bridged? Michael Flemming:Yes Alex Michael Flemming:Alexandre* Kurt Pritz:It is a complicated area but I don't know of and haven't heard any evidence that indicates augmenting the critical functions list Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am Alexander Schubert:seems dialing in is required to hear everybody? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hearing via phone Alexander Alexander Schubert:but hearing works fine. i hear most people - just a few not. Rubens Kuhl:Option D. Alexander Schubert:one would think both systems are bridged? Trang Nguyen:@Michael, I do not know if an EBERO has ever been officially triggered. We could check if that's a request from this WT. Trang Nguyen:Yes, will do. Jeff Neuman:@Trang, do you need that in a letter? Rubens Kuhl:@Trang, from IANA root zone journals I follow I believe it was never triggered... but that would only reveal actual transition, not possilble events where EBERO has been called to duty but RO went back online before a transition happened. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I would go with Jeff's formulation with the ask ICANN Trang Nguyen:I think I understand the ask. Will have to take this back internally and see what information we can provide. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):To be clear, the intention is to ask "yes/no" and "If yes, on how many occasions?" without seeking identity of the RO, the issue, or which EBERO transitioned, correct? Michael Flemming:Yes Jeff Neuman:@Kristina - yes....but also to find out if the threshold was reached, but ICANN did not bring up an EBERO (And why or why not) Jeff Neuman:But no attribution to any registry or EBERO Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jeff: thanks. Christa Taylor:Rubens, we can't hear you. Can you speak up? Kurt Pritz:If the COI is eliminated, this question on cost measurements does not matter much Rubens Kuhl:There seems to be a disconnection between bridge audio and AC audio... if you are in the same side you end up hearing who talked. Weird. Michael Flemming:But th cost analysis would be the same, regardless, no? Even if we do get rid of the COI, the cost would still come up somewhere. Rubens Kuhl:What I said is that EBERO has a readiness cost and an activation cost. Those costs that are COI-funded seems to only cover activation cost, not readiness cost. ICANN pays EBERO providers so they are ready even without incidents. Michael Flemming:There would still be a cost* Rubens Kuhl:Full disclosure: we have a contract clause in our back-end contracts to not take down TLDs that have not paid. their dues We can "snitch" them to ICANN, but won't take them down. Kurt Pritz:The slide says ICANN "will initiate an Energency Escalation" - it doesn't say "will transfer to an EBERO" - so if the slide reflects the contract then transfer is not mandatory Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I've always understood that Emergency Escalation is completely different from transfer to EBERO. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Section 7 of Spec. 10 sets out exactly what an Emergency Escalation is and how it differs if initiated by ICANN vs. by Registrars Jim Prendergast:the contracted party is the front end. not the back end. Jeff Neuman:@Jim - yes. Which is why we may want to come up with a different model Jeff Neuman:It would be good to create a small team try and explore alternate models Rubens Kuhl:I think ICANN said that if a registry survived 5 years, it looks solid enough. Trang Nguyen:I was not with ICANN during the AGB development process, so don't really know how the 6 years were arrived at in Spec 8. Christa Taylor:A pooled insurance type of structure based on data could be an straight forward solution. As long as the data and the algoriithm are conservative it could be a viable option Christa Taylor:If the business completely failed and went bankrupt without any notice, one would think that the back-end provider could take it over with the renewal revenues to help offset the costs. Christa Taylor:There is no 'cash cow' fund Jeff Neuman:@Christa - There may be some legalities of the creation of an insurance fund. Christa Taylor:@Jeff perhaps the wrong term but trying to convey the idea Kurt Pritz:The reaction of the backend to not being paid could be governed by a backend certification program (!!) Heather Forrest:Apologies, all - I have to drop off now for the Council meeting. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Yes, Paul McGrady gave a rather "spirited" presentation of the many ways heading down any kind of "insurance model" could create problems for ICANN Trang Nguyen:@Christa, in your suggested model, would there be different buy-in amounts based on number of DUMS, or would all TLDs be expected to contribute evenly to the insurance fund? Christa Taylor:+1 Kurt it could be part of it Jeff Neuman:But there are other ways including the appointment of "permanent EBEROs" and figuring out an amount that would compensate them for the expected amount of failures per year. Then using Registration fees to cover those costs Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Can be considered or should be considered? Christa Taylor:@Trang needs more thought - could be DUM or another combination of DUM and minimals Terri Agnew 2:Phil, we are unable to hear you, please check your mute button Rubens Kuhl:Business failures can have a high correlation with selling domains for pennies, so the outlook of future registration fees may not be as good... Phil Buckingham 2:sorry iwas on mute . Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):had to drop phone for my next ICANN call Jeff Neuman:I believe that snce we now have a number of years under our belt, we could could use that data to seek proposals from EBEROs (past or futuree) to see if there is a fixed annual fee that they could be paid for the year to cover any eventuality (given that an EBEROs obligations are very limited) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):will stay in AC Rubens Kuhl:EBERO without COI could be a best of both worlds option. Rubens Kuhl:Also have to drop the audio bridge... see ya. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Rubens Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):but happy to explore new funding options Kurt Pritz:I agree with Rubens also. Here is a trial balloon on COI: Eliminate the COI. ICANN to fund the EBERO and temporarily maintain an abandon registry out of its regular revenue stream. This is because: (1) no registries have required EBERO intervention to date so projected incidents (and costs) should be low; (2) COI was problematic to implement on many levels (clarifying questions, different laws, etc); (3) the fees from 1000+ new registries, which is a number greater than expected, should cover costs, ICANN did not have this money when writing the Guidebook;(4) the cost of maintaining the existing registry functions is relatively low; (5) the most likely failure is a single registry business failure and the development of the backend registry marketplace would tend to guarantee that data is preserved in the event of a failure and any transition is straightforward. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Protections vis-a-vis .Brand TLDs and their licensees can be dealt with through other contractual means, and might not need not be mandatory for registry operators who are not in the business of selling domain names. Kurt Pritz:sorry for all that Christa Taylor:+1 Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye guys need to leave Kurt Pritz:I don't think as policy makers, we need to get into detailed costs. We just need to say that the COI was problematic and now it can be funded separately for a number reasons. The topic of use of auction funds or left-over funds is a differnet discussion Jeff Neuman:@kurt said it better than me .... but same concept :) Robert Burlingame:Thank you everyone. Christa Taylor:Agreed Kurt. The costs would be very useful Christa Taylor:Good day all! Trang Nguyen:Thanks, all!

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 19 January
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 19, 2017

Jan. 19, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 19 January. 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 referenced below. Excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 19 January 1. Registrant Protections -- Introduction [reading from slide 2] Question: How many applied or were an applicant and had a problem -- show of hands: 4 hands: Michael Flemming, Jeff Neuman, Rubens Khul, Heather Forrest, Kristina Rosette Principle D, Risk assessment and contingencies, application scoring [from slide 2] 2. Critical Registry Functions [reading from slides 3 and 4] Question: Are the current critical registry functions still sufficient or do changes need to be made? Yes/No/Other -- On overall registrant protections -- one was the notion of being able cover if a registry failed. Is there any protection other than those 5 functions where a backup registry need to take over, or are the 5 functions enough? -- There was the discussion on whether critical registry functions would need the additional functions of RCEP. -- It may be different for different types -- may need to have core critical functions regardless of how your TLD is characterized, and a "if this, then that" set. -- We do consider whether or not the COI is necessary for different categories. Really like the idea of overarching functions. -- Bring up the notion operation of a shared registration system -- in the chat if an EBERO is ever called up -- not responsible for adding new names. The problem with renewals some registries validate renewals as the validate new registration. -- Operation of certain systems that are critical. If there is a policy that affects renewals then EBERO won't be able to do it. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: Principle D is from the 2007 GNSO Policy Rubens Kuhl: While at NTAG, applicants concluded that ICANN COIs likely violated international guidelines against money laundering. I still think it is true. Trang Nguyen: @Rubens, I believe the issue was around the specific criteria in the AGB that states: The LOC ust name ICANN or its designee as the beneficiary." Many banks, U.S. and international viewed the "designee" as problematic because most if not all banks need to perform certain checks on the beneficiary, and they cannot do that for an un-named beneficiary. ICANN issued an advisory (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/loc-beneficiary-require…) stating that it would be acceptable to name only ICANN as the beneficiary provided that the LOC is fully transferable. Trang Nguyen: Nonetheless, COIs were an issue for most applicants. Q50 received the most number of clarifying questions, by far. 82% of apps received a CQ on Q50. Kurt Pritz: My understanding is that If a Donuts rgistry went into EBERO, the registery would no longer be registering names, therefore the DPML would no longer be critical. Jeff Neuman: @Kurt - Is that an argument that the SRS is not a critical function? Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, the SRS is still required to update already registered domains. Jeff Neuman: @Rubens - correct.....that is the critical part, but not the rest of the SRS. Rubens Kuhl: But any policy layer is not critical. Rubens Kuhl: DPML, registrant verification and all other systems, processes and human resources that are in the policy layer are not critical. Kurt Pritz: @Jeff - no. It was an argument that we need not augment the existing core set with DPML. There might be renewals in an EBERO environment, does that require SRS? Jeff Neuman: I want to make sure we capture Trang's statistics for the record. Steve Chan: @Jeff, I believe Trang's statistics are from the Program Implementation Review Report, but it's also captured in the notes. Rubens Kuhl: Kurt, from a pratical standpoint I think it would be better for EBERO both not accept renewals and do not expire domains. Kurt Pritz: @ Rubens The hoped for ending is that someone else picks up the EBERO operated registry. If domains are not renewed or expired, would that complxity deter a successor from standing up Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Steve and Julie: Joined late because earlier call ran long. Can you include me among those who ran into issues with the COI during the application process? Thanks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that needs teasing out then Jeff. Kurt Pritz: It is a complicated area but I don't know of and haven't heard any evidence that indicates augmenting the critical functions list. 3. Emergency Thresholds [reading from slide 5] Question: Has any registry gone above the Emergency Threshold? Yes/No/Other/Ask ICANN for data Three questions: reached the threshold before, or has EBERO been used? If someone went above the threshold and EBERO wasn't used, then why? -- Need the data from ICANN but without attribution. Action Item: Ask ICANN 1) has the Emergency Threshold been breached 2) has EBERO been triggered? 3) If someone went above the threshold and EBERO wasn't used, then why? >From the Chat: Rubens Kuhl: Option D. Alexander Schubert: one would think both systems are bridged? Trang Nguyen: @Michael, I do not know if an EBERO has ever been officially triggered. We could check if that's a request from this WT. Trang Nguyen: Yes, will do. Jeff Neuman: @Trang, do you need that in a letter? Rubens Kuhl: @Trang, from IANA root zone journals I follow I believe it was never triggered... but that would only reveal actual transition, not possilble events where EBERO has been called to duty but RO went back online before a transition happened. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I would go with Jeff's formulation with the ask ICANN. Trang Nguyen: I think I understand the ask. Will have to take this back internally and see what information we can provide. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): To be clear, the intention is to ask "yes/no" and "If yes, on how many occasions?" without seeking identity of the RO, the issue, or which EBERO transitioned, correct? Michael Flemming: Yes Jeff Neuman: @Kristina - yes....but also to find out if the threshold was reached, but ICANN did not bring up an EBERO (And why or why not). Jeff Neuman: But no attribution to any registry or EBERO. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jeff: thanks. 4. Cost Coverage [reading from slide 8] Question: Are these cost measurements still sufficient to cover the critical functions for EBERO? Yes/No/Other -- There is the activation part and the readiness part. You have two parts not just one. The COI looks at the activation costs. -- This came from an RFI for entities that were interested in being an EBERO and from those responses ICANN asked for cost estimates on what they were charge ICANN to serve in that capacity. There were at least 10 responses. ICANN synthesized the responses. -- What true amounts would be to bring up an EBERO and how much ICANN would need to fund an EBERO provider. Rather than doing one COI per each registry, find a way to fund it so that you know the costs would be covered. -- The contract already states that once the threshold is breached the emergency Escalation will take place. Is this amount correct for the contract? -- We are contractually bound to agree that ICANN has the right at its discretion to move this to an EBERO, but ICANN decide to or not. If a technical backend -- a registry that said my EPP was down and I'll have it up in 30 hours there is no way ICANN is going to call up an EBERO. We should be discussing this in terms of a technical failure by a business that may or may not be the registry. -- The contract language is up for interpretation: "Emergency Escalation" may not mean EBERO. -- If you took the limited amount in a COI by itself it may not cover the costs of an actual transition. But if you look at what EBERO is paid and combined with the eventual release of COI funds to the registry that may be enough to fund the cost. How can we make sure that in the case of a technical failure that registrants are protected by having a provider in place to operate the critical functions of a registry until a decision can be made. We should explore other mechanisms to fund the program other than via a COI process, which is difficult to maintain and ensure that ICANN can receive the funds. The problem may be with the backend operator and not the registry. -- The COI was as much of a headache for ICANN as for the operators. Should also consider AGB as it relates to COI. -- Seems like we should be looking at setting up a fund made up of application fees and fixed fees. >From the chat: Kurt Pritz: If the COI is eliminated, this question on cost measurements does not matter much. Michael Flemming: But the cost analysis would be the same, regardless, no? Even if we do get rid of the COI, the cost would still come up somewhere. Rubens Kuhl: What I said is that EBERO has a readiness cost and an activation cost. Those costs that are COI-funded seems to only cover activation cost, not readiness cost. ICANN pays EBERO providers so they are ready even without incidents. Michael Flemming: There would still be a cost* Rubens Kuhl: Full disclosure: we have a contract clause in our back-end contracts to not take down TLDs that have not paid. their dues We can "snitch" them to ICANN, but won't take them down. Kurt Pritz: The slide says ICANN "will initiate an Energency Escalation" - it doesn't say "will transfer to an EBERO" - so if the slide reflects the contract then transfer is not mandatory. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I've always understood that Emergency Escalation is completely different from transfer to EBERO. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Section 7 of Spec. 10 sets out exactly what an Emergency Escalation is and how it differs if initiated by ICANN vs. by Registrars. Jim Prendergast: the contracted party is the front end. not the back end. Jeff Neuman: @Jim - yes. Which is why we may want to come up with a different model Jeff Neuman: It would be good to create a small team try and explore alternate models Rubens Kuhl: I think ICANN said that if a registry survived 5 years, it looks solid enough. Trang Nguyen: I was not with ICANN during the AGB development process, so don't really know how the 6 years were arrived at in Spec 8. Christa Taylor: A pooled insurance type of structure based on data could be an straight forward solution. As long as the data and the algoriithm are conservative it could be a viable option. Christa Taylor: If the business completely failed and went bankrupt without any notice, one would think that the back-end provider could take it over with the renewal revenues to help offset the costs. Christa Taylor: There is no 'cash cow' fund Jeff Neuman: @Christa - There may be some legalities of the creation of an insurance fund. Christa Taylor: @Jeff perhaps the wrong term but trying to convey the idea 5. Continued Operations Instrument -- Letter of Credit [reading from slide 12] Questions: 1. Are the requirements for the Letter of Credit still sufficient? Yes/No/Other 2. Can othe rmodels besides the Letter of Credit and the Cash Escrow Deposit be considered for the COI requirements? Yes/No/Other >From the chat: Kurt Pritz: The reaction of the backend to not being paid could be governed by a backend certification program (!!) Heather Forrest: Apologies, all - I have to drop off now for the Council meeting. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Yes, Paul McGrady gave a rather "spirited" presentation of the many ways heading down any kind of "insurance model" could create problems for ICANN Trang Nguyen: @Christa, in your suggested model, would there be different buy-in amounts based on number of DUMS, or would all TLDs be expected to contribute evenly to the insurance fund? Christa Taylor: +1 Kurt it could be part of it Jeff Neuman: But there are other ways including the appointment of "permanent EBEROs" and figuring out an amount that would compensate them for the expected amount of failures per year. Then using Registration fees to cover those costs Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can be considered or should be considered? Christa Taylor: @Trang needs more thought - could be DUM or another combination of DUM and minimals.' Rubens Kuhl: Business failures can have a high correlation with selling domains for pennies, so the outlook of future registration fees may not be as good... Jeff Neuman: I believe that snce we now have a number of years under our belt, we could could use that data to seek proposals from EBEROs (past or futuree) to see if there is a fixed annual fee that they could be paid for the year to cover any eventuality (given that an EBEROs obligations are very limited) 6. Considering When Registrant Protections don't apply [reading from slide 15] Question: Should more relevant rules be established for certain specific cases or categories of TLDs? -- There are some where registrants are brand licensees -- there are possibly some shades of gray where some need protection or not. -- If you went to existing EBERO or other providers that could provide those services ask what it would take to compensate you for an entire year with no questions asked you would get an amount that was high. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: EBERO without COI could be a best of both worlds option. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Rubens Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): but happy to explore new funding options Kurt Pritz: I agree with Rubens also. Here is a trial balloon on COI: Eliminate the COI. ICANN to fund the EBERO and temporarily maintain an abandon registry out of its regular revenue stream. This is because: (1) no registries have required EBERO intervention to date so projected incidents (and costs) should be low; (2) COI was problematic to implement on many levels (clarifying questions, different laws, etc); (3) the fees from 1000+ new registries, which is a number greater than expected, should cover costs, ICANN did not have this money when writing the Guidebook;(4) the cost of maintaining the existing registry functions is relatively low; (5) the most likely failure is a single registry business failure and the development of the backend registry marketplace would tend to guarantee that data is preserved in the event of a failure and any transition is straightforward. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown): Protections vis-a-vis .Brand TLDs and their licensees can be dealt with through other contractual means, and might not need not be mandatory for registry operators who are not in the business of selling domain names. Kurt Pritz: sorry for all that.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] WT2 - Jan 19th, Thursday Meeting at 20:00 UTC Topic EBERO ( Emergency Back End Operator ) , COI ( Continuing Operations Instrument ) and LOC ( Letter of Credit) Data Escrow ( if time).
by Phil Buckingham Jan. 19, 2017

Jan. 19, 2017

Hi Everyone, Michael, thanks for circulating the agenda. If you could look at the agenda before the call that would be much appreciated, although I do appreciate time is of the essence in preparation for Namescon. We have put a question(s) at the end of each topic . Perhaps you would consider these questions ( and your answer ) beforehand , in preparation, so we could do a hands up / consensus vote on each .during the call. I would be particularly interested to establish if anybody, who encountered problems with Q50/ COI ./LOCs would be prepared to discuss on these on the call ( for their own application(s) and clients ) and what they feel would be an acceptable solution(s) to implement for R2. If you could let me know beforehand …… Many thanks. Kind Regards, Phil Phil Buckingham From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Flemming Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] WT2 - Jan 19th, Thursday Meeting at 20:00 UTC Dear All, Once again I am circulating the agenda in time for tomorrow's meeting on 19 January, 2017 at 20:00 UTC. My apologies as I was unable to get the slides out earlier. In the attachment is the material we will be covering and the slides we will be using. Phil and I look forward to meeting with everyone tomorrow. Kind regards, Michael Flemming On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Michael Flemming <flemming(a)brightsconsulting.com> wrote: Dear All, Please note the agenda for the meeting 19 January 2017, Thursday at 20 UTC. 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Registrant Protections 4. AOB We didn't get to the Registrant Protections before the end of the meeting yesterday. Therefore, it was felt very strongly that we should have a follow up meeting next week to cover Registrant Protections. The good news is that our slides are already prepared. After I make a few edits I will circulate them today. All background material should be included. On the other hand I hope to begin discussing CC2 questions over email. I look forward to the meeting next week and hope everyone will be ready for constructive discussion. Kind regards, Michael Flemming -- Sent from my mobile.

1 0

WT2 - Jan 19th, Thursday Meeting at 20:00 UTC
by Michael Flemming Jan. 19, 2017

Jan. 19, 2017

Dear All, Please note the agenda for the meeting 19 January 2017, Thursday at 20 UTC. 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Registrant Protections 4. AOB We didn't get to the Registrant Protections before the end of the meeting yesterday. Therefore, it was felt very strongly that we should have a follow up meeting next week to cover Registrant Protections. The good news is that our slides are already prepared. After I make a few edits I will circulate them today. All background material should be included. On the other hand I hope to begin discussing CC2 questions over email. I look forward to the meeting next week and hope everyone will be ready for constructive discussion. Kind regards, Michael Flemming -- Sent from my mobile.

1 1

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 12 January 2017
by Terri Agnew Jan. 12, 2017

Jan. 12, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 12 January 2017 at 20:00 UTC. 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 January 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 12 January 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agneda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Jim Prendergast:15 - the magic number Jeff Neuman:phil can you hit mute until you speak :) Terri Agnew:Please remember to mute when not speaking Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves Jeff Neuman:It should be noted that there were MANY discussions between the GAC and the Board on Geographic and geopolitical names between the 2009 recommendation and what was eventually put into the Guidebook. But NO policy development process was ever commenced to discuss those protections during that time period Susan Payne - Valideus 2:we are dealing at 2nd level here though aren't we, or am I mistaken? whereas CWG-CTN is top level Michael Flemming:Second level Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes understand it is 2nd level Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):but the concerns I have heard raised reflect in Top andb2nd... Rubens Kuhl:Note that there are dissenting views regarding use of RSEP to release reserved names. ICANN is currently adopting such view, but some think it should be a different process, even in current policy guidance. Michael Flemming:I made a note on that Rubens, but you sum it up so sweetly. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):note in my time in suDA Board I fought to and succeeded to release Lower level names so I am not 'anti' Susan Payne - Valideus 2:OK, thanks Cheryl, understood. But in terms of what has been discussed in the CWG, we have only been talking about 2nd level Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):understand that Susan Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):even in our Work in the most recent CWG whose name itself is specified separation of the levels N in community understanding and and concerns has always been a 'challenge' Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Jeff Rubens Kuhl:.com and .net are pretty old namespaces... new namespaces might require introductory measures, like sunrise. Legacy gTLDs are benchmarks, but a grain of salt in comparing is required. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Support creation of drafting team (which may not be smaller given interest), but agree on creating subteam avri doria:i still have not graduated beyond what was in the original GNSO policy of 2007. and that is a lost casue (personal opinion) Rubens Kuhl:One issue in allowing Brand TLDs is what happens if the TLD is repurposed to not be a Brand TLD, which is a registry operator option at anytime without consulting, just informing, ICANN. avri doria:i find having difrent such rules for different categories very problematic (again personal view) Mary Wong:For clarity (including for WT members not on the call), what is the specific focus and brief for the Drafting Team, and what will be its anticipated timeline to deliver its proposal? Susan Payne - Valideus 2:support drafting team too. I think it wouldmbe helpful for those who join to familiarise themselves with how we got from the policy to the AGB as not all of us are probably familiar with the full history Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):We should make clear that GAC representatives are welcome to participate.. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):one of many similar concerns Rubens... yes avri doria:Susan, that was easy, without going back to the GNSO the BoardStaff decided. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Kristina avri doria:I think they know they are welcome, but alwasy good to mention it again Jeff Neuman:Lets confirm the 2009 policy on this Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Support confirming 2009 policy on gTLD Reserved Names (2nd & 3rd levels ASCII and IDN) Susan Payne - Valideus 2:sorry, audio issues Rubens Kuhl:Looking at collision lists, some popular legacy TLDs (both gTLDs and ccTLDs) deserve a bit of care. While I also support confirming the 2009 policy, this is a factor that new gTLD operators should assess and hopefully make informed decisions. Rubens Kuhl:I don't see possibility of human confusion, but some name collisions can occur. Rubens Kuhl:Due to suffix appending. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and name collision needs to be avoided Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):SAC90 Phil Buckingham 2:steve , emily - before i start , can one of you do the scrolling of the powerpoint . much appreciated. Christa Taylor:+1 Susan on the ship has sailed Steve Chan:@Phil, sure thing. Phil Buckingham 2:thanks Susan Payne - Valideus 2:yes, agree Phil Buckingham 2:+1 Alan - impossible Christa Taylor:Agree with Alan Michael Flemming:Can you hear me? Christa Taylor:no Julie Hedlund:Can't hear you Michael. avri doria:i go as far as to call it unreasonable (again personal view) avri doria:there are only 7 in the US? Christa Taylor:+1 Avri Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, just type s*** etc. ;-) avri doria:ah the s-word, the f-word ... modern Merican speak Jeff Neuman:s***, f***, p***. m************, c***, t****, and one other that escapes me for now Jeff Neuman::) avri doria:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org… Susan Payne - Valideus 2:p***?? Jeff Neuman:oh yes c********** Steve Chan:FYI, the language Michael is reading is from the base registry agreement. Mary Wong:There is ongoing implementation of Board-adopted GNSO PDP recommendations regarding a few names for the Red Cross movement and names of IGOs. Jeff Neuman:I agree on this category and the IGOs Mary Wong:Per Alan, other Red Cross names are still under discussion. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Susan Rubens Kuhl:One organisation that I don't believe deserves any special treatment is IOC. Rubens Kuhl:"I don't want to be buried in a Pet Cemetery,I don't want to live my life again." Mary Wong:@Michael, to add - what I said (i.e. long list currently now reserved under Spec 5) also applies to IGOs. The only reserved protections approved so far for IGOs are their names. Their acronyms are now on the list only on an interim basis. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good point Jeff Rubens Kuhl:Which would allow the International Sugar Organization to get ISO.<something> instead of the International Standards Organization... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree again Susan Mary Wong:All, note that in the current implementation for Red Cross, IOC and IGOs - there will be an Exception procedure for the protected organization. Jeff Neuman:@alan - you would not believe the pushback we get from GDD to release names where express consent via letters on letterhead are provided Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx Mary Phil Buckingham 2:it seems unlikely we will start Reg Protections tonite / today . How many would be up for a call next Thursday 19 same time . Call s in namescon week are canx Alan Greenberg:@Rubens, there is nothing on the table that would prohibit thee Standards Organization from registering ISO, All that is being propossed is that the character strings go into the trademark clearinghose so that a flag would be raised when the name is registerd. Susan Payne - Valideus 2:fine by me phil Terri Agnew:At this time the next call is scheduled for: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 02 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Phil Buckingham 2:thanks terry Phil Buckingham 2:terri Emily Barabas 2:The leadership sync is on Wed. The slot at 20:00 UTC on Thursday is free. Alan Greenberg:All options ar eok with me. Jeff Neuman:ouch Michael Flemming:That is actual joy Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):my calender needs updating then Steve Chan:2000UTC on 19 February does precede the GNSO Council meeting however. Jeff Neuman:Thanks all! Christa Taylor:Thank-you Susan Payne - Valideus 2:thanks all Phil Buckingham 2:well done Michael

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 12 January
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 12, 2017

Jan. 12, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 12 January. 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 referenced below. Excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. In addition, the discussion follows the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8…. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 12 January Remaining Reserved Names and the Second Level [See slide 2] Geographic and geopolitical -- AGB did create reservations and currently the only authorization process that has been established is through the use of RCEP (Registry Service Evaluation Process). Probably not the most applicable process. -- GAC has taken the initiative of publishing a list of country and territory names -- around 16 or so names. -- Need to discuss whether we would suggest changes to policy. -- The ABG lists the reservations but the policy itself does not. Should we change policy to be consistent with the AGB? -- Any change to policy should be in line with the AGB and its lists of reservations. Also not the current GAC listing of names with country approval. Ensure that the list can be added to in a very easy way. Could recommend a PDP just on this aspect, but concern that this could become a significant roadblock. -- We are talking about the second level, not the top level. -- At a minimum we should agree whether we will stand by the 2009 policy recommendations or note that there is a gap between what happened with the AGB. Questions: 1) Need to confirm our agreement with the policy on geopolitical names (not geographic) -- the controversial names, and our understanding that going forward we will only deal with country and territory names and not say that any should be reserved. 2) If country and territory names are protected are we starting from the list in the AGB, which wasn't policy. If we stick to the list other negotiations between the governments and ICANN wouldn't apply. 3) Express whether the 2009 policy needs to be adjusted and make recommendations to the full PDP WG on what we should do with country and territory names. -- Suggestion: No need for restrictions for any TLD, but especially for BRAND TLDs -- harmonization with .com and .net. If we could make a clarification on that it would be beneficial. -- Probably a good issue for a smaller drafting team to consider. Need to handle it very carefully. -- Need to have participation from GAC on the Drafting Team. Can invite the GAC members on the list. Action Item: Send a call for volunteers for a Drafting Team on this topic. We can only issue a call to Sub Team members, but ensure that it is clear that GAC/ccNSO members on the Sub Team are encourage to join. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: It should be noted that there were MANY discussions between the GAC and the Board on Geographic and geopolitical names between the 2009 recommendation and what was eventually put into the Guidebook. But NO policy development process was ever commenced to discuss those protections during that time period. Susan Payne - Valideus 2: we are dealing at 2nd level here though aren't we, or am I mistaken? whereas CWG-CTN is top level Michael Flemming: Second level Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes understand it is 2nd level Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): but the concerns I have heard raised reflect in Top andb2nd... Rubens Kuhl: Note that there are dissenting views regarding use of RSEP to release reserved names. ICANN is currently adopting such view, but some think it should be a different process, even in current policy guidance. Michael Flemming: I made a note on that Rubens, but you sum it up so sweetly. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): note in my time in suDA Board I fought to and succeeded to release Lower level names so I am not 'anti' Susan Payne - Valideus 2: OK, thanks Cheryl, understood. But in terms of what has been discussed in the CWG, we have only been talking about 2nd level Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): understand that Susan. Even in our Work in the most recent CWG whose name itself is specified separation of the levels N in community understanding and and concerns has always been a 'challenge'. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Jeff Rubens Kuhl: .com and .net are pretty old namespaces... new namespaces might require introductory measures, like sunrise. Legacy gTLDs are benchmarks, but a grain of salt in comparing is required. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Support creation of drafting team (which may not be smaller given interest), but agree on creating subteam Rubens Kuhl: One issue in allowing Brand TLDs is what happens if the TLD is repurposed to not be a Brand TLD, which is a registry operator option at anytime without consulting, just informing, ICANN. avri doria: i find having difrent such rules for different categories very problematic (again personal view) Mary Wong: For clarity (including for WT members not on the call), what is the specific focus and brief for the Drafting Team, and what will be its anticipated timeline to deliver its proposal? Susan Payne - Valideus 2: support drafting team too. I think it wouldmbe helpful for those who join to familiarise themselves with how we got from the policy to the AGB as not all of us are probably familiar with the full history. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): We should make clear that GAC representatives are welcome to participate.. gTLD Reserved Names: -- Change policy or leave it as is? [reading policy from the chart] -- In 2001 when .biz, .info, etc. were signed we (Neustar others) were required to reserve .com.info, .biz.travel, etc. because of confusion, but agreed that there would be no confusion in the future so no reservations. -- Yes, we want to confirm the 2009 policy that says there should be no reservations. -- It's impossible to reserve because of the expanding list of TLDs. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Looking at collision lists, some popular legacy TLDs (both gTLDs and ccTLDs) deserve a bit of care. While I also support confirming the 2009 policy, this is a factor that new gTLD operators should assess and hopefully make informed decisions. I don't see possibility of human confusion, but some name collisions can occur. Due to suffix appending. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and name collision needs to be avoided Controversial Names: -- Current policy is that there should not be a category of Controversial Names that are reserved at 2nd and 3rd levels ASCII and IDN. -- There is no dispute policy mandated (and their isn't one). If we do want to confirm the 2009 policy we edit it and either remove the part about the dispute policy or stay that registries can determine the eligibility of their registrants in their own TLDs. -- Original thinking was that there could be a global dispute policy, but since the category was never created the dispute policy wasn't created. But a registry can make a rule to restrict controversial names in their registry. Registries already have that right. IOC and RCRC, and IGOs: -- No reservations originally, but later occurred and is included in the base registry agreement. -- Current active discussion between the Board and GAC on the reservation of country names (used within each country). -- Perhaps we shouldn't be looking at this while there are open discussions -- but could look at it if it hasn't been resolved elsewhere. -- For adopted policy it is just a few names. That list could change in the near future. There are other names that are on hold on a interim basis. -- Suggestion: Leave it be; don't revisit it. -- If reservations are in place we should state that there should be a mechanism for the release of those names to that specific organization. -- There is no mechanism for release of those names when the organization is consenting to their release. -- Allowing release to the right people is logical, but at the time they came out those people didn't care. >From the chat: Mary Wong: There is ongoing implementation of Board-adopted GNSO PDP recommendations regarding a few names for the Red Cross movement and names of IGOs. Jeff Neuman: I agree on this category and the IGOs. Mary Wong: Per Alan, other Red Cross names are still under discussion. Mary Wong: @Michael, to add - what I said (i.e. long list currently now reserved under Spec 5) also applies to IGOs. The only reserved protections approved so far for IGOs are their names. Their acronyms are now on the list only on an interim basis. Mary Wong: All, note that in the current implementation for Red Cross, IOC and IGOs - there will be an Exception procedure for the protected organization.

1 0

WT2 - Jan 12th, Thursday Meeting at 20:00 UTC
by Michael Flemming Jan. 12, 2017

Jan. 12, 2017

Dear All, Please note the agenda for the meeting this Thursdayt 20 UTC. 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Remaining Reserved Names at the Second Level 4. Registrant Protections 5. AOB I will try to provide background material or at least a link to the excerpt to the Issue Report for the Registrant Protections tomorrow. We will likely be continuing the heart of our conversation over email because the number of meetings is restricted to the one this Thursday. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

2 1

Fwd: [Meeting Invite] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2
by Michael Flemming Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

There seems to be a number of participants that did not receive the invitation for the meeting this Thursday. Therefore, I am forwarding this in the hopes that those who do not have this in their calendar may add it. Regards, Michael Flemming Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on *Thursday, 12 January 2017 at 20:00 UTC.* 12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET For other times: http://tinyurl.com/hdpfxmb 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). Kind regards Michelle DeSmyter *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://1-719-457-6209,*,,8650457825# <//1-719-457-6209,*,,8650457825> *Phone Only Controls:* https://toolbar.conferencinghub.com/pmc/pmc.aspx?conf= It9YhUoAI2rfs1zIA%2bAx3QmQT6tWBqeXWSFdqGVekIsztvtH9f% 2fwTmVoUoGQcXIjam6xqRJSb%2ft1Xa1F2iFDtJK8Rimw5MHjUZDWRcl3kja N7ZyZiz2RZ%2f8F4gxhagi8[toolbar.conferencinghub.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__toolbar.conferencinghu…> *Primary Access Number:* 1-719-457-6209 <(719)%20457-6209> *Guest Passcode:* 865 045 7825 *Additional Access:* USA 1-719-457-6209 <(719)%20457-6209> Canada, Calgary +1 403 407 5793 <(403)%20407-5793> Canada, Montreal +1 514 669 5928 <(514)%20669-5928> Canada, Toronto +1 647 426 9172 <(647)%20426-9172> Canada, Vancouver +1 604 222 7836 <(604)%20222-7836> Argentina (toll free) 0800 666 2649 Argentina (toll free) 0800 800 1223 Argentina, Buenos Aires +54 (0) 11 5172 6003 <+54%2011%205172-6003> Australia (toll free) 1 800 804 786 Australia, Brisbane +61 (0) 7 3015 0535 <+61%207%203015%200535> Australia, Melbourne +61 (0) 3 8687 0553 <+61%203%208687%200553> Australia, Sydney +61 (0) 2 8017 6064 <+61%202%208017%206064> Austria (toll free) 0800 8866 3413 Austria, Vienna +43 (0) 1 25302 1785 <+43%201%20253021785> Bahrain (toll free) 800 04212 Bahrain, Manama +973 1619 8739 <+973%201619%208739> Belarus (toll free) 8 820 0011 0341 Belgium (toll free) 0800 39279 Belgium, Brussels +32 (0) 2 400 6928 <+32%202%20400%2069%2028> Brazil (toll free) 0800 887 0233 Brazil, Rio de Janeiro +55 21 2730 6944 <+55%2021%202730-6944> Brazil, Rio de Janeiro +55 21 4560 0072 <+55%2021%204560-0072> Brazil, Sao Paulo +55 11 3351 7036 <+55%2011%203351-7036> Brazil, Sao Paulo +55 11 4935 7169 <+55%2011%204935-7169> Bulgaria (toll free) 00800 111 4950 Bulgaria, Sofia +359 (0) 2 491 6045 <+359%202%20491%206045> Canada (toll free) 1 855 950 3717 <(855)%20950-3717> Chile (toll free) 171 800 835 783 Chile (toll free) 800 363 514 Chile, Santiago +56 (0) 2 2666 0696 <+56%202%202666%200696> China (national) +400 613 8103 China, Beijing +86 10 5667 0003 <+86%2010%205667%200003> China, Shanghai +86 21 2039 7081 <+86%2021%202039%207081> Colombia (toll free) 01 800 518 0646 Colombia (toll free) 01 800 755 0102 Colombia, Bogota +57 1 508 8137 Croatia (toll free) 0800 805 940 Cyprus (toll free) 800 97424 Czech Republic (toll free) 800 701 532 Czech Republic, Prague +420 225 986 554 <+420%20225%20986%20554> Denmark (toll free) 80 70 35 86 Denmark, Copenhagen +45 32 72 78 10 <+45%2032%2072%2078%2010> Egypt (toll free) 0800 000 0593 Estonia (toll free) 800 011 1589 Estonia, Tallinn +372 622 6551 <+372%20622%206551> Fiji (toll free) 00800 3322 Finland (toll free) 0800 772 236 Finland, Helsinki +358 (0) 9 2310 1677 France (national) 0811 655 100 France (toll free) 0800 946 531 France, Paris +33 (0) 1 70 37 16 56 <+33%201%2070%2037%2016%2056> Germany (national) 01801 003 899 Germany (toll free) 0800 588 9170 Germany, Frankfurt +49 (0) 69 2222 10612 <+49%2069%20222210612> Germany, Munich +49 (0) 89 2030 31207 <+49%2089%20203031207> Greece (toll free) 00800 128 913 Greece, Athens +30 211 181 3824 <+30%2021%201181%203824> Hong Kong +852 3018 9111 <+852%203018%209111> Hong Kong (toll free) 800 901 787 Hungary (toll free) 068 001 9673 Hungary, Budapest +36 1408 8953 Iceland (toll free) 800 9847 India (toll free) 000 800 1008 367 India, Bangalore +91 (0) 80 6127 6710 <+91%2080%206127%206710> India, Chennai +91 (0)44 6688 6061 <+91%2044%206688%206061> India, Delhi +91 (0) 11 6641 1394 <+91%2011%206641%201394> India, Mumbai +91 (0)22 6187 5028 <+91%2022%206187%205028> Indonesia (toll free) 001 803 016 2541 Indonesia (toll free) 007 803 321 8927 Ireland (national) 1890 907 630 Ireland (toll free) 1800 937 649 Ireland, Dublin +353 (0) 1 526 9421 <+353%201%20526%209421> Israel (toll free) 1809 213 168 Israel, Tel Aviv +972 (0)3 721 7943 <+972%203-721-7943> Italy (toll free) 800 146 094 Italy, Milan +39 02 3600 8006 <+39%2002%203600%208006> Italy, Rome +39 06 8750 0676 <+39%2006%208750%200676> Japan (mobile) 0120 632 611 Japan (toll free) 0120 305 211 Japan, Chiba +81 (0) 43 321 6881 <+81%2043-321-6881> Japan, Fukuoka +81 (0) 92 290 6881 <+81%2092-290-6881> Japan, Hiroshima +81 (0) 82 558 6881 <+81%2082-558-6881> Japan, Nagoya +81 (0) 52 850 6881 <+81%2052-850-6881> Japan, Osaka +81 (0) 6 4560 2410 <+81%206-4560-2410> Japan, Sapporo +81 (0) 11 234 6881 <+81%2011-234-6881> Japan, Sendai +81 (0) 22 708 6881 <+81%2022-708-6881> Japan, Shizuoka +81 (0) 54 902 6881 <+81%2054-902-6881> Japan, Tachikawa +81 (0) 42 841 6881 <+81%2042-841-6881> Japan, Tokyo +81 (0) 3 4560 1270 <+81%203-4560-1270> Japan, Toyama +81 (0) 76 408 6881 <+81%2076-408-6881> Japan, Urawa +81 (0) 48 698 6881 <+81%2048-698-6881> Japan, Yokohama +81 (0) 45 677 6881 <+81%2045-677-6881> Kazakhstan (toll free) 8800 333 7554 Latvia (toll free) 8000 4418 Latvia, Riga +371 6601 3627 Lithuania (toll free) 8800 31449 Lithuania, Vilnius +370 5205 5468 Luxembourg +352 2088 1749 <+352%2020%2088%2017%2049> Luxembourg (toll free) 800 28433 Malaysia (toll free) 1 800 816 152 Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur +60 (0) 3 7724 8010 <+60%203-7724%208010> Mexico (toll free) 01 800 054 0370 Mexico (toll free) 01 800 733 4102 Mexico, Guadalajara +52 33 4162 4504 <+52%2033%204162%204504> Mexico, Mexico City +52 55 4777 2658 <+52%2055%204777%202658> Mexico, Mexico City +52 55 8421 0326 <+52%2055%208421%200326> Mexico, Monterrey +52 81 4162 5648 <+52%2081%204162%205648> Morocco (toll free) 0800 091 296 Morocco, Casablanca +212 (0) 520 48 0022 Netherlands (toll free) 0800 020 2597 Netherlands, Amsterdam +31 (0) 20 716 8345 <+31%2020%20716%208345> New Zealand (toll free) 0800 452 947 New Zealand, Auckland +64 (0) 9 929 1825 <+64%209-929%201825> New Zealand, Christchurch +64 (0) 3 974 2596 <+64%203-974%202596> New Zealand, Wellington +64 (0) 4 909 4674 <+64%204-909%204674> Nigeria, Lagos +234 1 277 3944 <+234%201%20277%203944> Norway (toll free) 800 56081 Norway, Oslo +47 21 00 48 15 <+47%2021%2000%2048%2015> Panama (toll free) 00 800 226 3770 Panama (toll free) 00800 223 1390 Panama, Panama City +507 8 335 913 Peru (toll free) 0800 55 092 Peru (toll free) 0800 78102 Peru, Lima +51 (0) 1 700 9571 Philippines (toll free) 1 800 111 013 99 Philippines, Manila +63 (0)2 395 3426 <+63%202%20395%203426> Poland (toll free) 00 800 121 4356 Poland, Warsaw +48 22 295 3570 <+48%2022%20295%2035%2070> Portugal (toll free) 800 784 442 Portugal, Lisbon +351 21 316 4093 <+351%2021%20316%204093> Qatar (toll free) 00 800 100 491 Romania (toll free) 0800 801 035 Romania, Bucharest +40 (0) 21 529 3992 <+40%2021%20529%203992> Russia (toll free) 8 800 500 9241 Russia, Moscow +7 495 646 9181 <+7%20495%20646-91-81> Saudi Arabia (toll free) 800 844 6641 <(800)%20844-6641> Saudi Arabia (toll free) 800 850 0219 <(800)%20850-0219> Singapore +65 6622 1957 <+65%206622%201957> Singapore (toll free) 800 616 3192 <(800)%20616-3192> Slovakia (toll free) 0800 002 002 Slovakia, Bratislava +421 (0)2 3321 5498 Slovenia (toll free) 0800 81193 Slovenia, Ljubljana +386 1600 8695 South Africa (toll free) 0800 999 434 South Africa, Johannesburg +27 (0)11 589 8321 <+27%2011%20589%208321> South Korea (toll free) 00798 6136 1454 South Korea, Seoul +82 (0) 2 6007 0079 <+82%202-6007-0079> Spain (toll free) 900 828 035 Spain, Barcelona +34 93 800 1946 <+34%20938%2000%2019%2046> Spain, Madrid +34 91 114 6653 <+34%20911%2014%2066%2053> Sweden (toll free) 0200 125 588 Sweden, Stockholm +46 (0) 8 5065 3956 Switzerland (toll free) 0800 740 360 Switzerland, Geneva +41 (0) 22 595 4795 <+41%2022%20595%2047%2095> Switzerland, Zurich +41 (0) 44 580 7207 <+41%2044%20580%2072%2007> Taiwan (toll free) 0800 666 596 Taiwan, Taipei +886 (0) 2 2650 7329 <+886%202%202650%207329> Thailand (toll free) 001 800 6136 1473 Turkey (toll free) 00800 4488 26642 Turkey, Istanbul +90 212 375 50 49 <+90%20212%20375%2050%2049> UAE (toll free) 8000 3570 2662 UK (03) +44 (0)330 336 6002 <+44%20330%20336%206002> UK (national) 0844 581 8062 UK (national) 0845 351 2782 UK (toll free) 0800 358 6385 Ukraine (toll free) 0800 500 896 Uruguay (toll free) 0004 019 0152 USA /Canada (toll free) 1-866-398-2885 <(866)%20398-2885> Venezuela (toll free) 0 800 162 7451 Vietnam (toll free) 1800 9226

2 1

The Case for a Single Registry Agreement
by Kurt Pritz Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

Hi Everyone: During past meetings of this group, we raised the possibility of creating new categories of TLD registries and separate versions of registry agreements for the next round. The primary purpose of the categories, as I understand it, is to obtain exemptions, concessions or accommodations to the registry agreement so that the TLD registries in a category can more easily / effectively / economically pursue its mission. I believe that exemptions from certain terms in the registry agreement, when appropriately and swiftly granted, will encourage innovative uses for TLD registries. While I fully support the position that TLD registries should be able to obtain exemptions from certain Registry Agreement terms based on their business model, I do not support the creation of TLD categories or different versions of the Registry Agreement a priori. The reasons for this are that: (1) categories are generally unworkable, (2) there is a more elegant way to achieve the goals of registries seeking a Registry Agreement matched to their needs, and (3) it will be faster from a policy and implementation standpoint to avoid considering many requested category suggestions. The difficulties with implementing different categories can be demonstrated by looking at past and future gTLD rounds. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. There were ten applicants. The evaluation panel found only two of them qualified under the sponsorship criteria as applicants tried to “shoe-horn” their applications into the definition of “sponsored.” We could expect the same behavior in future applications once a category definition is created. The two most notable failures in this current (2012) round of TLD delegations were the two categories described by the Applicant Guidebook: Community Priority Evaluations and the attempt to measure the requisite government approvals for geographic names. Subjective criteria used in the Community Priority Evaluations did not yield repeatable results and even the objective criteria used for geographical names yielded errors and controversies. Suggested new categories already portend a confusing landscape. Community comment in the 2012 round suggested the creation of several TLD categories, for example: single-owner, country, not-for-profit, intergovernmental organization, socio-cultural, community and open. Depending on the category, various accommodations were suggested, for example, relief from: the requirement to sign an ICANN Registry Agreement, to use accredited registrars, pay ICANN fees or to follow consensus policy, or to follow instead the policy provisions outlined in the GAC’s ccTLD principles. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application, administration and evaluation process, in addition to a very complicated contractual compliance environment. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Nonetheless, fair and appropriately flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. An exemption process can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. The Registry Agreement was written largely to satisfy the policy goals of the new gTLD program. It is more straightforward to evaluate a registry requesting an accommodation against the policy goals of the agreement and grant the accommodation so long as the policies are not violated. For example, there is a policy that, “Strings must not cause any technical instability.” A simple implementation of this policy is the data escrow requirement (with Iron Mountain and NCC Group as the lone providers) to ensure ongoing operation in case of failure. It is conceivable that a different version of .bank might have emerged with a demonstrably valuable promise that data would not leave the confines of the .bank operator, which had demonstrated diversity and security capability beyond that of the escrow providers. In that case, the policy to enhance stability would be better served by granting an exemption for the data escrow requirement to the new .bank. The new .bank should not be required to form a category in order to gain an exemption. The working group can call for the creation of a process that considers forgiving certain contractual provisions whenever such a request promotes the goals of the new gTLD program and does not obviate the policy reason for the contractual clause in question. This is not so different from a smoothly running Registry Services Evaluation Procedure (RSEP). For example, when asked for an exemption, ICANN should require demonstrable evidence that: The exemption will further a goal of the new gTLD program (such as innovation or increased competition or choice). The exemption does not defeat the policy goal of the contractual provision. Stating the policy goal of the provision Demonstrating why the exemption does not defeat the policy goal In line with the RSEP, demonstrating no deleterious effects to stability, security, resiliency and competition. Similar to RSEP, this process should occur within a 15-day window. Just as in the RSEP, there will be similarity among applications that will become easy to administer. While it sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become, never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. The outcome of our policy discussion could result in a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. The alternative will be an ongoing attempt to create policy and implementation plans for new categories as they are conceived. This is not to say that TLD categories should be forbidden. Categories can self-form and create guiding principles, internal policies or other membership criteria. However, rather than painstakingly create policy governing the formation of specific categories and registry agreements, the group could call for an overarching process to accommodate and facilitate new business models as they develop. Thanks for taking the time to read and consider this. Sincerely, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt(a)kjpritz.com +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz WeChat: kjpritz

7 6

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 - Legal Regulatory Issues
by Michelle DeSmyter Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/2SC4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 20 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Phil Buckingham:Hi Michelle , Steve , Im in ! Phil Buckingham:thanks . Should be an "interesting " next hour ! Jeff Neuman:Hello all Jeff Neuman:vtLD (Validated top Level domains) Gg Levine (NABP):NABP is participating Gg Levine (NABP):Absolutely! Jeff Neuman:.bank yes Jeff Neuman:.pharmacy, .ngo / .ong Jeff Neuman:.law Gg Levine (NABP):TLD in which regigrants must meet registry standards prior to use of the domain Alexander Schubert:.gay :-) Jim Prendergast:Jeff has them allmemorized Paul McGrady:On a flight now, so only able to contribute via chat today. Alexander Schubert:Not yet delegated Jim Prendergast:still in contention, isnt it? Alexander Schubert:Still in contention Steve Chan:CTAG Alexander Schubert:CTAG! Steve Chan:Community TLD Applicant Group Paul McGrady:@Jeff Neuman - I have missed a call or two due to a family issue. DId we decide to include the Terms & Conditions from the Guidebook into this group or will they be looked at in another group? Thanks! Jeff Neuman:We consider feedback from everyone Jeff Neuman:@Paul - Yes.....but have not looked at them yet Paul McGrady:Perfect! Thanks @Jeff. Phil Buckingham:kurt - can you speak up a little Kurt Pritz:pretty close Kurt Pritz:I am in a crowded spot. sorry Kevin Kreuser:justification is the right term, IMO, but I think it should be a high bar Jeff Neuman:@kevin - Why a high bar? Alexander Schubert:Do we talk Spec 5? Phil Buckingham:alexander - spec 5 later Alexander Schubert:So is this top level or second level? Jeff Neuman:@Alexander - both Alexander Schubert:Seemingly 2nd.... Alexander Schubert:BOTH? Alexander Schubert:Apples & Oranges? Jeff Neuman:We will need to consider both reserved names at the top level as well as those at the second level Kevin Kreuser:bc the justification for most changes requested to the RA in this round were not due to something special in the applicant or the category that the applicant lived, but instead were based on the business' own limitations. TM rights and for protections I think are an exception. Multiple agreements for registrars can also be difficult to implement Jeff Neuman:How are multiple registry agreements difficult for registrars? (I am not disagreeing, but want to flush this out) Jeff Neuman:@Kevin - If one registry agreement has a different indemnity provision than another....how would that affect registrars Jeff Neuman:(as an example) Kevin Kreuser:depends on what changes are permitted by category. if technical, which I hope would not be the case, could cause difficulties Kevin Kreuser:nevermind us, we're just chatting Jeff Neuman:Not sure why that is.....I will call in. Kurt Pritz:one part of the COI question might be whether the COI is stiil Kurt Pritz:required Kevin Kreuser:@Kurt, ICANN would welcome eliminating the COI itself, but is still going to want a way to fund EBERO Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Finally into the AC Been on the audio bridge only until now Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Someone should take a look at the transcript of the new gTLD session in Toronto. Many participants raised complaints and concerns about the COI. ICANN's responses seem unlikely to be different now, IMHO. Kurt Pritz:@Kevin. there are a lot of ways to skin that cat. For later substantive discussion Kevin Kreuser:absolutely Alexander Schubert:With reserved names we have to strictly distinguish between top and second level! Alexander Schubert:CWG Jeff Neuman:that was in 2006 Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Are you talking about the 2006 WG? Kevin Kreuser:@Kristina, ICANN is holding and managing LOIs and Data Escrow agreements for all of these TLDs. It's an administrative nightmare. I cannot imagine they wouldn't love to be rid of them, perhaps by way of insurance of some manner, taking a portion of the applicant fee and dumping into a pool, etc as an alternatives Steve Chan:FYI, the document is un-synced...as Michael just noted. Paul McGrady:Kevin, we went down the "insurance" path in Round 1 and it was rejected. Start ups are not the same risk footprint as .Brands. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Kevin: I think Paul McGrady has some views on ICANN as an insurer (although I was super sick in Dakar and could be misremembering). Kevin Kreuser:Understand re insurance, point was more I believe they would be open to exploring better alternatives Jeff Neuman:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_… Michael Flemming:Staff, could we make a note in the Notes to capture the discussion on COIs that is taking place in the chat so that we may use this as feedback and come back to this when we are ready to have more detailed discussion? Michael Flemming:please* Michael Flemming:A lot of constructive discussion. Thank you, everyone. Michael Flemming:Thanks! Jeff Neuman:We should also split the top level from second level Alexander Schubert:+1 Annebeth Lange:+ 1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):+1 Julie Hedlund:@Michael: I have copied it, but I'll note that it is redundant. The chat notes are captured separately by the Secretariat staff and is posted to the wiki. Alexander Schubert:And it Is split in the AG! Paul McGrady:@Kevin, lots can be done with the EBERO issue to drive out costs and uncertainty, thus reducing ICANN's involvement/risk. Alexander Schubert:Spec 5 is 2nd level, right? Michael Flemming:Yes Michael Flemming:Anything in the RA would refer to second level reservations Michael Flemming:...I believe Kevin Kreuser:some restrictions are at "all levels" Kevin Kreuser:country and territory, for exampel Jeff Neuman:I think we should take one by one Jeff Neuman:See what the policy recomendation was and then compare with what was done Steve Chan:Phil is discussing the existing Reserved Name Requirements (at that time) Annebeth Lange:And the Reserved Names report came in 2006 - not completely consistent with the AG Steve Chan:What is in the AC room is the recommendation table recommended for new gTLDs Michael Flemming:Yes, Phil is looking at the Roles of Reserved Names Table Jeff Neuman:The applicant Guidebook in Section 2.2.1.2.1 has the initial list of top-level reserved names Jeff Neuman:Then this section was added: 2.2.1.2.3 to cover red cross / olympics Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed Annebeth that out of Synch is important to note Julie Hedlund:See the table at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu… Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):May I suggest that we start with what was in the AG and only revert back to the Reserved Names WG recommendations and the 2000/2003 Reserved Name requirements, as needed? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):works for me Kristina Annebeth Lange:I agree Annebeth Lange:It has been a lot of discussion between the result of the Reserved Names WG recommendations and the result in the AG Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):+1 Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):+1 Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Is there anyone who thinks that we shouldn't have reserved names on the top level? Annebeth Lange:The AG should be the starting point here Kevin Kreuser:home Alexander Schubert:hiome? Alexander Schubert:Yap: home Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):4 Julie Hedlund:All: Just a time check. 2 minutes to the top of the hour. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):WT4 Heather Forrest:It seems to me that it would be helpful to have everyone in the group go back to the RNWG Report to understand the justifications reached by that group Jeff Neuman:@heather - yes please Annebeth Lange:And we have to remember that this was long time ago - before the AG that I think had input from more stakeholdergroups than RNWG Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Have to leave my next call is starting now Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye Paul McGrady:Thanks all! Annebeth Lange:Bye Alexander Schubert:Thanks! Jeff Neuman:@Annabeth - Agree, BUT we need to revise the policy so we need to understand the original policy Annebeth Lange:Absolutely, Jeff Heather Forrest:thanks everyone Robin Gross:thanks all, bye Alexander Schubert:Midnight :-) Robert Burlingame:Thank you. Bye. Annebeth Lange:Here too, ALexander Emily Barabas:Next call will be after ICANN57, invitation to be sent out

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 15 December
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 15 December. 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. See also the attached slides that are referenced below and posted on the wiki. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 15 December ACTION: Look at the new language of the registry agreement once it comes out and how that language may affect some reservations. Reserved Names at the Second Level – See the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8…. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Remember the default...if we get no comments otherwise, the assumption is that whatever is applicable today will be applicable in the future. So speak up if you have an issue :) ICANN/IANA Names -- All Levels and 2nd & 3rd levels; Example reserved at all levels, ASCII only. -- Not adoped/not protected at the second level -- Doesn't seem to be support to change policy to reserve at the second level. -- Move in the direction of the AGB to not reserve at the second level. -- Before the AGB was final, ICANN had itself, IANA, and some others proposed to be protected, but if it wasn't going to protect other organizations it wasn't going to protect its own. -- The rationale was that if someone could pretent to be ICANN/IANA etc. -- Example has been reserved for a long time. Don't need to spend a lot of time on it. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: I think IANA still deserves such reservation. It's a "household name" of sorts. As in the IANA label only, not all the IANA labels. Example and ROOT-SERVERS are also worth keeping reserved, IMHO. ICANN is not worthy reserving. ;-) Example was also mentioned as an IANA label. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: To reserve anything at second level, there should be a very good reason why. Why ICANN and IANA and not other international organisations? Jeff Neuman: @Annabeth - that is why ICANN took its name off the list Rubens Kuhl: IANA is not an organization, PTI is. IANA is similar to INTERNIC, a long-recalled name with a meaning. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: Exactly :-) That is true, Rubens. You have a point. Rubens Kuhl: It's also of note that we could move such names to being "LRO material", as in someone which is not RIPE applies for .RIPE, RIPE could file an LRO. Greg Shatan: The iana.org domain name is used for emails instructing changes to the Root Zone, and for the website on which critical information is displayed. PTI also owns iana.com and iana.net. Jeff Neuman: @Rubens I know IP attorneys that could make similar arguments :) If a registry wants to reserve other versions of "example" it may do so on its own. But I see no reason why it should be protected by ICANN in all TLDs Trang Nguyen: There was a reserved names working group. The final report is posted at https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rn-wg-fr19mar07.pdf and may provide some background info. Symbols -- not allow them except for hyphens. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: the 2009 "recommendation" is the result of the final report from the reserved names working group. Rubens Kuhl: ICANN disallowed even the hyphen. Jeff Neuman: @Rubens - only when the hyphen is in the 3rd and 4th position Greg Shatan: This probably requires an IETF RFC, I'm guessing. Symbols, that is. Single and two-character IDNs -- Leave as is (no reservations). -- May be noteworthy to make mention of what is possible. >From the chat: Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: Just a heads up for the Standardized Framework for Release of Two-Character ASCII Labels to avoid confusion with corresponding country codes, published yesterday. And a comment to IDNs - there have been instances where a 2-letter IDN is to similar to a 2-letter ASCII, so that it could not be accepted. It was on first level, but still it might appear on second level as well. Single letters and digits -- accepted at 2nd and 3rd level -- No reservations. Suggest leaving as is. Any combination of two letters, digits -- There is now a measurement to allow for the release for these characters if registries folllow certain policy and implementation requirements to avoid confusion. -- Could change policy to note the implementation guidelines. -- This provision is to avoid risk of confusion with the country codes. Could warrant something in the policy acknowledging which combinations raise that concern (letter-letter, number-number). >From the chat: Susan Payne: Having said which, am I right in thinking that we are holding over the "country code" issue to discuss in the wider context of geo names? EP, EC, EU, AU, UN Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: As for geo-names, I think that should be kept at first level. GAC has been discussing 2-letter codes from ISO-list 3166 at second level, but I do not think they have - at least so far - been anxious about other geonames at second level. Tagged Names -- IDN guidelines are the default; an exception can be granted. Right now IDN guidelines would be ceilings. -- Currently the policy to implement the AGB reserves the hyphen in the 3rd and 4th location. -- This isn't the only way the IDN guidelines can be implemented. -- Suggesting not changing. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: I'll note that a registry might be allowed to not follow ICANN IDN Guidelines to the letter, by making an RSEP request that ICANN approves. So the guidelines are not the ultimate restrictions to it Jeff Neuman: The third and 4th hyphens could in theory be used for other types of IETF protocols..but to my knowledge they have not been NIC, WHOIS, WWW -- 2nd & 3rd ASCII (now includes RDDS); IDN -- This is a pain point for IDN registires -- forced to use ASCII only for the NIC label (could not use non-ASCII script) for the registry operation, but this has already changed. -- Talking about two different things -- reservation of the name versus use of the name. Not sure if there would be a change in the reservation policy. -- Not trying to translate them is what is important, but could consider saying that any translation could be used by the registry. -- For purposes of blocking a name do not try to translate it. Could change to using either NIC or a translation of NIC...(language that is not as strong). >From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Jeff is right! (about there being two different things).

1 0

WT2 - Dec 15th, Thursday Meeting at 20:00 UTC
by Michael Flemming Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Dear All, I hope everyone is having a good week and staying healthy during these cold winter months for those of us experiencing colder weather Please note the agenda ahead of time of the meeting on 15 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC. I have stopped trying to number the meetings at this point. The following is what we will be looking at on Thursday. 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Reserved Names at the Second Level 4. AOB In advance of the meeting I would like to share a Google sheet that we will use to discuss the second level reserved names during the meeting. Please review, make any comments about the material and we will discuss during the meeting. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8… Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 28 November
by Steve Chan Nov. 29, 2016

Nov. 29, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 28 November. 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 recording. See the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/x/uQ2bAw Best, Steve New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Monday, 28 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Apologies: On audio only: Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Recap from ICANN57 Subsequent Procedures Session on WT2 Issues 4. Reserved Names on the Top Level 6. AOB Notes/Action Items: 3. Recap from ICANN57 Subsequent Procedures Session on WT2 Issues - Single base agreement vs category-based agreements: recognize that there are different needs, but still up for debate whether separate agreements are needed, or those differences could be accounted for via specifications (or similar). - BRG, other groups to prepare feedback on specific needs of certain types of TLD category - Can ICANN handle operationally? - COI - Agreement that EBERO is needed, but can consider whether COI is the proper mechanism to support EBERO. - Reserved Names - Discussed briefly. Misc - Moving forward, allow for more consideration of background materials and provide a basis before delving into substantive discussion. Make topics more digestible as well (e.g., like only concentrating on top-level RNs today) 4. Reserved Names on the Top Level - ONLY looking at top-level today - Only revisit rationale if change is needed (or may be needed)? - ICANN/IANA names - additional ICANN names were added in AGB, does not include PTI, since it did not exist. LATNIC not included, but otherwise no changes. Should RFC6761 be added/integrated b/c of authorities granted via the IETF MoU and its management of protocols? - Consider whether new IANA names should be included (e.g., PTI) - Only English, so any reason to expand to any other languages? Acronyms in other languages may not be sensible, but perhaps EXAMPLE, INVALID, etc. ACTION ITEM: Staff to gather list of acronyms related to IANA transition - Symbols - why were hyphens not allowed (other than in 3rd and 4th positions for IDNs)? May be worth considering rationale here and determine if there is any technical (or other) reason otherwise to avoid hyphens. - Single Letters - Any additional research completed to allow for release of single letter TLDs in ASCII? ACTION ITEM: Investigate single character IDNs, find experts to provide analysis. - Single and Two Digits - AGB went further and required only letters. Can consider 1) ALL digits and/or 2) letters and digits. - No objections to continuing prevention of ALL digits. - Letters and digits - may introduce more UA issues, since numbers are not currently expected in code. Code was written specifically to avoid allowing entry of invalid TLDs (and not necessarily just lazy code). - Should it be up to the applicant to determine if the risk is worth it? - Kurt - There was a concern that a leading or trailing digit would be interpreted as the start as an IP address by some applications / browsers. That concern is demonstrable. It is less demonstrable that an interior digit would be interpreted somehow by an IP address. Could interior digits be considered separately? - Should digits be disallowed b/c of known code issues, which perpetuates the issue? [possible] ACTION ITEM: Ask for guidance around letters and digits (and other issues) from the UASG, SSAC, other experts. Two Letters - not allowed in policy and AGB. However, 2-char IDNs allowed unless a) visually similar to one-char label (and script) or b) visually similar to two-char ASCII combos. Tagged Names - Consistent between policy/AGB. Nic/Whois/www - Consistent between policy/AGB. Could consider adding RDDS (and/or RDS)? Roger Carney - they are technically different where "Most peopole see RDS as larger - Registration Directory Services, RDDS Registration Data Directory Services. RDDS being more specific to Data and RDS being more general about the system. It was a discussion in the RDS pDP WG" Geographic Names - Skipped for now while waiting for CWG-UCTN, GAC WG, etc. Geopolitical Names (including IDNs) - Consistent between policy/AGB. May be touched on by GAC Geo Names WG. Controversial Names - No list, but a dispute policy -> became the LPI objection process. Should make sure outcome of Limited Public Interest Objection is understood (from WT3). Declared Variants Strings Ineligible for Delegation String Requirements Name Collision (Reserved Names) Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 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

AC Chat, Attendance & Recording of New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 2 call on Monday, 28 November 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 28, 2016

Nov. 28, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Monday, 28 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/KJPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 November 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Monday, 28 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Rubens Kuhl:ICANN staff seems to also be considering how to kill COI. This topic come alongside Registry Service Provider accreditation/certification/*tion. Phil Buckingham:rubens Phil Buckingham:would you like to elaborate Rubens Kuhl:ICANN staff also seems to be bothered by COI, since they have to process a number of COI changes for existing registries. Jeff Neuman:Lets hold those thoughts on the COI Phil Buckingham:ok jeff Jeff Neuman:Focus of today is Reserved NAmes at the top-level :) Emily Barabas:Here is the Google doc: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… avri doria:shouldn't IANA names include the RFC6761 names? Steve Coates:What is RFC6761? Thx! Jeff Neuman:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_… Rubens Kuhl:.localhost is also the subject of an ongoing draft that even though seems to lack consensus at this point, will likely advance in one form or another. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_dr… Jon Nevett:Perhaps add a time stamp on it -- no new ones after 90 days before applications are filed or something avri doria:6761 is an ongoing discussion in the IETF and we are rying to find a way to make sure we don't step on each other toes in name allocation. Rubens Kuhl:I don't think ACs and SOs are widely recocgznied... but Internic is a widely known name, even though it doesn't exist anymore. Rubens Kuhl:Were hyphens allowed in the 2012 round ? Jon Nevett:would want it in the ICANN policy if possible Phil Buckingham:rubens - no they werent Jon Nevett:not rely on the IETF process -- thanks Steve Chan 2:@Jeff, sorry was mid-typing and didn't realize you were looking for a response from staff. I've captured your action item in the notes section. avri doria:well, not sue they would accept such a dependency. some are arguing that they should use second level like protocol.arpa. also resrciting ietf to neologisms (invented words). want to make sure thet the is not for global dns usage. Rubens Kuhl:There is a reason for not allowing -- (hyphen hyphen) at 3rd and 4th positions, but besides that, no technical reason to avoid hyphens in TLDs. avri doria:and the laison has notified the board of rfc6761 actions, but it never became an issue. Rubens Kuhl:So ab--cdef would be possibly not a good idea, but ab-cdef would be allowed. avri doria:Rubens i expect there is lazy code out there that any hypen catches. Rubens Kuhl:Lazy code means UA challenges, but that applies to all new TLDs... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed avri doria:yes, hyens at 3/4 were supposed to be a switch for which xn was just one flavor. Rubens Kuhl:No reason not to allow single-letter IDNs from scripts like Chinese. Rubens Kuhl:I can imagine UA challenges for ASCII single-letter TLDs, but that is not based on data. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed Rubins but our WT (4) should look for or call for some research or abstrac review frm opinion pieces published to date I guess Rubens Kuhl:Most TLDs today allow domains with only numbers, including one or two digits... avri doria:i think the reason to prohibit numbers at top level as again lazy code that would assume it was an address and ge t confused. Rubens Kuhl:But if we use IP address similarity as criteria, it should exclude one to three digits. I don't see a reason to, but that would make sense. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Shouldn't we leave up to an applicant to decide if it's willing to take on a universal acceptance issue? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):leave it Kurt Pritz:There was a concern that a leading or trailing digit would be interpreted as the start as an IP address by some applications / browsers. That concern is demonstrable. It is less demonstrable that an interior digit would be interpreted somehow by an IP address. Rubens Kuhl:Our experience in a TLD that forbids digits-only SLD is that it becames harder by the time to change such a rule. So the moment to look at this is now. avri doria:lazy code is the primary reason for UA issues. Kurt Pritz:Lazy code is the reason why digits in TLDs are read as IP addresses. Lazy code is the reason for name collisions. Michael Flemming 2:Understandable. Michael Flemming 2:Apply at your own risk TLD* Rubens Kuhl:The risk issue is different for a brand/exclusive use TLD than for an unrestricted TLD. Rubens Kuhl:Lazy code plus Good code for lazy users Steve Coates:I'm not sure I understand how code can be lazy. Kiran Malancharuvil 2:Can we ask the Universal Acceptance working group? Rubens Kuhl:The economics for dealing with it are problematic. Most users see those as externalities. avri doria:UA is such a nice euphemism Phil Buckingham:kiran - good idea Kiran Malancharuvil 2:I'm all about asking whatever experts will lend an ear and helping hand Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes we can ask UA /SSAC I assume under WT4 then? Greg Shatan:Alan, good idea Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Good idea - provided that the timing works. Rubens Kuhl:SSAC has a limited workload for each year, so if want something from them in 2017, we need to hurry up. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup avri doria:i think they did repor during the 2012 round policy period. we should check to see if there was a report. Rubens Kuhl:Just anedoctal evidence: the first Brand TLD was .hp suggested by HP to Jon Postel. Curious that it's not going to be allowed, likely ever. Michael Flemming 2:Good to go! Rubens Kuhl:To NIC and WHOIS, we might have to add RDDS. Rubens Kuhl:But why the policy allowed .web but not .www ? That looks inconsistent to me. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I will need to leave audio near the top of thw hour to take my next conference call I will stay in AC as long as I can to just before the top of the hour Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Good point Alan Roger Carney:RDDS and RDS are technically different Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):regardless srely bth shoild be reserve Roger Carney:Sorry looks like voice is not working Alexander Schubert 2:Geographic names; Applicant Guidebook 2.2.1.4.1: Alexander Schubert 2:Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this application round. Alexander Schubert 2:Which means these ISO 3166 Alpha 3 codes and territory names were not "reseved" - but rather just excempted from the 2012 round! Rubens Kuhl:Controversial names - no .trump . Roger Carney:Most peopole see RDS as larger - Registration Directory Services, RDDS Registration Data Directory Services. RDDS being more specific to Data and RDS being more general about the system. It was a discussion in the RDS pDP WG Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):There isn't one. But, geopolitical names have been raised in the GAC in connection with the GAC Geo Names WG. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Sorry I need to leve here now... Bye... onto to my next call Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Why wouldn't we put a placeholder on controversial names pending WT 3's discussion of the Limited Public Interest Objection? We could end up deferring to an objection that is eliminated. Rubens Kuhl:+1 to Kristina's suggestion. Phil Buckingham:@ Alexander - .vg is British Virgin Islands . They werent allowed to apply for .bvi Kiran Malancharuvil 2:Thanks all! Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Soory being late, I was held up. I look forward to read transcipts Jeff Neuman:Next CalL WE START SECOND LEVEL REGISTRATIONS :) Alexander Schubert 2:Bye! Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you all. Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group:take care Rubens Kuhl:Bye Bye all! Phil Buckingham:Thanks everyone for your constructive input

1 0

[Correction] WT2 - Nov 28th, Monday Meeting at 20:00 UTC
by Michael Flemming Nov. 28, 2016

Nov. 28, 2016

Dear All, My most sincere apologies as the last email had the date wrong. Please note the previous email I sent out about the agenda for the upcoming WT2 meeting. I am somewhat late in getting this out to everyone, but I wanted to share the agenda ahead of time of the meeting on 28 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. I have stopped trying to number the meetings at this point. The following is what we will be looking at on Monday. 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Recap from ICANN57 Subsequent Procedures Session on WT2 Issues 4. Reserved Names on the Top Level 6. AOB In advance of the meeting I would like to share with everyone the link to the notes from the session we held at ICANN. Adobe Connect Recording can be found here: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cxk/gnso-new-gtld-subse quent-procedures-pdp-working-group-face-to-face-meeting The notes on the wiki can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2016-11-03+New+gTL D+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+-+ICANN57+F2F For relevant background information for the upcoming discussion on Reserved Names on the Top Level, noting the short amount of time between now and the meeting, I would merely make reference to the following. Existing New gTLD GNSO Policy - Recommendation 5 Applicant Guidebook - Relevant areas of the AGB, but I believe that 2.2.1.2 is what we will mainly be looking at this time around. Jeff, If there is any other supporting background information for this upcoming meeting that I may be missing, could you please supplement that information? If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 1

WT2 - Nov 20th, Monday Meeting at 20:00 UTC
by Michael Flemming Nov. 25, 2016

Nov. 25, 2016

Dear All, I am somewhat late in getting this out to everyone, but I wanted to share the agenda ahead of time of the meeting on 20 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. I have stopped trying to number the meetings at this point. The following is what we will be looking at on Monday. 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Recap from ICANN57 Subsequent Procedures Session on WT2 Issues 4. Reserved Names on the Top Level 6. AOB In advance of the meeting I would like to share with everyone the link to the notes from the session we held at ICANN. Adobe Connect Recording can be found here: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cxk/gnso-new-gtld- subsequent-procedures-pdp-working-group-face-to-face-meeting The notes on the wiki can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2016-11-03+New+ gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+-+ICANN57+F2F For relevant background information for the upcoming discussion on Reserved Names on the Top Level, noting the short amount of time between now and the meeting, I would merely make reference to the following. Existing New gTLD GNSO Policy - Recommendation 5 Applicant Guidebook - Relevant areas of the AGB, but I believe that 2.2.1.2 is what we will mainly be looking at this time around. Jeff, If there is any other supporting background information for this upcoming meeting that I may be missing, could you please supplement that information? If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 20 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 October. 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. See also the attached slides that are referenced below and posted on the wiki. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 20 October Action Items: 1. Base Registry Agreement: Michael Flemming will reach out to Validated TLD (vTLD), CTAG. When reaching out, should ask what particular accommodations are needed and why. 2. Reserved Names: Staff will pull out the different categories of names that might have resulted. AGB 2.2.1.2.1 -- reserved names, also the names in-eligible for delegation. Then try to draw a line from the recommendations to the AGB sections such as they exist. Discussion Notes: 1. Base Registry Agreement · Reached out to BRG, Geo TLDs (Sebastien Ducos). · At the current time we are explaining the arguments of single versus category. Asking for justification and everyone understands that doesn't mean we need a fully separate agreement, but could mean accommodations in the current agreement. We are reaching out to category-specific groups on their understanding. When we do get that feedback it should be specific and allow us to continue our discussion. Will indicate on the email list which groups we are reaching out to. 2. ICANN57 Teaser Questions [Reading questions 1, 2, 3 from page 4-5 of the attached slides.] · Question: Reserved Names -- At the top level and the second level? Answer: Both. · The questions seem to overlap what other work tracks might be considering -- is there coordination in relation to the questions? What are we intending to do with these?Answer: A lot of the other working tracks are look at similar issues and they will overlap in some ways, but these have our perspective. These questions are not to provide final conclusions, but it's an opportunity to solicit community feedback, and to encourage further participation. · Could add to the COI questions whether the COI is still required. · Could try to get feedback on other problems on the COI from other consultants. Copied from the Chat: Kevin Kreuser: @Kurt, ICANN would welcome eliminating the COI itself, but is still going to want a way to fund EBERO Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Someone should take a look at the transcript of the new gTLD session in Toronto. Many participants raised complaints and concerns about the COI. ICANN's responses seem unlikely to be different now, IMHO. Kurt Pritz: @Kevin. there are a lot of ways to skin that cat. For later substantive discussion Kevin Kreuser: absolutely 3. Reserved Names (See slide 6.) · Review the composition of the reserved names list. · Reserved Names Working Group (2006) -- look at the recommendations. Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate. · Look at excerpt of Issue Report -- 4.3.1 Reserved Names: 4.3.1.4 Rational for Policy Development [reading the section]. · 4.3.1.1 Explanation of Subject [reading from section]. · Look at a higher level what the policy states. Look at how reserved names came to the mix. · There were 30 recommendations in the final report of the Reserved Names Working Group. We should go through all of those. See: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm. [Reading from the Roles of Reserved Names Table -- existing Reserved Name Requirements (at that time)]. · Take them one-by-one, see what the policy recommendation was, and then compare what was done. · Rather than reading all of the recommendation, we take the first three recommendations, then we look at the AGB to see how it was implemented and any differentials, then discuss whether there is any justification to change them. · Suggest that we start with what was in the AG and only revert back to the Reserved Names WG recommendations and the 2000/2003 Reserved Name requirements, as needed? · Do we think the recommendation still hold up then are these the right names or should they be supplemented? Also look at the new structures to see if some of these are no longer relevant. · Possible resource: Staff can pull out the different category of names that might have resulted. AGB 2.2.1.2.1 -- reserved names, also the names in-eligible for delegation. Then try to draw a line from the recommendations to the AGB sections such as they exist. · Continue discussion at meeting after Hyderabad.

1 0

WT2 - 5th Meeting
by Michael Flemming Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

Dear All, I hope everyone is having a good week. My apologies for getting this out late, however we will be having our 5th meeting for the New gTLD SP PDP WG WT2 on 20 October 2016 at 20:000 UTC. The following is the planned agenda for our discussion. 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Base Registry Agreement: Current progress and reaching out to category specific groups. 4. ICANN57 Teaser Questions 5. Reserved Names 6. AOB: For any other business, I would ask at the beginning of the call that it be mentioned so we could allocate necessary time for the topic. Phil and I look forward to speaking with everyone at the meeting. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 06 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 06 October. 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 recording. See the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 06 October 1. Terms and Conditions of Applying for a TLD: Discussion around adding this topic Action Items: 1. Staff will provide a first cut of the comments on module 6 of the AGB. 2. Staff will look at the Requests for Reconsideration from the 2012 round, and IRPs from the 2012 round. Discussion Notes: Questions: · Is this in the scope of the PDP WG? · Does this belong in WT2? · Is this a policy aspect or an implementation of ICANN or hybrid · What reference material is there -- AGB Module 6: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/terms. · In the event of tackling this subject, what recommendations could be made from a policy standpoint? · Are the Terms and Conditions for described in the AGB enforceable? Jeff Neuman: · Became an issue recently when addressed in the court case involving .africa -- alleged fraudulent or willfull misconduct. · Serious questions raised whether the broad waiver or release of any and all claims is enforceable. · Case is on appeal. · Broad release seems to not be favored in California courts. · How to allow applicants to exercise their right to judicial review? · Jim Prendergast: I would also ask - did the community have input into the T&Cs or the ability to suggest changes to them? Seems like everyone was focused on modules 1-5. I’m not sure anyone every commented on module 6. · Jeff Neuman: Everyone could provide input but not sure how much ICANN accepted. Michael Flemming: · Seems to be an implementation aspect. · Need to look back at comments and how they were dealt with. · Rubens Kuhl: Re: whether in scope -- the list in the charter is a starting point and the WG can supplement the list provided the topic is directly related to new gTLD subsequent procedures, which it is. · Berry Cobb: Another vector for the group to monitor/consider is the changes to Request for Reconsideration and eventual release of the updated IRP as a result of the CCWG Accountability work. It did not specifically touch upon what these mean for subsequent rounds/procedures, but it will be changing in the future. · Michael Flemming: Do we need to change the charter? · Jeff Neuman: I don't think we need to go back to the Council for permission or to change the charter. · Michael Flemming: Take into consideration Requests for Reconsideration. We agree that this is in scope and we can add it to our issues. · Steve Chan: It is part of AGB so it is in scope. Not necessary to send anything to Council. · Jeff Neuman: We shouldn't engage in legal drafting of what we think the Terms and Conditions should be, but look at the policy. · Rubens Kuhl: What we could say at a policy level would be "Have T's&C's to reduce ICANN liability to the minimum level allowed by ICANN Bylaws, California law and US law". · Steve Chan: Look at comments received to the AGB and interpretation of those comments. · Rubens Kuhl: Also Requests for Reconsideration from the 2012 round and lawsuits. · Rubens Kuhl: Two stress tests I suggest to T&C is the TAS issues that occurred, (1) freezing the application process (2) data leak. 2. Base Registry Agreement: Continued high level discussion and what we have been discussing over the mailing list. Action Items: 1. Sub Team members should provide additional pros and cons. 2. Michael Flemming will send an email to the list asking for a volunteers to set up a sub team from this WT sub team for anyone who thinks there should be a separate agreement for a category. The sub team would go through the registry agreement provision-by-provision and say this is why we need a new brand agreement, because these provisions don't apply to the brand. Discussion Notes: Questions: · Does a single base agreement make sense for all types of registries? · Do we as a group support the notion of having separate agreements for separate categories? For categories -- see: the Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…. · Rubens Kuhl: I would also add "Sponsored TLDs", which although being a twin brother of Community TLDs, have different regulatory framework. · Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Question - Is reviewing 'categories' part of this WT? Or is it just if a single agreement makes sense? · Jeff Neuman: Overall categories is being considered in the full PDP WG. Pros and Cons re Single Base Agreement: See the Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k1HrFIjwzupuJqr33WmGmBUD45SQ5Cv1-vNP7ZR… (pros are for a single base agreement; cons are why it is good to have different agreements) · Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Another Consideration: 1 Size Fits All vs. 2 Sizes Fits All – Introducing version(s) of the Registry Agreement may just change the problem. Within categories of TLDs there will still be differing business models. · Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I have a clarifying question: Does "different base agreement" mean (a) a completely different base agreement for every category; (b) a standard base agreement with additional specifications that differ (like Specification 13); or (c) something else entirely? (If the answer is (c), please elaborate). Thanks. · Jeff Neuman: I don't think we are making a determination yet. · Michael Flemming: One idea is to have one agreement and then how it deviates for each category. · Rubens Kuhl: Note that we already have two different agreements at the 2012-round, and it's not based on specifications... it's the governmental and standard versions of the agreement. Spec 9 - Code of Conduct (not applied for exclusive use TLDs and for Brand TLDs) Spec 12 - Community TLDs Spec 13-Brand TLDs. · Jeff Neuman: Proposal -- Dealing with this issue in the abstract, which is hard to do. Set up a sub team from this WT sub team for anyone who thinks there should be a separate agreement for a category and go through the registry agreement provision-by-provision and say this is why we need a new brand agreement, because these provisions don't apply to the brand. · Michael Flemming: Have them make their case. · Jeff Neuman: Looking for specific areas that you feel don't apply to your category or group, or additional provisions that should be in there. · Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Question ‘What is the outcome of the ‘Scope of Work’? What is it that we working towards delivering?’ · Michael Flemming: Make the recommendation of whether or not there should be category-based agreements. Should come back to this discussion by a certain date. · Gg Levine (NABP): Wouldn't it be simpler to keep single base agreement and then fine-tune specs per catagory? Multiple specs might apply to applicants.. Doesn't make sense to have separate agreements. · Michael Flemming: I can send an email concerning Jeff's proposal. · Jeff Neuman: See if there is a volunteer from this group to move this forward. Give people 5 days to say if they want to participate. Schedule a call. · Michael Flemming: Rather allow 2 weeks. · Jeff Neuman: I can reach out to Martin/Cecilia (from the BRG) and relay this conversation.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 06 October 2016
by Terri Agnew Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 06 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> 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#nov> ** 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 06 October 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call held onThursday, 06 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew: agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Tw_4Aw Alexander Schubert: Hello everybody :-) Alexander Schubert: 5: Reserved names. 2nd level or top level? Michael Flemming: Hello Alex and welcome. Michael Flemming: Both Michael Flemming: In a sense Michael Flemming: We will save that fun for last today :) jeff neuman: Not everyone gets your humor :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Hi there Sorry I had to wrap up another call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): My morning is all back to back calls it seems Terri Agnew: Welcome Cheryl, still plenty of time left LOL Alexander Schubert: Well, if you're going to apply for a prepreviously ineligible string - it's not fun! jeff neuman: I can provide a background on this jeff neuman: 3 Steve Chan: As noted, T&Cs are available as Module 6 of the AGB, but also available on the web here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/terms Jim Prendergast: I would also ask - did the community have input into the T&Cs or the ability to suggest changes to them? Seems like everyone was focused on modules 1-5. Im not sure anyone every commented on module 6. Rubens Kuhl: Jeff's audio is fading Rubens Kuhl: (at least for me) Berry Cobb: Another vector for the group to monitor/consider is the changes to RfR and eventual release of the updated IRP as a result of the CCWG Accountability work. It did not specifically touch upon what these mean for subsequent rounds/procedures, but it will be changing in the future. Rubens Kuhl: For me it seems it doesn't require a charter amendment in this case, but policy staff could enlight us on that... Berry Cobb: Request for Reconcideration. Berry Cobb: Yes Rubens Kuhl: What we could say at a policy level would be "Have T's&C's to reduce ICANN liability to the minimum level allowed by ICANN Bylaws, California law and US law". Rubens Kuhl: Reference material: AGB Module 6, RfRs from the 2012 round, IRPs from the 2012 round... Rubens Kuhl: + lawsuits from the 2012 round. jeff neuman: yes Rubens Kuhl: Two stress tests I suggest to T&C is the TAS issues that occurred, (1) freezing the application process (2) data leak... Rubens Kuhl: TAS was the application system used by applicants in the 2012-round Rubens Kuhl: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ… Rubens Kuhl: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k1HrFIjwzupuJqr33WmGmBUD45SQ5Cv1-vNP7ZR… Phil Marano (Mayer Brown): Another suggested stress test for the T&Cs: The threatened termination of a new gTLD application by ICANN based on rationale not established within the AGB, i.e. failure to meet a newly established interim milestone. Rubens Kuhl: I would also add "Sponsored TLDs", which although being a twin brother of Community TLDs, have different regulatory framework. Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Question - Is reviewing 'categories' part of this WT? Or is it just if a single agreement makes sense? Alexander Schubert 2: And there is applications fitting in 4 of these categories in the same time ...... Rubens Kuhl: Raymond, I believe it's WT1, and that we need to sequence our discussion on WT2 once the types discussion is settled. jeff neuman: Its the overall group, right Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Another Consideration: 1 Size Fits All vs. 2 Sizes Fits All – Introducing version(s) of the Registry Agreement may just change the problem. Within categories of TLDs there will still be differing business models. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I have a clarifying question: Does "different base agreement" mean (a) a completely different base agreement for every category; (b) a standard base agreement with additional specifications that differ (like Specification 13); or (c) something else entirely? (If the answer is (c), please elaborate). Thanks. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Thanks. Rubens Kuhl: Note that we already have two different agreements at the 2012-round, and it's not based on specifications... it's the governmental and standard versions of the agreement. Rubens Kuhl: What Jeff is saying. Rubens Kuhl: Spec 9 - Code of Conduct (not applied for exclusive use TLDs and for Brand TLDs) Spec 12 - Community TLDs Spec 13-Brand TLDs. jeff neuman: Any participant of this WT Julie Hedlund: @Jeff: Not sure I captured your word correctly. Rubens Kuhl: Just to complicate Jeff's idea, there are Community Brand TLDs... ;-) Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Question ‘What is the outcome of the ‘Scope of Work’? What is it that we working towards delivering?’ jeff neuman: Yes, scope of work is to make policy recommendations and to provide rationale for those recommendations Gg Levine (NABP): Wouldn't it be simpler to keep single base agreement and then fine-tune specs per catagory? Multiple specs might apply to applicants.. Doesn't make sense to have separate agreements. jeff neuman: Gg - Yes that could be one outcome jeff neuman: My goal is to take the abstract principle and make it more concrete Berry Cobb: I might suggest that you take a more targeted approach. Brands = Martin Sutton; Geos = RyO from a geo TLD; Community = RyOs that have gone through that. We know that these "categories" for lack of a better word exist today. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I would hope that the folks advocating for different agreements have a very good idea about what they do - and do not- want in a base agreement so it shouldn't take too long to articulate. Otherwise, we could be doing this for a long time jeff neuman: I agree with Kristina. These groups are not going to draft a new agreement now Berry Cobb: I'd also recommend that it be communicated that the default is a single agreement at this point and only looking for rationale on why the WT should consider different versions. Terri Agnew: Next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. jeff neuman: I can reach out to Martin/Cecilia (from the BRG) and relay this conversation jeff neuman: Cool. Thanks! Good Call. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks everyone... Thanks Michael... Talk again soon ... bye for now Alexander Schubert 2: bye

1 0

WT2 - 4th Meeting
by Michael Flemming Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear All, I hope everyone is having a good week. For the 4th meeting of the New gTLD SP PDP WG WT2 on 6 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC the following is the planned agenda for our discussion. 1. Welcome 2. Updated SOI 3. Terms and Conditions of Applying for a TLD: Discussion around adding this topic. 4. Base Registry Agreement: Continued high level discussion and what we have been discussing over the mailing list. 5. Reserved Names: If we have time, begin looking at the questions we are asked. 6. AOB: For any other business, I would ask at the beginning of the call that it be mentioned so we could allocate necessary time for the topic. Phil and I look forward to speaking with everyone at the meeting. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

2 1

Work Track 2: Single Base Agreement
by Zylstra, Raymond Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear all, I wanted to start the discussion on a question that was raised about the Base Agreement just prior to the end of the 22 September call - the question of 'does a single base agreement make sense for all types of registries?' and the need to have different agreements for different categories of TLDs. I do not believe that the concept of multiple Registry Agreements is warranted. This is an important topic and I believe the discussion should be broader than simply answering the question as posed. Provided below are some issues I believe we should consider in order to respond to the question. * Predictability - This is something that is often talked about, and also applies in this case. As an end user should I expect the same service levels and requirements of TLDs as I navigate the internet? I would argue yes. It seems that we could end up in a situation where 2012 Registry Operators have very different obligations. * Level Playing Field - A level playing field is important for 2012 Applicants and Registry Operators and those future Applicants; introducing a different Registry Agreement for future Applicants may unfairly disadvantage those who have signed the 2012 Registry Agreement. * Status Quo - We currently have a Registry Agreement, albeit with additional Specifications, under which the various categories of TLDs can, and do, operate. While there are certainly situations where the Registry Agreement is not ideal, it is functional; there are things about it which we may not like, but they are not show stoppers. * Where Does the Problem Lie - As with many of you I have experienced many operational issues dealing with ICANN and their lack of understanding of the diverse business models for different TLDs. I don't believe that having a different Registry Agreement will solve that issue, rather it is a case of working with ICANN to resolve those problems, and I for one have had some success with this. * Lengthy Process - Without question the development of, and agreement to, multiple Registry Agreements has the potential seriously compromise the timelines for the commencement of subsequent new gTLDs. Further, on the call brands were singled out; however, I am confident that many Registry Operators could argue some form of unique requirement which they believe required a unique Registry Agreement. * Administrative Burden - The introduction of multiple Registry Agreements and dealing with these new agreements and the 2012 Registry Agreement will introduce massive overhead for ICANN, Registry Operators, Applicants, and service providers. I trust that the above makes sense and I look forward to your feedback. Regards, Raymond Zylstra<https://au.linkedin.com/in/raymondzylstra> Neustar Inc. / Director - Policy and Compliance Level 8, 10 Queens Road, Melbourne, Australia VIC 3004 Office +61 3 9866 3710 Mobile +61 416 177 615 / Raymond.Zylstra(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Raymond.Zylstra@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> Follow Neustar: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> / Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

6 9

WT2 Additional Topics: Terms and Conditions for Applying for a TLD
by Michael Flemming Sept. 27, 2016

Sept. 27, 2016

Dear All, I am reaching out in advance of next week's meeting in order to get the discussion started on what we were unable to finish in the last meeting. *Topic:* Terms and Conditions for Applying for a TLD Previously, Paul McGrady kindly noted that WT2 should cover the Terms and Conditions for Applying for a TLD. I note there has been support for this from Jeff Neuman as well as others. In order to consider fully what is in our scope, I wanted to begin utilizing our communication tools and engage discussion on this topic. So we could have a better understanding of how we may need to address this from a policy standpoint, I believe the following questions would be suitable to ask. *Questions: *I believe there are better questions we could ask, but here are a few to get us started. Is this in the scope of the PDP WG? Does this belong in WT2? Is this a policy aspect or an implementation of ICANN? In the event of tackling this subject, what recommendations could be made from a policy standpoint? Are the Terms and Conditions for described in the Applicant Guidebook enforceable? *Materials: *For everyone's reference, I attach the AGB Module 6 Top-Level Domain Application - Terms and Conditions. If there are other materials or there have been changes/previous versions to the Terms and Conditions, please correct me so that we can get them out there for everyone's review. Regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 22 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 22, 2016

Sept. 22, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 22 September. 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 recording. See the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. In addition, the slides used in today’s call are attached and posted to the wiki. A general note from the call is for the next meeting to start with the issue raised by Paul McGrady: Paul highlighted that this working track should tackle the T&Cs of applying for a New gTLD. He would like the Sub Team to spend some more time on this issue and seek to outline if we do need to consider this matter; while at the same time discussing the background, any relevant material, and whether this is policy. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 22 September 1. Prioritization/Grouping/Dependencies: For the timeline and scope of new gTLD activities that are underway see: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews. Discussion Notes: · Look at dependences and relevant issues for each topic to determine start date. · Look at a schedule that has the relevant reviews or PDPs showing when they will end. · Current priority trys to reflect the weight of each topic. · Rubens Kuhl -- On 2nd level RPMs: One note is that any RPM not revisited by the RPM WG needs to be revisited in this WG. It's a charter requirement. · Alexander Schubert -- Reserved Names: The CCWG on Territory Names according to my observations won't provide useful input: Their scope of work is way broader then what we seek. So let’s watch them - but do not wait for input: There won't be any. · On coordinating with the CCWG: Annabeth Lange and Heather Forrest are on the CCWG. Ask them to provide updates. · Paul McGrady: This is not a PDP. Take that into consideration concerning their recommendations. · Avri Doria: But should fully take into account any issues they raise, particularly if we take an alternate path. · IGO/INGO -- already a PDP -- with ICANN Board to reconcile GAC advice and PDP recommendations; Also the Country and Territory Name Cross Community Working group. Phil Corwin is Chair. This is a placeholder if something is not resolved by these two efforts. Review the outputs. · Phil Buckingham: Registry/registrar separate was controversial · Jeff Neuman: We are not remaking decisions about whether to allow registrars to be registries and visa-versa. Looking at issues about the code of conduct. · Phil Buckingham: Global Public Interest -- look at work already done in CCWG-Accountability. o Paul McGrady -- What does it mean in this context? o Phil Buckingham -- Seems outside of our remit. o Michael Flemming -- Decide whether to even have recommendations. o Jeff Neuman: The Sub Team should go back to the Discussion Group report to see why Global Public Interest was included. 4. Base Agreement (High level discussion): Action Items: Staff will endeavor to find out how many .brands signed up for Spec 13. 4.3.2.4 Rationale for Policy Development (from Final Issue Report): Discussion Notes: Questions: · Does a single base agreement make sense for all types of registries? · Jeff Neuman -- Need to have different physical agreements for some of the categories, such as .Brand. But likely to be a set of common terms and conditions. Additional questions for the Sub Team to consider from Jeff Neuman: · Does anyone not agree with the notion of having different agreements for different types of TLDs? · Other than "brands", are there any other categories of TLDs that merit their own agreement? · With respect to brands, are the qualifications set forth in Specification 13 the right ones to measure a "brand"?; (4) What are the processes for switching to a different agreement?

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 22 September 2016
by Terri Agnew Sept. 22, 2016

Sept. 22, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 22 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> 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#nov> ** 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 22 September 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call held on Thursday, 22 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Jeff Neuman:Hello all. Just signing on, but will be stepping away frm desk until just before call Terri Agnew:@Phil, I have sent you a private AC Chat Terri Agnew:@Michael, I can hear you Terri Agnew:@Michael, I don't think you can hear me Phil Buckingham:hi Terri , I can hear you . can you call back . I cant get in Terri Agnew:@Phil, calling again via telephone Steve Coates:I have an updated SOI. Steve Coates:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann… Terri Agnew:as a reminder on the telephone to mute/unmute Press *6 to mute or un-mute your line Paul McGrady:Sorry! just joined. Thanks! Annebeth Lange 2:Hello, I am here for the first time, my sound is awful, but I will try to follow. Terri Agnew:@Annebeth, if you would like the telephone to dial out to you top tool bar, select the telephone icon and follow prompts Rubens Kuhl:@Annebeth, are you in the audio bridge or Adobe connect audio ? If one, try the other... Phil Buckingham:welcome annebeth - good to have some GAC input Annebeth Lange:The sound is better, Terri, so it is OK. Steve Chan:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.or… Steve Chan:About halfway down the page, you'll find a graph that shows various reviews underway in support of the CCT-RT, a couple of other reviews, and all of the PDPs underway Alexander Schubert:Reserved Names: The CCWG on Territory Names according to my observations won't provide useful input: Their scope of work is way broader then what we seek. So lets watch them - but do not wait for input: There won't be any. Rubens Kuhl:One note is that any RPM not revisited by the RPM WG needs to be revisited in this WG. It's a charter requirement. Annebeth Lange:Well, Alexander, there is at least a preliminary recommendation on use of 2-letter strings. Alexander Schubert:2 letter codes are blocked - everybody knows this. Annebeth Lange:They have been so far, and I hope they will continue to be. Heather Forrest:Yes - Alexander Schubert:No one right in his mind would try to pray 2 letter codes out of the hands of the GAC. Alexander Schubert:prey Rubens Kuhl:Annebeth, you were on mute for the beginning. Could you repeat from start ? Alexander Schubert:I don't think that there is one single entity in the world dreaming of applying for a 2 letter new gTLD. Rubens Kuhl:Alexander, HP is eager to apply to .hp... in fact, they were the first to ask Jon Postel for a Brand TLD. Heather Forrest:In terms of waiting, I think we're suggesting that the CWG's report will be useful to future work on this topic. We have recommendations and an extensive amount of background materia.l Heather Forrest:A chance to coordinate between the two groups would be very helpful in my view Avri Doria:With Annabeth and Heather particpating in this group, we effectively have a lpoint of liaison. Alexander Schubert:We should look at their "outcome" - but not hold back to start to look into the matter. There won't be any "recommendation". Heather Forrest:I fully suppot Annebeth's comment that we should meet in Hyderabad Alexander Schubert:2 letter codes are OFF LIMITS. Rubens Kuhl:2 letter, yes. 2 char, perhaps not... like a1 or 1a . Alexander Schubert:Rubens: or like .aa as AA can't be allocated to a country (reserved like 192.162....) Rubens Kuhl:BTW, any digit in new TLDs were forbiddent last time. Including perhaps abc123 , much longer than two chars. Alexander Schubert:aa.com - the airline :-) Heather Forrest:Another of the CWG's co-chairs, Carlos Gutierrez, is also a member of this WS. Heather Forrest:We will be happy to provide an update. Alexander Schubert:Agreement! Phil Buckingham:thanks heather Alexander Schubert:For sure shoud look into the CCWG results. Terri Agnew:Reminder for all, please raise your hand in adobe to speak or if on telehphone only, say your name and the chairs will put you in queue. This will ensure when listening to the recording everyone will know who is speaking. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Annabeth clearly stated that Paul Terri Agnew:to raise your hand in adobe connect/ top tool bar/ person icon/raise hand Annebeth Lange:I agree, the work of the CCWG was not a PDP. The mandate was to see if we could find a common framework for the treatment of c & t names in the next round. But the result would be fed into the GNSO PDP. Heather Forrest:Paul makes an excellent point and this is indeed one of the things the CWG has identified as a 'weakness' of its own mandate. This is not something that everyone in the CWG agrees on, but definitely a point of discussion. Rubens Kuhl:I don't have a problem with Hewlett Packard not having .hp, American Airlines not having .aa, Ernst Young not having .ey due to possible future country codes. But the rules must be 3 ASCII chars or longer, 2 IDN chars or longer, no ASCII digits prevent much more than possible country codes. Heather Forrest:your'e fine! Paul McGrady 2:@Avri - agree. All thoughts and inputs into our process welcome. Heather Forrest:It's a "cross community working group" - some of us use the acronym CWG Heather Forrest:to prevent confusion with that "other" CCWG Heather Forrest::) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Its really the CTN-CWG for fuller acronym => County and Terratory Name - Cross Community Working Group Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Call it whatever you like :-) Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Is it possible to circulate this draft document to the email list? Jeff Neuman:That was Phil Corwin Jeff Neuman:yes Jeff Neuman:correct Annebeth Lange:Sorry, I have to leave. Talk to you next time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye Annabeth Steve Chan:From a staff perspective, we would support delaying the initiation of efforts on IGO/INGO. Emily Barabas:@Phil, staff will include this document with the notes Jeff Neuman:yes Jeff Neuman:hopefully less controlversial today Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):AHHH Yes the joys of VI Rubens Kuhl:"We will always have VI" (members of the VI WG) Rubens Kuhl:Which I was not part of. Phil Buckingham:thanks jeff for the clarification Rubens Kuhl:Versions of AGB prior to application implied that structural separation would be allowed; that changed in June 2012, after the closing of the application window. Jeff Neuman:Someone get Michael some water :) Rubens Kuhl:I can't find the water icon in Adobe... Phil Buckingham:what a good q - big big job - outside our remit / Paul McGrady 2:BIG big job. Not sure how it ended up here. Could slow down R2 significantly, I'm afraid. Paul McGrady 2:There is a technical term for this: "Yikes" Rubens Kuhl:My memory matches what Jeff is saying. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):It is an infrequently capitalized, yet never defined, term in the RA. "Public Interest" Appears in a number of provisions. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree JEFF Paul McGrady 2:Thanks Jeff. Would be nice if we could find a way to draw borders around this issue. If its "do PICS work and when should they appear, e.g. in the Guidebook or on a surprise basis later in the process?", I think those are good questions. As currently written, however, it looks much more broad than that and could be quite the cul de sac to get stuck in. Steve Chan:Sure thing Jeff Neuman:@Paul - agreed. We will come back to the group the next time with more context Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):+1. It does not make sense, specifically with respect to .Brand TLDs. Rubens Kuhl:One challenge to that is that a registry can change from Spec 13 to non-Spec 13, or from exclusive-use to non-exclusive use, during the term of the contract. Jeff Neuman:@phil - I didnt make sense, or it does not make sense to have one agreement :) Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):It doesn't make sense to have one agreement template. ;) Steve Coates:I think it's very clear we should have a separate .BRAND RA. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Even I see the seense of the seperate agreement options in aa diverse marketplace ;-) Steve Coates:Great question. I'd love to see that metric. Kevin Kreuser:all "brands" were granted Spec 13, but certain "brands" TLDs were not granted spec 13 Paul McGrady 2:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_e… Paul McGrady 2:Spec. 13 specifically references .brand requirements Jeff Neuman:We are running low on time. SO a few questions for the group. (1) Does anyone not agree with the notion of having different agreements for different types of TLDs. (2) Other than "brands", are there any other categories of TLDs that merit their own agreement, (3) with respect to brands, are the qualifications set forth in Specification 13 the right ones to measure a "brand"?; (4) What are the processes for switching to a different agreemen Jeff Neuman:the last word should be "agreement"....my typo Jeff Neuman:@Paul - it is not lost....it is being added to our work plan Terri Agnew:next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 06 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC invite will be sent shortly Paul McGrady 2:great, well run call! Avri Doria:thank you very useful meeting Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thanks everyone... Bye for now then... Jeff Neuman:Thanks Michael and Phil! Jeff Neuman:Lets keep some discussion on the lists too! Avri Doria:and take the conversations to the lists. Robert Burlingame:Thank you everyone.

1 0

WT2 Meeting 3 Agenda
by Michael Flemming Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear All, I hope you are doing well. My apologies for getting this out rather late, however I am sending the scheduled agenda for this weeks meeting on Thursday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. 1. Welcome and Admin 2. SOI Update 3. Prioritization/Grouping/Dependencies: Here we will address the issue of priority of subjects again. This time Phil and I have gone ahead and drafted a chart that prioritizes and groups the subjects while listing dependencies and relevant issues. I am hoping we can seek consensus on this to begin moving forward with a better work plan. 4. Base Agreement (High level discussion): This will be a return to the Base Agreement, but this time we will focus specifically on high level discussion questions. 5. AOB: Last time, I believe Paul McGrady highlighted that this working track should tackle the T&Cs of applying for a New gTLD. I would like to spend some more time on this issue and seek to outline if we do need to consider this matter; while at the same time discussing the background, any relevant material, and whether this is policy. I have prepared a few materials for this meeting that Phil and I will use and share with the group during the meeting. Looking forward to seeing you all there! Regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 08 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 08 September. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 08 September 1. Meeting Times: Discussion Notes: · Rotating Times: 0300, 1500, and 2000 UTC. · These times are not set in stone. This is the original rotation for meetings on Thursdays. · The 2000 time works in general, but there is support for rotation too. 2. Working Methods/Schedule: Discussion Notes: · Use the wiki for topic discussions. · Decide whether to work in parallel or in sequence. · Michael Flemming: What is our end date? · Jeff Neuman: Goal is to get everything done with a preliminary report with all input by mid 2017 and get feedback on it. Action Items: 1. Discuss final goal/dates on the next call. 2. Discuss whether to work in parallel or in sequence on the next call. 3. Project Management: Discussion Notes: · Give everything a priority number. · Have a start and end date for the team, but need to look at prioritization and grouping to work more effectively. Ignore the start and end dates for things we need to come back to, such as input from SO/ACs. 4. Work Plan: Discussion Notes: · Jeff Neuman and Heather Forrest: CWG on Country and Territory Names: Hopes to have the report finalized by Hyderabad. This may be a dependency. How to scale up CWG who aren't used to working with GNSO groups. Perhaps have a separate work track? Suggest delaying this discussion in order to take into consideration the research from the CWG and final report. · Rubens Kuhl: Other possible reserved names with security issues (in Work Track 4). · Michael Flemming: Make sure to come back to reserved names and consider adjusting the time. · Paul McGrady: Right to postpone, but skeptical about why this is in the legal/regulatory track. · Jeff Neuman: Reason it is in the track is because legal and regulatory issues at the second level of reserved names. · Michale Flemming: IPC has had a lot of debate with respect to whether any country rights exist. · Jeff Neuman: We have the territory issue because: 1) address at the top level and the second level reserved names 2) also a policy issue. There is certain law that deals with this, but we need to address it from a policy issue. · Phil Marano (Mayer Brown): IGO-INGO seems broader than reserved names, since it potentially covers curative rights, yes? · Jeff Neuman: Yes, but there is a separate group working on finalizing their recommendations. · Paul McGrady: Base Agreement is a big topic. Maybe terms and conditions in the AGB might come first? · Steve Coates: Agree with Paul. · Jeff Neuman: When we said we are dealing with the "Base Agreement", I think we aredealing now only with the concept of whether to have 1 agreement to fit all, or whether we as a group support the notion of potentially having separate agreements for separate categories · Michael Flemming: Prioritization is what we need to address and should address your point. · Paul McGrady: Also look at all mandatory contracts, e.g. Terms of Service for any mandatory Applicant Portal and Terms of Service for the TMCH.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 18 August 2016
by Terri Agnew Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 08 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> 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#nov> ** 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 08 September 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call held on Thursday, 08 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/sxWsAw Michael Flemming:I would love to, but the participant code is not working for me. Paul McGrady:Good morning/afternoon/evening! Julie Hedlund:Michael: Terri has opened a private chat with you. Look for it on your bottom tab. Phil Buckingham:Hi Terri , my number to dial out is 00 44 (0)7957643357 Jeff Neuman:All - Having some technical difficulties...please stand by. Thanks for your patience Terri Agnew:@Phil the sytem is calling you Jeff Neuman:great Jeff Neuman:Woo hoo...lets get the recording started :) Rubens Kuhl:Michael and Heather, it seems muting would favor to bring the noise level down... Jeff Neuman:All - in a few minutes I need to drop off of Adobe, but will still be on my phone. Rubens Kuhl:Paul has his hand raised. Terri Agnew:Dialing back out to PHil Phil Buckingham:Terri , I ve lost connection . can you dial back . I am extremely sorry . Steve Coates:Agree with Paul. I think the Guidebook needs to be in here, subject to the work of our colleagues on other WTs. Phil Buckingham:Sorry I not able to connect . Terri Agnew:@Phil, can you active your mic? top tool bar, select the telephone icon and select bottom option microphone Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Here is a link to the Application T&Cs. https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/terms Steve Coates:Press forward. Can hear you fine. Paul McGrady:In addition to Appliant Guidebook Terms & Conditions and the Base Registry Agreement, we should also look at all mandatory contracts, e.g. Terms of Service for any mandatory Applicant Portal and Terms of Service for the TMCH (assuming that use of the TMCH remains a requirement in next Round/Window). Phil Buckingham:Really Sorry I am still not able to connect . Terri could you try another dial out. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Here is another, CZDS T&Cs. https://czds.icann.org/en/terms/terms-and-conditions-1 Terri Agnew:@Phil, yes, calling again Rubens Kuhl:I lost Michael. Rubens Kuhl:Or all audio. Heather Forrest:happy to speak to that if you'd like Terri Agnew:@Rubens, audio is still working. Please refresh Phil Buckingham:i am back in . really sorry Heather Forrest:(CWG Country and Territory Names, that is) Rubens Kuhl:I was on the audio bridge and it dropped. Reconnected now. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes obviously we need to liase Heather (madm coChair) Alexander Schubert:doesn't look like there is much "output" from the cwg Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Tht certainy makes sense to a *rather biased* me Heather Heather Forrest:Thanks Cheryl Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Phil Buckingham:good point rubens Heather Forrest:If we can delay start on geo names until Hyderabad that would be ideal Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agreed Heather Forrest:Paul McGrady's hand is up Michael Flemming:Yes, we will come to Paul in just one moment Rubens Kuhl:Michael, one difference is that reserved means "no way one can apply" while IGO / NGO included, at least in 2012-round, a possibility to apply existed but it could be objected (LRO). Michael Flemming:Sorry for the wait Heather Forrest:The basis of the decision that Jeff points out (no reservation, per GNSO Reserved Names WG) was the lack of recognition of govt rights in geo names under international law, as concluded by WIPO Alexander Schubert:I agree with Jeff! Steve Chan:Perhaps add contractual obligations to the title? Michael Flemming:That would offer clarity Steve Coates:Breaking up, can't hear. Paul McGrady:I can't really understand Jeff. Alexander Schubert:Geo names (ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and territory names) at top level should be in this group.... where else? Jeff Neuman 2:Sorry. I am on my cell Jeff Neuman 2:I will write my explanation Jeff Neuman 2:It is here because the second level restrictions are contained within the legal base agreement Jeff Neuman 2:specification 5 Jeff Neuman 2:It made the most sense here Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):noted Steve Chan:So yeah, maybe not the terminoligy specifically, but the current title is perhaps limiting Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):tend to agree there Steve Alexander Schubert:grouping maybe in terms of processing here in this group - but there is no conneconnection otherwise Paul McGrady 2:Maybe "Legal, Contractual, and Regulatory"? Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):IGO-INGO seems broader than reserved names, since it potentially covers curative rights, yes? Jeff Neuman 2:I am fine with changing the title of the group to include contractual. That was what was intended anyway Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):great Jeff maybe "make it so" Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):*I hd to get a Star Trek line in smewhere :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes Jeff prralell is going to be essential Paul McGrady:@Jeff, thanks on the name change. Jeff Neuman 2:@Paul - I hope I have the authority to change the name :) Paul McGrady:@Jeff, pretty sure only @Avri has that kind of authority... :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Paul McGrady:This is a great time for North Americans. How do others outside of N.A. feel about the time of the call? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Works for me here in AU Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Won't the 3:00 UTC slot conflict with the meeting time for the full WG? Emily Barabas:typically, the full group will meet on Mondays Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Got it. Thanks. Emily Barabas:this week was an exception due to the US holiday Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Rotation is fine with me. Prefer that we avoid having work stream calls conflict with each other and with the full WG. Alexander Schubert:Agreed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Works for me I hate 1500 UTC Susan Payne:rotation fine with me Emily Barabas:With the current suggested rotation, there won't be conflicts between the invidivdual sub teams and the full team meetings Emily Barabas:*individual Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):0300 and now is all good , but must avoid conflicts wheer possible Rubens Kuhl:2000 UTC works fine in Latin America as well. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):W hve found 1800 - 2200 UTC has a good ability for mny regions to work with in the past Jeff Neuman 2:All .....sorry I was off Adobe before, but when we said we are dealing with the "Base Agreement", I think we aredealing now only with the concept of whether to have 1 agreement to fit all, or whether we as a group support the notion of potentially having separate agreements for separate categories Kevin Kreuser (GoDaddy):it was hard enough to get one RA approved. Having several versions would be a nightmare Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Time Check Guys this is a 60 min call is it not? Rubens Kuhl:RA was actually 12 RAs... (yes/no) Governmental Organization (yes/no) Community (open/brand/exclusive-use). 12 possibilities total. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Lot of good discussion but we cn pick u other Agenda items next call and on list Paul McGrady:Christmas Eve... j/k Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Apologies, but I have to drop off the meeting for a meeting at the top of the hour. Paul McGrady:Co-chairs, this was a GREAT call. Getting right down to business is refreshing. I also really enjoyed the conversation with the folks on the call and in the chat. We have a wonderful group here. Alexander Schubert:Bye! Heather Forrest:Thanks, everyone- have a good weekend Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you all. Jeff Neuman 2:Despite tech difficulties...great job Susan Payne:thanks all Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Goodbye

1 0

Agenda Items , Sub Pro WT2 20.00 UTC 8 September
by Phil Buckingham Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Hi Everyone, I hope you will be able to join Michael Flemming and myself on the first call for the Sub Pro WG, Work Track 2 , Legal and Regulatory at 20.00 UTC tonite. It will be a priviledge for us to work with you as a team to meet the objectives and targets that we set ourselves. I trust you have received Michael's welcoming email sent on the 6 September with the proposed summary agenda . Here is attached is the more detailed Agenda with the current timetable . I am hoping we will then be able to start to look at the Base Agreement , one of eleven bullet point Key Headers , currently allotted to Work Track 2. Within this , we would suggest that we use a task number for each subject matter identified. Then start to breakdown by, Amendments since the AGB, Ongoing reviews and impacts Duplicities and overlaps amongst Work Tracks Topics looking at : Individual issues Methods to address these issues Weight of the issue Time management and allocation of issues Then look at : Policy versus implementation , versus operational issues Amendments since AGB , why they have occurred , the problem and the solutions Final Issues Report , cross referencing to the AGB Dependencies Priorities Timings Timelines Categories Best Regards, Phil Phil Buckingham

1 0

Second Meeting of Work Track 2
by Michael Flemming Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Hi All, The second meeting for WT2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues will be held this September 8th, Thursday at 20:00 UTC. This will be the first meeting that Phil Buckinghim and I will be heading. As many of you may know, this is a first time for both of us, so it will be a learning experience for all of us. If anyone has any questions or doubts in regards to how we run things, please feel free to let us know how we can improve things. First and foremost, I would like to share with everyone the proposed agenda for the meeting. 1) SOI: For anyone who has not submitted or needs to update their SOI for the group, please do so. 2) Going through the current work plan: We have briefly gone through the topics last week, but we need to address how we want to move forward, what topics have priority, what are our methods for addressing these issues. I would like to go over the currently adopted work plan and address each topic individually and ask the question of whether this is enough time for the topic given the time we have been allocated while considering the weight of the issue. 3) Begin addressing individual topics for discussion: To start off, I feel that it would be best to look at the Base Agreement and discuss the issues of how and why it was amended after program launch; as well as look at why and how we could have seperate agreements for categorial based TLDs. 4) AOB If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to reply to this email. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues 18 August 2016
by Terri Agnew Aug. 18, 2016

Aug. 18, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> 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#nov> ** 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 18 August 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the first call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/2QisAw Terri Agnew:A list of Sub Team participants can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/uw2bAw Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Jeff I am about to briefly step away Be back soon .. Here though ! Jeff Neuman:thx Emily Barabas:loading... Terri Agnew:synce is turned on, everyone can scroll themselves Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: The slides are up and unsynced. Alexander Schubert:Is it normal that I hear nothing? Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):We can hear you Mike Rodenbaugh:i hear fine Emily Barabas:work in progress Avri Doria:you are soft spoken - hard to hear Steve Coates:Much better. Terri Agnew:@Alexandar, are you still unable to hear? can you join via telephone? I am also sending you a private AC chat Phil Buckingham:Hi everyone , sorry I m only on audio here . Terri Agnew:@Phil , I am sending you a private AC Chat Michael Flemming:Let me call in Alexander Schubert:fine all here Alexander Schubert::-) Avri Doria:is there a preference in the sub group for a single leader or co-leaders? Gg Levine:I'm good with co-leaders. Phil Buckingham:sorry jeff not on yet Terri Agnew:to active mic on AC , or to join via telephone select telephone icon and follow prompts Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ergh to 0300 This is better for me Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):my real work occasionally needs attention as well Michael Flemming:Just about to call in here. susan payne:late :) Phil Buckingham:Terri , can u dial my mobile ( here in The UK ) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I'm in a hospital bed and the other patients are sleeping Jeff Phil Buckingham:Ok will do Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thus my unusual mutedness susan payne:jeff you are really quiet Steve Coates:Breaking up, Jeff. Emily Barabas:Here is Michael's SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Michael+Flemming+SOI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Be good to have you as a Co- Lead Michael Heather Forrest:hooray! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):You just need coffe Heather susan payne:entirely reasonable Michael Terri Agnew:Phil is on audio Emily Barabas:And Phil's SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Phil+Buckingham+SOI susan payne:nope Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):YEAH Greg Shatan:Jeff and Terri, please mute Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Oh dear. Terri Agnew:as reminder, turn down your computer speakers Avri Doria:we can all dance to the techno sounds of chirping Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):turn your speakers OFF Greg Shatan:I love electronic music. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Ahhh Michael Flemming:Can hear you Emily Barabas:We can hear you Mike Rodenbaugh:great speech, R2 Terri Agnew:dialing Phil back Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Your on Greg Shatan:Well that was interesting. Greg Shatan:He may have been muted as the sonic culprit. Alexander Schubert:People have to use HEADSETS - no Laptops.... Terri Agnew:Phil is back on audio Greg Shatan:We should be better at this by now.... Emily Barabas:Phil Buckingham SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Phil+Buckingham+SOI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):great Michael Flemming:In the interest of Phil's request for a lawyer, I will make sure to mention that I am not a lawyer. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):sorted then Steve Coates:Guilty as charged. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):I'm an attorney but o..k. with the co-leaders not being attorneys Kevin Kreuser (Go Daddy):if there are enough of us legal birds on the group, I dont think the leaders need to be Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we have no shortage in the group susan payne:lots of lawyers in group Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):+1 Vicky Sheckler:agre Avri Doria:no group leader comes with ALL the skills of the group Gg Levine:Agree Kevin Kreuser (Go Daddy):+1 Steve Coates:+1 Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):+1 Michael Flemming:Look forward to the challenge Greg Shatan:Leaders should be faciliators, not leading experts. If our output can only be understood by lawyers, we will have failed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree GREG Phil Buckingham:+1 Michael ! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Sorry Caps Greg Greg Shatan:At least you didn't say GREC.... Kevin Kreuser (Go Daddy):COI needs to go away Kurt Pritz:Is another group taking up the issue of whether there should be categories and, if so, how many? That effrot and the issue of contract differentiation should be in lock-step. Kurt Pritz:"effort" Gg Levine:Please remind me of what Spec 11 Section 3d states Mike Rodenbaugh:I'm very confused about the apparent overlap of many of these topics with the Subsequent Rounds PDP. Mike Rodenbaugh:How do we avoid duplication of effort or inconsistent outcomes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):It may get messy Mike without careful watching on the overlaps Sara Bockey:someone needs to mute their mic Mike Rodenbaugh:I mean among the work teams, sorry Jeff Mike Rodenbaugh:I guess that's your job! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I understood you to mean that MIKE Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Someone needs to mute Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Nexis and dependeencies Yes noted Jeff Heather Forrest:agree with your summary, Jeff Heather Forrest:I assume Council will communicate the letter to you very soon - August is a slow month for us Avri Doria:One of the questions that are part of considerations in repsonding to the Boards letter is the degree to which the council or the SubPro group beleives that PDP need to have segements recommendations. Kurt Pritz:@Gg: Spec 11 is the prohibition of a single-registrant TLD (for TLds that are dictionary or generic terms. It states, " 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. " Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agreed Avri Gg Levine:Thank you, Kurt. Emily Barabas:work in progress Avri Doria:the group may also reprioritize which would change the schedules Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Of course Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you everyone Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thanks everyone talk again soon Bye for now Michael Flemming 2:Thank you Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Goodbye

1 0