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

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