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

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