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

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

March 23, 2018

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

1 0

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

March 14, 2018

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

1 0

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

March 4, 2018

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

3 4

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

March 1, 2018

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

1 0

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

March 1, 2018

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

1 0

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

Feb. 27, 2018

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

1 1

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

Feb. 22, 2018

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

1 0

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

Feb. 22, 2018

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

1 0

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

Feb. 21, 2018

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

1 1

WT2 Progress Document
by Michael Flemming Feb. 16, 2018

Feb. 16, 2018

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

1 0