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

回复： Notes and Action Items: New gTLD SubsequentProcedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017
by Sophia Feng Nov. 22, 2017

Nov. 22, 2017

Dear All, Thank you to those who attended today’s call and discussion on Vertical Integration. While Michael and I want to engage members’ feedback on action items in order to move forward, we would especially appreciate feedback on point 3. 1. From the discussion,these following proposed questions will be sent in order to request further data input from ICANN Compliance. for further review: 1) How many registry operators are vertically integrated? 2) Of that number, how many operate multiple TLDs? 3) How many complaints were there against ROs (overall - regardless of whether due to vertical integration)? 4) Of the complaints referenced in the 1.b answer, how many ROs were those 10 complaints against? (Does this include complaints dealing with 2.9 of RA?) 5) How many of those ROs own more than one TLD or multiple TLDs? 6) How many of those ROs were required to perform some kind of remediation regardless if they were found to be in breach or not? 2. Regarding BC’s comment related to CC2 Question 2.6.2: BC supported exemptions where the RO can demonstrate that the term comprising the TLD string directly corresponds to a product name of the Registry Operator. WT2 should seek clarifications from BC on what “ a product name of the RO” means in that comment. 3. Regarding the comments for CC2 Question 2.6.3, “Some have argued that although we allow Registries to serve as both as a registry and as a registrar, the rules contained within section 2.9 of the Registry Agreement and in the Code of Conduct prohibit the integrated registry/registrar from achieving the economic efficiencies of such integration by not allowing a registry to discriminate in favor of its own registrar. Do those arguments have merit? If yes, what can be done to address those claimed inefficiencies? If not, please explain. What safeguards might be required?” Nominet, Google and Jannik Skou suggested allowing full integration for .brand registries and any “single registrant” TLD. In essence, this proposes getting rid of the registry/registrar relationship requirement and the other aspects of section 2.9 for Code of Conduct exempt TLDs. So the further question to the group is - Should we address the full integration for Specification 13 .brand registries and any Code of Conduct exempt registries in this Vertical Integration topic? If yes, should we allow Specification 13 .brand registry and Code of Conduct exempt registries TLD operates without a registrar? What are the pros and cons? We look forwards to your feedbacks. best regards, Sophia Feng 原始邮件发件人:Julie Hedlundjulie.hedlund(a)icann.org 收件人:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.orggnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org 发送时间:2017年11月22日(周三) 06:09 主题:[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD SubsequentProcedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017 Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call.These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The referenced slides are attached along with the Response from ICANN Compliance on PIC complaints. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 21 November 2017 1. SOI Updates: None. 2. Appointment of New Co-Chair: Slide 3 -- Process for Appointment of Co-Chair -- Nominations and volunteers were accepted from 31 Oct to 10 November. -- Sophia Feng volunteered. -- Welcome to Sophia. 3. Schedule Forward to Plenary Report: Slide 4 -- Schedule -- Objective: In order provide time for deliberations have outlined the steps we need to take to meet the deadline. -- What do deliberations look like? What will the format be? There is no decided format for that. should fully outline the issue and provide a path forward including consensus if we have it. -- Ask ourselves if this is realistic. -- By February we will present what we have as a deliberation and ask for consensus. -- March 9th to send proposal to overall WG. Discussion: -- Confused the term "deliberations" means discussion, not conclusions. You are using it as coming to a conclusion. Don't see how we can do that on a single call on three different options. -- We don't need to have a conclusion on the topic. The better term would be agreement on a prooposal: what the issue is, what we have talked about; if we don't have a path forward we need to say if we need more time. -- A "proposal" implies we've made decisions and I don't think given the timeframe that is somewhat unrealistic. -- There are 12 issues and in February we need to get a finalized document on the issues in 3 calls, that is 15 minutes per issue. We have to come out of calls like this one with a straw man document with the sense of the group. -- We have a summary document that summarizes what we have spoken about to date and how we might find a path forward. -- This is an ambitious schedule: if we are going to make this schedule we have to continue discussions online and we need more written documents. We can't expect all conversations will take place on phone calls. -- There have been enough calls that we can lay out the options and discuss the pros and cons; may not be tendencies toward solutions on all of these. -- A preliminary report doesn't have to be conclusions; it can be pros and cons and ask pointed questions. -- If our target is in fact a viable set of options and questions to ask, that may be doable. 4. Vertical Integration Continuation: Discussion on follow up questions to ICANN Compliance: Slide 5: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? -- Had two previous calls. -- Introduced history, benefits, and harms. -- Reviewed mechanism to detour abusive activity. Goal: Not to reverse VI as that is a standard. Looking to explore whether the mechanism introduced have fulfilled their purpose or if additional mechanisms are required. Discussions: Requested data from ICANN Compliance and decided we need more data. Slide 6: Discussion Recap: Additional Questions -- What about audit reports, GDD. Response: We received input on audit reports, but there wasn't substantive findings on compliant registry operators, but we will check. -- The data on audit reports is accessible; we will share after the call. -- The link to the 2017 registry audit report is here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contractual-compliance-ra-audit… From the chat: Kathy Kleiman: What about audit reports? Kathy Kleiman: GDD?? Kathy Kleiman: How would we get a report from GDD on its audit reports? Kathy Kleiman: This is the most systematic review of compliance, right? Jeff Neuman: Kathy, compliance CCME back and said there were no issues with VI that they have found Jeff Neuman: typo: came back Trang Nguyen: Previous years' reports, including registrar audit reports are here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/compliance-reports-2017 Jeff Neuman: But all they do with respect to this is get a self-certification. I do not believe they have done anything more than that Kathy Kleiman: These audit reports don't appear to address VI Emily Barabas 2: The responses from ICANN compliance can be found on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.3.5+Registrar+Non-Discrimination Emily Barabas 2: (see bottom of page) 5. Vertical Integration: CC2 Comments: Slide 7: CC2 Comments -- Goal of CC2 Comment Review is our second pass through the WT2 topics. The goal is to review the feedback provided and discuss this input and the material of the topic in the WT2. Slides 8-9: Question 2.6.1 -- Nominet, BRG, and RySG stated that they did not identify any issues. Discussion: -- The reason we asked the initial questions is because the audit is a self-audit. -- Once you get into sub-topics that are related you might get some more information. Not too much interest from the community on wholesale changes to vertical integration. Slides 10-12: Question 2.6.2 -- Nominet, Afilias, RySG, BRG, and Valideus did not identify any other circumstances where exemptions should be granted. -- BC supported exemptions where the RO can demonstrate that the term comprising the TLD string directly corresponds to a product name of the Registry Operator. -- RySG, BRG, Valideus supported greater flexibility for registry operators wishing to seek an exemption and stated that existing process of obtaining an exemption to the Code of Conduct results in some ambiguity under the Registry Agreement. Discussion: -- I see this for non-trademarked products, such as Microsoft Office where they can get Code of Conduct exemptions. Not a generic term but is one that they use that can't be trademarked. Or one that doesn't qualify for Spec 13. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I see this for non-trademarked products Susan Payne: Funnily I think they mean in the trademark sense, but where they don't qualify for spec 13 Slides 13-17: Question 2.6.3 -- Nominet supported allowing full integration for .brand registries. -- Jannik Skou supported allowing full integration for .brand registries and any "single registrant" TLD. -- RySG and BRG suggested that the PDP examine whether there remains any consumer protection benefit to limiting registry-direct sales. -- Google encouraged the PDP to examine whether to permit closed TLDs to self-allocate all domain names and recommended extending carve outs granted to .brands to other TLDs that qualify for a Code of Conduct exemption. -- INTA stated that it does not support dispensing with the Code of Conduct requirements altogether, but there may be justification for permitting registries to seek an exemption to the Spec 9 Code of Conduct on a case-be-case basis. -- ALAC supported retaining the non-discrimination rule. -- John Poole opposed vertical integration. Discussion: -- One aspect of what this question is asking is do we need section 2.9 of the Registry Agreement -- the definiing principle. Registry has to use an ICANN-accredited registrar. -- Before we started on vertical integration economic papers said things like allowing discrimination between registrars would help to achieve efficiencies -- so has our artificial imposition of limits prevented vertically integrated registries from achieving the benefits of vertical integration. Was for non-brand or open registries, not .brand or closed registries. -- Second the comment that it is not very efficient. The question is universal across the brand owners -- consider whether vertical integration is possible for .brand TLDs. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: One of the things I think we should do on the last question is talk to Donuts, Google, Afilias, and other vertically integrated registries and registrars Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): makes sense Jeff Jeff Neuman: Once we get the list of the vertically integrated entities, we can talk to them Gg Levine (NABP): Maybe allow it for registries that are low-volume?

1 0

Recording, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 21:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Nov. 22, 2017

Nov. 22, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p1asgkg7vzf/<https://participate.icann.org/p1asgkg7vzf/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=c5dc117acd7d7b4d…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/pJlEB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 November 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 at 21:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):hi all Sara Bockey:WT1 only had 4 people outside subpro and staff last night Emily Barabas 2:Correct, slides are unsynced Phil Buckingham:hi everyone , I hope Abu Dhabi was productive Wafa Dahmani:hi all Sophia Feng:Hi All Kurt Pritz:Thank you Sophia - this is great Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):glad to have you with this WT Sophia, looking forward to working with you Emily Barabas 2:Here is the link to Sophia's SOI: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Sophia Feng:Thank you all, for no objections:) feel free to let me know if you have any questions Susan Payne:sorry, am I missing something, where is the schedule? Emily Barabas 2:Slide 4 Susan Payne:thanks Emily Phil Buckingham:Sophia , congrats on your appointment. Feel free to contact me (phil(a)dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>) in the next week . I am more than happy to help you step into the role to coordinate with Michael . Sophia Feng:Thank you Phil, sure will do, a lot to learn and get up to speed, thank you Jeff Neuman:Michael - lets move onto the substance :) Kathy Kleiman:What about audit reports? Kathy Kleiman:GDD?? Kathy Kleiman:How would we get a report from GDD on its audit reports? Kathy Kleiman:This is the most systematic review of compliance, right? Kathy Kleiman:Tx! Trang Nguyen:The link to teh 2017 registry audit report is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Jeff Neuman:Kathy, compliance CCME back and said there were no issues with VI that they have found Jeff Neuman:typo: came back Trang Nguyen:Previous years' reports, including registrar audit reports are here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… Jeff Neuman:But all they do with respect to this is get a self-certification. I do not believe they have done anything more than that Kathy Kleiman:These audit reports don't appear to address VI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Kathy do you believe or are aware of any significant disadvantage or dissatisfactions arising from Viruses operations (to date)? Kathy Kleiman:Great, tx! Kathy Kleiman:I'll look up the Registry Agreements too Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):eight auto correct Viruses should read VI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):and eight should read ergh Emily Barabas 2:The responses from ICANN compliance can be found on this wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Emily Barabas 2:(see bottom of page) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thx Emily Trang Nguyen:I believe this is the link to the Compliance reponse that Michael was referencing: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Phil Buckingham:i thnk we need to differentiate between VI for open TLDs and closed/ brand TLDs . I dont know of a closed Registry having its own VI registrar yet . Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):slide 10 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):11 now Emily Barabas 2:Full text of CC2 responses is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Jeff Neuman:I see this for non-trademarked products Susan Payne:Funnily I think they mean in the trademark sense, but where they don't qualify for spec 13 Sophia Feng:Now in Slide13 Phil Buckingham:Agreed Jeff . . Jeff Neuman:Sorry driving through my favorite third world sate in the US...New Jersey :) Jeff Neuman:One of the things I think we should do on the last question is talk to Donuts, Google, Afilias, and other vertically integrated registries and registrars Susan Payne:sorry, have to drop off Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):makes sense Jeff Jeff Neuman:Once we get the list of the vertically integrated entities, we can talk to them Gg Levine (NABP):Maybe allow it for registries that are low-volume? Jeff Neuman:Gg - for communities and restricted TLDs - that has been discussed as well Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks everyone ð bye for now then... Julie Bisland:next call: Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC Phil Buckingham:Agreed Sophia , a closed brand TLD doesnt NEED a registrar , whether integrated or not . Sophia Feng:Thank you all, great call Phil Buckingham:thanks

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 21, 2017

Nov. 21, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The referenced slides are attached along with the Response from ICANN Compliance on PIC complaints. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 21 November 2017 1. SOI Updates: None. 2. Appointment of New Co-Chair: Slide 3 -- Process for Appointment of Co-Chair -- Nominations and volunteers were accepted from 31 Oct to 10 November. -- Sophia Feng volunteered. -- Welcome to Sophia. 3. Schedule Forward to Plenary Report: Slide 4 -- Schedule -- Objective: In order provide time for deliberations have outlined the steps we need to take to meet the deadline. -- What do deliberations look like? What will the format be? There is no decided format for that. should fully outline the issue and provide a path forward including consensus if we have it. -- Ask ourselves if this is realistic. -- By February we will present what we have as a deliberation and ask for consensus. -- March 9th to send proposal to overall WG. Discussion: -- Confused the term "deliberations" means discussion, not conclusions. You are using it as coming to a conclusion. Don't see how we can do that on a single call on three different options. -- We don't need to have a conclusion on the topic. The better term would be agreement on a prooposal: what the issue is, what we have talked about; if we don't have a path forward we need to say if we need more time. -- A "proposal" implies we've made decisions and I don't think given the timeframe that is somewhat unrealistic. -- There are 12 issues and in February we need to get a finalized document on the issues in 3 calls, that is 15 minutes per issue. We have to come out of calls like this one with a straw man document with the sense of the group. -- We have a summary document that summarizes what we have spoken about to date and how we might find a path forward. -- This is an ambitious schedule: if we are going to make this schedule we have to continue discussions online and we need more written documents. We can't expect all conversations will take place on phone calls. -- There have been enough calls that we can lay out the options and discuss the pros and cons; may not be tendencies toward solutions on all of these. -- A preliminary report doesn't have to be conclusions; it can be pros and cons and ask pointed questions. -- If our target is in fact a viable set of options and questions to ask, that may be doable. 4. Vertical Integration Continuation: Discussion on follow up questions to ICANN Compliance: Slide 5: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? -- Had two previous calls. -- Introduced history, benefits, and harms. -- Reviewed mechanism to detour abusive activity. Goal: Not to reverse VI as that is a standard. Looking to explore whether the mechanism introduced have fulfilled their purpose or if additional mechanisms are required. Discussions: Requested data from ICANN Compliance and decided we need more data. Slide 6: Discussion Recap: Additional Questions -- What about audit reports, GDD. Response: We received input on audit reports, but there wasn't substantive findings on compliant registry operators, but we will check. -- The data on audit reports is accessible; we will share after the call. -- The link to the 2017 registry audit report is here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contractual-compliance-ra-audit… >From the chat: Kathy Kleiman: What about audit reports? Kathy Kleiman: GDD?? Kathy Kleiman: How would we get a report from GDD on its audit reports? Kathy Kleiman: This is the most systematic review of compliance, right? Jeff Neuman: Kathy, compliance CCME back and said there were no issues with VI that they have found Jeff Neuman: typo: came back Trang Nguyen: Previous years' reports, including registrar audit reports are here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/compliance-reports-2017 Jeff Neuman: But all they do with respect to this is get a self-certification. I do not believe they have done anything more than that Kathy Kleiman: These audit reports don't appear to address VI Emily Barabas 2: The responses from ICANN compliance can be found on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.3.5+Registrar+Non-Discrimination Emily Barabas 2: (see bottom of page) 5. Vertical Integration: CC2 Comments: Slide 7: CC2 Comments -- Goal of CC2 Comment Review is our second pass through the WT2 topics. The goal is to review the feedback provided and discuss this input and the material of the topic in the WT2. Slides 8-9: Question 2.6.1 -- Nominet, BRG, and RySG stated that they did not identify any issues. Discussion: -- The reason we asked the initial questions is because the audit is a self-audit. -- Once you get into sub-topics that are related you might get some more information. Not too much interest from the community on wholesale changes to vertical integration. Slides 10-12: Question 2.6.2 -- Nominet, Afilias, RySG, BRG, and Valideus did not identify any other circumstances where exemptions should be granted. -- BC supported exemptions where the RO can demonstrate that the term comprising the TLD string directly corresponds to a product name of the Registry Operator. -- RySG, BRG, Valideus supported greater flexibility for registry operators wishing to seek an exemption and stated that existing process of obtaining an exemption to the Code of Conduct results in some ambiguity under the Registry Agreement. Discussion: -- I see this for non-trademarked products, such as Microsoft Office where they can get Code of Conduct exemptions. Not a generic term but is one that they use that can't be trademarked. Or one that doesn't qualify for Spec 13. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I see this for non-trademarked products Susan Payne: Funnily I think they mean in the trademark sense, but where they don't qualify for spec 13 Slides 13-17: Question 2.6.3 -- Nominet supported allowing full integration for .brand registries. -- Jannik Skou supported allowing full integration for .brand registries and any "single registrant" TLD. -- RySG and BRG suggested that the PDP examine whether there remains any consumer protection benefit to limiting registry-direct sales. -- Google encouraged the PDP to examine whether to permit closed TLDs to self-allocate all domain names and recommended extending carve outs granted to .brands to other TLDs that qualify for a Code of Conduct exemption. -- INTA stated that it does not support dispensing with the Code of Conduct requirements altogether, but there may be justification for permitting registries to seek an exemption to the Spec 9 Code of Conduct on a case-be-case basis. -- ALAC supported retaining the non-discrimination rule. -- John Poole opposed vertical integration. Discussion: -- One aspect of what this question is asking is do we need section 2.9 of the Registry Agreement -- the definiing principle. Registry has to use an ICANN-accredited registrar. -- Before we started on vertical integration economic papers said things like allowing discrimination between registrars would help to achieve efficiencies -- so has our artificial imposition of limits prevented vertically integrated registries from achieving the benefits of vertical integration. Was for non-brand or open registries, not .brand or closed registries. -- Second the comment that it is not very efficient. The question is universal across the brand owners -- consider whether vertical integration is possible for .brand TLDs. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: One of the things I think we should do on the last question is talk to Donuts, Google, Afilias, and other vertically integrated registries and registrars Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): makes sense Jeff Jeff Neuman: Once we get the list of the vertically integrated entities, we can talk to them Gg Levine (NABP): Maybe allow it for registries that are low-volume?

1 0

Agenda for Subsequent Procedures Work Track 2 Call at 21 UTC Tuesday 21 November, 2017
by Michael Flemming Nov. 20, 2017

Nov. 20, 2017

Dear All, Please note our agenda for the upcoming WT2 call at 21 UTC Tuesday 21 November, 2017. - Welcome - SOI Update - Appointment of new Co-Chair - Schedule forward to Plenary Report - Vertical Integration Continuation: Discussion on follow up questions to ICANN Compliance - Vertical Integration: CC2 Comments - AOB We have a bit to get through, so I ask that everyone please review the CC2 comments prior to the call. We will go over the summarized input from comments we have received. I look forward to discussing with everyone. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Recommendation for Co-Chair to WT2
by Michael Flemming Nov. 13, 2017

Nov. 13, 2017

Dear All, I am sending this to inform everyone of the closing of our Co-Chair volunteer/nomination period and that Sophia Feng has volunteered for the position. After further discussion with Sophia and the WG Co-Chairs, it is my recommendation that we ratify her as a Co-Chair on our next WT call. Sophia Feng's SOI is as below for full disclosure. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Shuo+Feng+SOI Please reach out if you have any questions. Kind regards, Michael Flemming.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Open Co-Chair Position: Now Accepting Volunteers & Nominations until November 10th
by Michael Flemming Nov. 7, 2017

Nov. 7, 2017

Dear All, My apologies for the follow up message. I am sending this message to correct the date for accepting volunteers and nominations to step up to Co-Chair position for Work Track 2. The date to accept volunteers and nominations will close on November 10th. Kind regards, Michael Flemming On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Michael Flemming < flemming(a)brightsconsulting.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > As noted in our previous meeting, Phil Buckingham has resigned as Co-Chair > of Work Track 2. > > We now have an opening for co-chair and I would like this email to serve > as announcement of accepting volunteers to take on this responsibility. > > In the position, the individual will be working with me to facilitate > discussion and policy for the WT2 topics. I know that it has been over a > year since we have begun our discussions, however, for those following > along it is assumed they will know the material. I and staff can provide > updates as well to bring the individual up to speed. > > We are currently at ICANN60, so for those that do have interest, the WG > Chairs and I would be happy to meet and answer any questions in Abu Dhabi. > If not, we would be happy to answer questions over email, as well. > > The goal is to have nominations and volunteers step forward before the end > of 11/6 and have the individual formally step up at our next WT2 meeting on > 11/21 at 21 UTC. > > We look forward to receiving volunteers. > > Kind regards, > > Michael Flemming >

1 1

Open Co-Chair Position: Now Accepting Volunteers & Nominations until November 6th
by Michael Flemming Oct. 28, 2017

Oct. 28, 2017

Dear All, As noted in our previous meeting, Phil Buckingham has resigned as Co-Chair of Work Track 2. We now have an opening for co-chair and I would like this email to serve as announcement of accepting volunteers to take on this responsibility. In the position, the individual will be working with me to facilitate discussion and policy for the WT2 topics. I know that it has been over a year since we have begun our discussions, however, for those following along it is assumed they will know the material. I and staff can provide updates as well to bring the individual up to speed. We are currently at ICANN60, so for those that do have interest, the WG Chairs and I would be happy to meet and answer any questions in Abu Dhabi. If not, we would be happy to answer questions over email, as well. The goal is to have nominations and volunteers step forward before the end of 11/6 and have the individual formally step up at our next WT2 meeting on 11/21 at 21 UTC. We look forward to receiving volunteers. Kind regards, Michael Flemming

1 0

Phil Buckingham stepping down , GNSO Subsequent Procedures PDP WG , Co Chair WT2 ( Legal and Regulatory)
by Phil Buckingham Oct. 20, 2017

Oct. 20, 2017

For the attention of the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Participants and Observers : Re : Phil Buckingham stepping down as Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Co - Chair WT2 ( Legal and Regulatory ) and member of the Leadership Team. As some of you may be aware for the past few months I have been unable to commit the hours and attendance in Co Chairing the Subsequent Procedures WG , WT2 ( Legal and Regulatory) with Michael ( Flemming). Michael has been shouldering a huge workload ( especially with WT2 being tasked with the most complex and controversial PDP issues and topics ) , which has been very unfair , on my part. I am sure we are all agreed that he has done a very impressive job ,especially at some ungodly hours being based in Tokyo. I would personally like to thank him for his huge efforts and in the support he has given me in the last year and more. I now have a day job ( outside the domain industry ) and to compound it, a very serious eye problem , which is now requiring a brain scan at the end of this month. Having discussed the various options with the Leadership Team we all felt it would be best that I, very sadly, stand down with immediate effect. This is hugely disappointing and a huge wrench for me. In an ideal world , I would very much like to be re-elected by yourself back onto the Leadership team in early 2018. I am very much prepared to take on again the huge commitment in hours , without remuneration throughout 2018 and beyond. However , may I take this opportunity to add that it is my intention to submit a proposal to the GNSO Council/ approval by the ICANN Board that all persons in a Leadership role are remunerated accordingly , on a level playing field basis. If you wish to help in this effort please contact me @phil@dotadvice.co.uk Of course I am more than happy to help in an effective handover , whether on a temporary or permanent basis. I look forward to discussing and proposing my replacement on the WT2 call at 20.30 UTC today Regards, Phil Buckingham

2 1

Recording, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 2 Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 19 October 2017 20:30 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 19 October 2017 at 20:30 UTC. Adobe Connect recording (audio and visual): https://participate.icann.org/p83di4m1z4k/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/j4JEB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 October 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Thursday, 19 October 2017 at 20:30 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr:hi all Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I am in overlapping calls sorry avri doria:interesting sound effects Karen Day:yes, sounds like someone's phone is near a dripping sink Cheryl Langdon-Orr:good luck Phil Heather Forrest:@Michael- global public interest is a topic that we could talk for years about (and indeed have done so). What is the desired outcome/output/result of our discussion today? (Just asking so we have a clear direction in our discussion today) Alan Greenberg:Public interest was also implicated by the priority for community applications. Jeff Neuman:As Michael is saying, we will cover the CC2 comments, and then ultimately get to the question of PICs, and whether this is the appropriate vehicle to address public policy concerns. Heather Forrest:OK thank you Michael and Jeff for clarifying Holly Raiche 2:What about Specification 11? Jeff Neuman:Holly - What aspects of Speicification 11 Karen Day:WT3 Karen Day:Accountability Mech Holly Raiche 2:Thanaks for that Jeff Michelle DeSmyter:YES Jim Prendergast:yes Sara Bockey:I hear you Michelle DeSmyter:yes avri doria:i can hear Trang Nguyen:I can hear Michael and Jeff. Holly Raiche 2:I can hear you Jeff Neuman:Am i the only one who cant hear Jim Prendergast:sounds good Trang Nguyen:I can hear you loud and clear, Michael. Phil Buckingham:loud and clear michael Holly Raiche 2:that's fine Holly Raiche 2:Fine Jeff Neuman:i reloaded Jeff Neuman:So the approach to have PICs was a creation of the then CEO of ICANN to incorporate GAC advice. Should this same approach continue? Is there another way to do it? Jeff Neuman:yes.....there was no GNSO policy on this? Holly Raiche 2:At some point maybe we should also look a the report from the Consumer Trust, Choice WG - and public expectations - in this tract of Track 2 as well? Jeff Neuman:yes, once they finalize their report Gg Levine (NABP):Excellent question Phil Buckingham:very good points , alan Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I am only on AC now had to join another meeting via phone bridge Jon Nevett:.doctor? Jon Nevett:based on what data, Alan? Holly Raiche 2:Agreed wih Alan - the draft CCRT report does talk about consumer expectations Gg Levine (NABP):Well said, Alan Michael Flemming:Sorry for the background noise if I had made any Phil Buckingham:how do we determine a regulated industry ? they may vary country by country ? Jeff Neuman:I yield to Gg and Alan Michael Flemming:I will call on you afterwards Phil Buckingham:exactly Jon Alan Greenberg:I was not advocating ANYTHING. I was asked to present the ALAC position and that is what I did. Jon Nevett:no data in . DOCTOR Jon Nevett:I didn't say that at all Jon Nevett:how many in .doctor Jeff Neuman:jon can go ahead of me Jeff Neuman:i would like to hear Alan's view now Heather Forrest:Michael - put yourself in the Qto hold your place Michael Flemming:Thanks Heather Alan Greenberg:Why is it I have REPEATEDLY been told that we are not trying to make deciisons during this review of comments? Heather Forrest:chemist Jeff Neuman:We are not making decisions, but we are debating the issues Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thanks for the clarification Michael Jeff Neuman:So, Alan, can you put yourself back in the queue? Holly Raiche 2:Agree with Jeff - that is the issue that was raised by the CCRT report - the issue ishow to deal with consumer expectations and whether ICANN rules take those into account - just an aspect of public interest Alan Greenberg:I am mystified why in other WT meetings, I was told that the methodology, I think developed by Avri, that we were reviewing comments and NOT trying to resolve conflicts or come to closure. Jeff Neuman:I would note that there is a difference between "a connection" and "expectation of safety" Alan Greenberg:I did not come to this meeting prepared to debate the issues. Holly Raiche 2:Agree with Jeff - just raising the issue of how we deal with expectation and connection Jon Nevett:Right Jeff ex-ante censorship vs. ex-post enforcement Holly Raiche 2:I think the idea of he categories was to identify the critical names such as doctor and pharmacy Jim Prendergast:you went there!! Michael Flemming:I did Jon Nevett:i agree with Alan! Holly Raiche 2:Could this be sen out Phil Buckingham: dont think so michael Holly Raiche 2:sorry - 'sent' Julie Hedlund:We will send it with the notes and also post to the wiki. Jeff Neuman:next time Holly Raiche 2:Could we have time to look at it first Jeff Neuman:lets make sure it is out Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yep Heather Forrest:Goodbye all, safe travels to AD Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye ðŸ‘‹ for now then... Phil Buckingham:thanks michael

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 19 October 2017
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The referenced slides are attached along with the Response from ICANN Compliance on PIC complaints (for the next meeting). Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 19 October 2017 Notes: 1. SOI Updates: None. 2. Plenary Update: -- Two sessions in Abu Dhabi. First is on Saturday afternoon with Work Track Updates. Second session will be for Work Track 5, Geographic Names at the Top Level. -- Work Track 5: Have the leaders. Had a call with them earlier this week and another one tomorrow. We hope to get the Terms of Reference and Call for Volunteers out tomorrow or early next week. -- Seeking a volunteer as a co-chair for Work Track 2 following Phil Buckingham's resignation. 3. CC2 Comments - Global Public Interest (PICs): Discussion Recap: Slide 3: Introduction -- Goal: To move towards deliberations and proposals for steps forward for the initial report. -- 28 October 2017 F2F meeting at ICANN60 on Global Public Interest Slide 4: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? -- Last discussion was right before ICANN59. -- Action items: reach out to ICANN Compliance. -- Public Interest Commitments were tied into the final Registry Agreement in the form of Specification 11 as Mandatory PICs and Volunteer PICs. -- Mandatory PICs won't be the focus of this meeting. Slides 5 and 6: Specification 11: Mandatory PICs Slide 7: Specification 11: Voluntary PICs Discussion: -- The language on slides 5 and 6 are what is in Specification 11. Aside from the voluntary PICs, this is the crux of specification 11. We still need to talk about the PICDRP, which is in Work Track 3 -- Accountability Mechanism. >From the chat: Heather Forrest: @Michael- global public interest is a topic that we could talk for years about (and indeed have done so). What is the desired outcome/output/result of our discussion today? (Just asking so we have a clear direction in our discussion today) Alan Greenberg: Public interest was also implicated by the priority for community applications. Jeff Neuman: As Michael is saying, we will cover the CC2 comments, and then ultimately get to the question of PICs, and whether this is the appropriate vehicle to address public policy concerns. Heather Forrest: OK thank you Michael and Jeff for clarifying CC2 Questions: Slides 8-14: 2.9.1 Question and Comments Question: The Final Issue Report suggested that in considering the public interest the WG think about concerns raised in GAC Advice on safeguards, the integration of Public Interest Commitments (PICs), and other questions around contractual commitments. Have PICs served their intended purpose? If not, what other mechanisms should be employed to serve the public interest? -- GAC pointed to previous advice on this topic as well as comments on teh CCT-RT Draft Report. -- VTLD Consortium and NABP recommended circumstances under which a registry should be required to operate as a verified TLD. -- ALAC reiterated concerns about PICs and stated that trust can be increased through restrictions on who can become a registrant and on how the new name is used. -- John Poole recommended additional mechanisms. -- RySG, BRG, and Afilias stated the PICs have served their purpose and recommended no other additional mechanisms. -- Jannik Skou stated that there should be no mandatory safeguards. Discussion: -- With respect to GAC advice, how do we determine what is category 1 or 2 in absence of the GAC putting them in that list? We need some way of determining what they are and the GAC was silent on that. -- With respect to the ALAC comment: It focuses on the issue as the GAC, although they originated category 1 and 2. The overall concept is if you are talking about a TLD that is a regulated industry or does imply health and well-being the user should have some level of confidence that they can trust it. When at least one of the uses is a significant use and does have well being issues we think you have to take the safe root perhaps at the expense of a complete open and free market. The CCT-RT draft report said there were implications related to consumer trust. One of the downsides of .pharmacy and .bank that are doing restrictions they may assume that other similar names are restricted. -- Also concerns about optional PICs that could be written and then retracted. -- ALAC/GAC is presenting .doctor as people holding them out as medical practitioners but they aren't so wanted to restrict it to medical degrees, not other types of doctoral degrees. Restricting the use of a dictionary word to one part of its usage. -- Groups did put in sunsets on voluntary PICs. Only a few registries did them. -- Data on the propensity for fraud on the Internet. In the case of .pharmacy NABP became the registry operator because of the vaste amount of fraud happening in the pharmacy space online. 97% operating illegally in the US. -- For a space that has validated names in its top level: concern about applications in the future that set up a similar space but without validation. -- If you read the draft report from the CCT-RT it talks about the user expectations between the TLD and the site. Note sure where to deal with it. -- Consumers have an expectation that the string is somehow related to the purpose of the TLD, but there is a difference between a connection and ensuring someone's safety. -- If we do keep a model like PICs and assuming PICs are made a time after public and government comments to address those comments, are we agreed that we can use the PIC process to change an application? If so, we should come to some conclusions that applications should change to address based on PICs. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: So the approach to have PICs was a creation of the then CEO of ICANN to incorporate GAC advice. Should this same approach continue? Is there another way to do it? Jeff Neuman: yes.....there was no GNSO policy on this? Holly Raiche 2: At some point maybe we should also look a the report from the Consumer Trust, Choice WG - and public expectations - in this tract of Track 2 as well? Jeff Neuman: yes, once they finalize their report Holly Raiche 2: Agreed wih Alan - the draft CCRT report does talk about consumer expectations Holly Raiche 2: Agree with Jeff - that is the issue that was raised by the CCRT report - the issue ishow to deal with consumer expectations and whether ICANN rules take those into account - just an aspect of public interest Jeff Neuman: I would note that there is a difference between "a connection" and "expectation of safety" Holly Raiche 2: Agree with Jeff - just raising the issue of how we deal with expectation and connection Jon Nevett: Right Jeff ex-ante censorship vs. ex-post enforcement Holly Raiche 2: I think the idea of he categories was to identify the critical names such as doctor and pharmacy 4. Next Meeting: Response from ICANN Compliance on PIC complaints (see attached document)

1 0