Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Thursday, 06 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 06 October 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues call held onThursday, 06 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew: agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Tw_4Aw Alexander Schubert: Hello everybody :-) Alexander Schubert: 5: Reserved names. 2nd level or top level? Michael Flemming: Hello Alex and welcome. Michael Flemming: Both Michael Flemming: In a sense Michael Flemming: We will save that fun for last today :) jeff neuman: Not everyone gets your humor :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Hi there Sorry I had to wrap up another call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): My morning is all back to back calls it seems Terri Agnew: Welcome Cheryl, still plenty of time left LOL Alexander Schubert: Well, if you're going to apply for a prepreviously ineligible string - it's not fun! jeff neuman: I can provide a background on this jeff neuman: 3 Steve Chan: As noted, T&Cs are available as Module 6 of the AGB, but also available on the web here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/terms Jim Prendergast: I would also ask - did the community have input into the T&Cs or the ability to suggest changes to them? Seems like everyone was focused on modules 1-5. Im not sure anyone every commented on module 6. Rubens Kuhl: Jeff's audio is fading Rubens Kuhl: (at least for me) Berry Cobb: Another vector for the group to monitor/consider is the changes to RfR and eventual release of the updated IRP as a result of the CCWG Accountability work. It did not specifically touch upon what these mean for subsequent rounds/procedures, but it will be changing in the future. Rubens Kuhl: For me it seems it doesn't require a charter amendment in this case, but policy staff could enlight us on that... Berry Cobb: Request for Reconcideration. Berry Cobb: Yes Rubens Kuhl: What we could say at a policy level would be "Have T's&C's to reduce ICANN liability to the minimum level allowed by ICANN Bylaws, California law and US law". Rubens Kuhl: Reference material: AGB Module 6, RfRs from the 2012 round, IRPs from the 2012 round... Rubens Kuhl: + lawsuits from the 2012 round. jeff neuman: yes Rubens Kuhl: Two stress tests I suggest to T&C is the TAS issues that occurred, (1) freezing the application process (2) data leak... Rubens Kuhl: TAS was the application system used by applicants in the 2012-round Rubens Kuhl: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... Rubens Kuhl: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k1HrFIjwzupuJqr33WmGmBUD45SQ5Cv1-vNP7ZRz... Phil Marano (Mayer Brown): Another suggested stress test for the T&Cs: The threatened termination of a new gTLD application by ICANN based on rationale not established within the AGB, i.e. failure to meet a newly established interim milestone. Rubens Kuhl: I would also add "Sponsored TLDs", which although being a twin brother of Community TLDs, have different regulatory framework. Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Question - Is reviewing 'categories' part of this WT? Or is it just if a single agreement makes sense? Alexander Schubert 2: And there is applications fitting in 4 of these categories in the same time ...... Rubens Kuhl: Raymond, I believe it's WT1, and that we need to sequence our discussion on WT2 once the types discussion is settled. jeff neuman: Its the overall group, right Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Another Consideration: 1 Size Fits All vs. 2 Sizes Fits All – Introducing version(s) of the Registry Agreement may just change the problem. Within categories of TLDs there will still be differing business models. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I have a clarifying question: Does "different base agreement" mean (a) a completely different base agreement for every category; (b) a standard base agreement with additional specifications that differ (like Specification 13); or (c) something else entirely? (If the answer is (c), please elaborate). Thanks. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Thanks. Rubens Kuhl: Note that we already have two different agreements at the 2012-round, and it's not based on specifications... it's the governmental and standard versions of the agreement. Rubens Kuhl: What Jeff is saying. Rubens Kuhl: Spec 9 - Code of Conduct (not applied for exclusive use TLDs and for Brand TLDs) Spec 12 - Community TLDs Spec 13-Brand TLDs. jeff neuman: Any participant of this WT Julie Hedlund: @Jeff: Not sure I captured your word correctly. Rubens Kuhl: Just to complicate Jeff's idea, there are Community Brand TLDs... ;-) Raymond Zylstra - Neustar: Question ‘What is the outcome of the ‘Scope of Work’? What is it that we working towards delivering?’ jeff neuman: Yes, scope of work is to make policy recommendations and to provide rationale for those recommendations Gg Levine (NABP): Wouldn't it be simpler to keep single base agreement and then fine-tune specs per catagory? Multiple specs might apply to applicants.. Doesn't make sense to have separate agreements. jeff neuman: Gg - Yes that could be one outcome jeff neuman: My goal is to take the abstract principle and make it more concrete Berry Cobb: I might suggest that you take a more targeted approach. Brands = Martin Sutton; Geos = RyO from a geo TLD; Community = RyOs that have gone through that. We know that these "categories" for lack of a better word exist today. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I would hope that the folks advocating for different agreements have a very good idea about what they do - and do not- want in a base agreement so it shouldn't take too long to articulate. Otherwise, we could be doing this for a long time jeff neuman: I agree with Kristina. These groups are not going to draft a new agreement now Berry Cobb: I'd also recommend that it be communicated that the default is a single agreement at this point and only looking for rationale on why the WT should consider different versions. Terri Agnew: Next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues will take place on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. jeff neuman: I can reach out to Martin/Cecilia (from the BRG) and relay this conversation jeff neuman: Cool. Thanks! Good Call. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks everyone... Thanks Michael... Talk again soon ... bye for now Alexander Schubert 2: bye