Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 – Legal/Regulatory Issues held on Monday, 28 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gns...> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar-23nov&d=DQMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Zx5BSTxHyuQ1k0kWFuUD3QLERQ-qmyNLKD4EitZvXhg&s=fiTp8y1l5mm5sFzpecZ7zxKgmETN4SeZxhzYTsQIgis&e=> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/KJPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 November 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues call on Monday, 28 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Rubens Kuhl:ICANN staff seems to also be considering how to kill COI. This topic come alongside Registry Service Provider accreditation/certification/*tion. Phil Buckingham:rubens Phil Buckingham:would you like to elaborate Rubens Kuhl:ICANN staff also seems to be bothered by COI, since they have to process a number of COI changes for existing registries. Jeff Neuman:Lets hold those thoughts on the COI Phil Buckingham:ok jeff Jeff Neuman:Focus of today is Reserved NAmes at the top-level :) Emily Barabas:Here is the Google doc: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads... avri doria:shouldn't IANA names include the RFC6761 names? Steve Coates:What is RFC6761? Thx! Jeff Neuman:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc... Rubens Kuhl:.localhost is also the subject of an ongoing draft that even though seems to lack consensus at this point, will likely advance in one form or another. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_dra... Jon Nevett:Perhaps add a time stamp on it -- no new ones after 90 days before applications are filed or something avri doria:6761 is an ongoing discussion in the IETF and we are rying to find a way to make sure we don't step on each other toes in name allocation. Rubens Kuhl:I don't think ACs and SOs are widely recocgznied... but Internic is a widely known name, even though it doesn't exist anymore. Rubens Kuhl:Were hyphens allowed in the 2012 round ? Jon Nevett:would want it in the ICANN policy if possible Phil Buckingham:rubens - no they werent Jon Nevett:not rely on the IETF process -- thanks Steve Chan 2:@Jeff, sorry was mid-typing and didn't realize you were looking for a response from staff. I've captured your action item in the notes section. avri doria:well, not sue they would accept such a dependency. some are arguing that they should use second level like protocol.arpa. also resrciting ietf to neologisms (invented words). want to make sure thet the is not for global dns usage. Rubens Kuhl:There is a reason for not allowing -- (hyphen hyphen) at 3rd and 4th positions, but besides that, no technical reason to avoid hyphens in TLDs. avri doria:and the laison has notified the board of rfc6761 actions, but it never became an issue. Rubens Kuhl:So ab--cdef would be possibly not a good idea, but ab-cdef would be allowed. avri doria:Rubens i expect there is lazy code out there that any hypen catches. Rubens Kuhl:Lazy code means UA challenges, but that applies to all new TLDs... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed avri doria:yes, hyens at 3/4 were supposed to be a switch for which xn was just one flavor. Rubens Kuhl:No reason not to allow single-letter IDNs from scripts like Chinese. Rubens Kuhl:I can imagine UA challenges for ASCII single-letter TLDs, but that is not based on data. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed Rubins but our WT (4) should look for or call for some research or abstrac review frm opinion pieces published to date I guess Rubens Kuhl:Most TLDs today allow domains with only numbers, including one or two digits... avri doria:i think the reason to prohibit numbers at top level as again lazy code that would assume it was an address and ge t confused. Rubens Kuhl:But if we use IP address similarity as criteria, it should exclude one to three digits. I don't see a reason to, but that would make sense. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Shouldn't we leave up to an applicant to decide if it's willing to take on a universal acceptance issue? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):leave it Kurt Pritz:There was a concern that a leading or trailing digit would be interpreted as the start as an IP address by some applications / browsers. That concern is demonstrable. It is less demonstrable that an interior digit would be interpreted somehow by an IP address. Rubens Kuhl:Our experience in a TLD that forbids digits-only SLD is that it becames harder by the time to change such a rule. So the moment to look at this is now. avri doria:lazy code is the primary reason for UA issues. Kurt Pritz:Lazy code is the reason why digits in TLDs are read as IP addresses. Lazy code is the reason for name collisions. Michael Flemming 2:Understandable. Michael Flemming 2:Apply at your own risk TLD* Rubens Kuhl:The risk issue is different for a brand/exclusive use TLD than for an unrestricted TLD. Rubens Kuhl:Lazy code plus Good code for lazy users Steve Coates:I'm not sure I understand how code can be lazy. Kiran Malancharuvil 2:Can we ask the Universal Acceptance working group? Rubens Kuhl:The economics for dealing with it are problematic. Most users see those as externalities. avri doria:UA is such a nice euphemism Phil Buckingham:kiran - good idea Kiran Malancharuvil 2:I'm all about asking whatever experts will lend an ear and helping hand Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes we can ask UA /SSAC I assume under WT4 then? Greg Shatan:Alan, good idea Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Good idea - provided that the timing works. Rubens Kuhl:SSAC has a limited workload for each year, so if want something from them in 2017, we need to hurry up. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup avri doria:i think they did repor during the 2012 round policy period. we should check to see if there was a report. Rubens Kuhl:Just anedoctal evidence: the first Brand TLD was .hp suggested by HP to Jon Postel. Curious that it's not going to be allowed, likely ever. Michael Flemming 2:Good to go! Rubens Kuhl:To NIC and WHOIS, we might have to add RDDS. Rubens Kuhl:But why the policy allowed .web but not .www ? That looks inconsistent to me. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I will need to leave audio near the top of thw hour to take my next conference call I will stay in AC as long as I can to just before the top of the hour Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Good point Alan Roger Carney:RDDS and RDS are technically different Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):regardless srely bth shoild be reserve Roger Carney:Sorry looks like voice is not working Alexander Schubert 2:Geographic names; Applicant Guidebook 2.2.1.4.1: Alexander Schubert 2:Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this application round. Alexander Schubert 2:Which means these ISO 3166 Alpha 3 codes and territory names were not "reseved" - but rather just excempted from the 2012 round! Rubens Kuhl:Controversial names - no .trump . Roger Carney:Most peopole see RDS as larger - Registration Directory Services, RDDS Registration Data Directory Services. RDDS being more specific to Data and RDS being more general about the system. It was a discussion in the RDS pDP WG Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):There isn't one. But, geopolitical names have been raised in the GAC in connection with the GAC Geo Names WG. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Sorry I need to leve here now... Bye... onto to my next call Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Why wouldn't we put a placeholder on controversial names pending WT 3's discussion of the Limited Public Interest Objection? We could end up deferring to an objection that is eliminated. Rubens Kuhl:+1 to Kristina's suggestion. Phil Buckingham:@ Alexander - .vg is British Virgin Islands . They werent allowed to apply for .bvi Kiran Malancharuvil 2:Thanks all! Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Soory being late, I was held up. I look forward to read transcipts Jeff Neuman:Next CalL WE START SECOND LEVEL REGISTRATIONS :) Alexander Schubert 2:Bye! Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you all. Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group:take care Rubens Kuhl:Bye Bye all! Phil Buckingham:Thanks everyone for your constructive input