January 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3

CC2 Draft Questions
by Karen Day Jan. 22, 2017

Jan. 22, 2017

Hello fellow WT3 members, As we discussed on our call this past week, we need to work over email during the next week to firm up our questions to be presented to the overall Subsequent Procedures Work Group for inclusion in CC2. To this end, I have created a Google Doc where I have started the process by forming into rough questions, those items which we’ve previously noted during our conversations would be good for CC2. Please comment/add/edit directly in the document. My hope is that we can take care of this on the list and not have to try to cram another call into our already hectic schedules, so please do give it some thought and take a few minutes to contribute this week. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17ptmleobQdBMTqDSvrcc4lL4vt9gvdLQfgMFHy9… Best regards, Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 17 January
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 17, 2017

Jan. 17, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 17 January. 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. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. In addition, excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 January 2017 1. Update from the full WG: -- Conclusions -- agreed to give a week's more comment on setting up a drafting team on setting up a matrix on categories. -- Also a second group on how we look at rounds. 2. Proposed WT3 work plan & discussion schedule going forward -- Work track 4 will meet this week. -- Next week is Namescon and Policy Retreat. -- Every working track is working on their timeline. 3. Review of all New GTLD Objections: Statistics of all Objections and New staff analysis (Steve) -- Note much conversation in the meetings, hope we can have more updates on the list. -- How can we make this more manageable. -- A lot of this work on objection is to get feedback from those indirectlly affected by the objections. -- Shall we go forward with this proposal? Action Item: Ask how those were involved how we can contribute: >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Should we create a small drafting team to work on the questions? Jeff Neuman: @Jon, not to put you on the spot, but if we asked you to participate in this, would you agree to such an interview? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jeff: One option. Another option would be to hold an "open house" during Copenhagen during which folks with experience with objections could drop in and provide whatever input they want? Jeff Neuman: @Kristina - That is a great idea if they are willing to share experiences in an open environment Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jeff: good point. Jeff Neuman: We would also have to develop questions and ask GDD to help facilitate questions we may have for the Independent Objector Jeff Neuman: Objector Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): another good opportunity yes Kristina Jon Nevett: I think that the registry group started pulling some of these issues together -- might make sense to wait for that input so we don't have to duplicate. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): evidence of consistency? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): For those objections for which the fees were variable, do we know what the high and low fees were as well as the mean and the medium? Jon Nevett: staff should get that info from the 4 providers Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): The purpose of collecting this information would be to allow us to assess if fees were too high (or low) and make recommendations accordingly. Steve Chan: @Kristina, we can take the question back to the GDD. 4. Recap and positioning on Limited Public Interest Objections a. Content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and b. 3.5.3 and needs with regards to future implementation -- Analysis on objections: Staff tried to do some ground work to do targeted research. We looked at applications that had requests for reconsiderations. We looked at similar objections. -- Saw the request for reconsiderations, of 22 out of 208 ended up in reconsiderations. -- We didn't have a clear idea of what we were looking for. Without frist-hand experiences we have a huge scope of work. From a staff perspective we are cautious about looking at each objections. -- Low numbers may suggest that issues aren't quite as rampant. -- We are looking of guidance: targeted outreach? Looking for issues without hypothesis? -- What kinds of issues should we be looking for and how far down should we go? Staff are looking for input from the community? -- Without having a hypothesis to test against. we are not legal experts we are leery of critiquing. -- Not sure about a hypothesis -- in trademark there is a confusingly similar standard. -- When ICANN drafted the AGB is there now a way to pull out certain common factors used by the evaluators --- to give guidance to future evaluators? -- Are there ways to pull out factors that would guide us? c. ALAC Standing Issue -- Remove standing from the ALARs or removing funding? -- The judgment presumed standing, but didn't go ahead. Discuss with the ALAC. -- Strongly in opposition giving ALAC any standing and funding. Accessible to outside lobbying. -- This will be discussed in the ALAC. Object to the term lobbying. Unless someone can cite a specific case we will not change what we did before. -- Not to change things without evidence. d. Does the Process Invite Lobbying From Third Parties? -- Filing was frivolous (personally). Question is what is the harm of the ALAC filing an objection? -- Filed on behalf of users if we thought there was potential user harm. -- Another issue where there is a diversity of viewpoints. -- Need to discuss and determine whether there is some kind of mechanism for accountability. >From the Chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jon: that assumes we recommend the IO remain . . . . Jon Nevett: yep avri doria: any discussion should also include a reference to the extensive feedback and mechansims that the ALAC did set up these sorts of mechanism are often used for accountabity.. Does ALAC accept the notion that they filed frivolously? Jeff Neuman: Giving a venue for feedback is not the same as accountability. Alan Greenberg: The AALC does not accept that. Moreover, we also considered very carefully whether filing such an objection implied and personal liability. In my mind it is clear we dod not do this frivolously. avri doria: money vs. amazing amounts of volunteer time? avri doria: and can we say that all paid objections were filed accountably? avri doria: and people with vendettas and money spend it freely avri doria: and can we say that all paid objections were filed accountably? avri doria: and people with vendettas and money spend it freely Jeff Neuman: The IO had a professional reputation for being an expert in international disputes Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Alan: The IO may not have had a stake in the objection you're referencing, but he was found to have one in the .amazon objections. Terri Agnew 2: finding the line Michael Flemming: Somewhat Jeff Neuman: Yes Robin.... Alan Greenberg: @Kristine. I understand that. But it was not the design og the process that was at falt. If you are correct, then it was very much an extremely poor processthat allowed it to happen. That alone does not imply we shouldnot have an IO in the future. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Alan: We'll put a pin in that for now. 5. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3 a. Review of WIPO & INTA Reports on LRO -- Need Paul McGrady and some time to evaluate this proposal. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: For Legal RIghts Objections, it would be good to have Paul McGrady to explain his proposal. Alan Greenberg: I have not heard anyone claim we had a personal stake in the results, other than caring about those whose interests we represent. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Paul is in China.

2 1

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesda17 January 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Jan. 17, 2017

Jan. 17, 2017

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 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 03:00 UTC. 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-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/s7PDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 17 January 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 03:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Karen Day:Let's shoot for double diget attendance at least ;-)\ Jeff Neuman:This is a tough time for participants I guess. I think we had this issue before with Work Track 3 Robin Gross:We can hope. Karen Day:The bulk of our members are West Coast US so that makes both this time and the 1500 not good for those with families Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Is there a (semi)standard set of questions that we're looking to answer for each objection type? Karen Day:@Kristina - yes, but at a very high level. I'll find the reference for you in a minute but it's things like "were expectations met" Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Karen, thanks. Jeff Neuman:Should we create a small drafting team to work on the questions? Jeff Neuman:@Jon, not to put you on the spot, but if we asked you to participate in this, would you agree to such an interview? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jeff: One option. Another option would be to hold an "open house" during Copenhagen during which folks with experience with objections could drop in and provide whatever input they want? Jeff Neuman:@Kristina - That is a great idea if they are willing to share experiences in an open environment Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jeff: good point. Michael Flemming:I'd be willing to sit down and talk about our experiences. Jeff Neuman:We would also have to develop questions and ask GDD to help facilitate questions we may have for the Independent Obector Jeff Neuman:Objector Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):another good opportunity yes Kristina Jon Nevett:I think that the registry group started pulling some of these issues together -- might make sense to wait for that input so we don't have to duplicate. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):evidence of consistency? Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):For those objections for which the fees were variable, do we know what the high and low fees were as well as the mean and the medium? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Sorry for staying on mute. Upstairs neighbor doing construction. Jon Nevett:staff should get that info from the 4 providers Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):The purpose of collecting this information would be to allow us to assess if fees were too high (or low) and make recommendations accordingly Steve Chan:@Kristina, we can take the question back to the GDD. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Steve, thanks. Jon Nevett:shouldn't the ALAC just work any objections through the IO? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jon: that assumes we recommend the IO remain . . . . Jon Nevett:yep avri doria:any discussion should also include a reference to the extensive feedback and mechansims that the ALAC did set up these sorts of mechanism are often used for accountabity.. Does ALAC accept the notion that they filed frivolously? Jeff Neuman:Giving a venue for feedback is not the same as accountability. Alan Greenberg:The AALC does not accept that. Moreover, we also considered very carefully whether filing such an objection implied and personal liability. In my mind it is clear we dod not do this frivolously. avri doria:money vs. amazing amounts of volunteer time? avri doria:and can we say that all paid objections were filed accountably? avri doria:and people with vendettas and money spend it freely Jeff Neuman:The IO had a professional reputation for being an expert in international disputes Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Alan: The IO may not have had a stake in the objection you're referencing, but he was found to have one in the .amazon objections. Terri Agnew 2:finding the line Michael Flemming:Somewhat Jeff Neuman:Yes Robin.... Alan Greenberg:@Kristine. I understand that. But it was not the design og the process that was at falt. If you are correct, then it was very much an extremely poor processthat allowed it to happen. That alone does not imply we shouldnot have an IO in the future. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Alan: We'll put a pin in that for now. Jeff Neuman:For Legal RIghts Objections, it would be good to have Paul McGrady to explain his proposal Alan Greenberg:I have not heard anyone claim we had a personal stake in the results, other than caring about those whose interests we represent. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Paul is in China. Terri Agnew 2:next meeting: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 07 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Jeff Neuman:Is the webinar being recorded. May not be able to attend at that time, but would love to listen afterwards. Jeff Neuman:Is it being recorded? Was a question avri doria:i am sue it will be recorded Jeff Neuman:Cool! avri doria:... sure ... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx all.. Bye for now.... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):bye Karen Day 2:Thanks everyone Karen Day 2:bye avri doria:bye

1 0

Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Invitation Webinar Community TLDs and Human Rights January 18 - 15:00 UTC
by avri doria Jan. 5, 2017

Jan. 5, 2017

hi, Of probable interest to the work being done here. avri -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Invitation Webinar Community TLDs and Human Rights January 18 - 15:00 UTC Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 16:00:13 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever <lists(a)DIGITALDISSIDENTS.ORG> Reply-To: Niels ten Oever <lists(a)DIGITALDISSIDENTS.ORG> To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Dear all, On behalf of the ARTICLE 19, the Council of Europe, and the Cross Community Working Party on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights I am very happy to invite you to a ** webinar on Community top-level domains (TLDs) and human rights ** * January 18 - 15:00 UTC at https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ * In this webinar we will present and discuss the main findings from the Council of Europe report on Community Based gTLDs and Human Rights [0] with: Facilitators: Niels ten Oever Head of Digital at Article 19 Chair of the CCWP HR Rapporteur for CCWG WS2 Human Rights sub-team Patrick Penninckx Head of Information Society Department, Council of Europe Key findings: Eve Salomon, Co-Author of the report International consultant and legal expert on media law and human rights Kinanya Pijl Co-Author of the report PhD Candidate, European University, Florence Discussants: Mark Carvell GAC Vice-Chair Co-Chair GAC WG on Human Rights and International Law Chris Disspain ICANN Board Member Jamie Baxter Dotgay LLC Cherine Chalaby ICANN Board Member Avri Dora Internet Researcher Co-Chair Subsequent gTLD procedures WG We're greatly looking forward to your participation. Feel free to share this invitation widely among your constituencies and communities. All the best, Niels ten Oever [0] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53772653/Report%20on%20Com… Please find the AC room and dial in details here: Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: CCWP HR For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-466 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SLOVENIA 0-800-81310 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 PS Sorry for cross-posting -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

1 0