October 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3

Recordings, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p2cpvmdrcuf/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e7a3e0ad59e75812…> https://participate.icann.org/p2cpvmdrcuf/ 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/soJEB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 17 October 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=PTS1TXB48pNGly0h5S9xkaCCf4B6nrYeIg8Joa6Mn80&s=z6kgiLXmOsMlhSuNJk8EiefutzLt7vc5Tcg4HzLHZnM&e= karen Day:hi all karen Day:dialing in Robin Gross:I've got shotgun Gg Levine (NABP):Where can the community strawbunny be found? Steve Chan:@Gg, you can find the strawbunny on the Wiki here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=PTS1TXB48pNGly0h5S9xkaCCf4B6nrYeIg8Joa6Mn80&s=MdyU2TMHDQ7rNI3poloRPErIYxpLsLuoQRyz8OHA-MI&e= Gg Levine (NABP):Thanks! Greg Shatan:@Robin, are you exercising your Second Amendment rights? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: I am only on adobe and not connected. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: What are equivalents to First Amendment rights in other jurisdictions? Would be interested to study those statutes to see if there is any balancing language that is similar to U.S. case law. Robin Gross:Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is Free Expression (not a statute, but laws get implemented with that in mind) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Robin. Have been aware of Article 19 for some time. Was just interested in implementing laws that you described. I Phil Buckingham:Agreed Karen . Do we have a clearly defination of "reserved names " that we need to use across all work tracks? Terri Agnew:everyone can turn slides themselves Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: It seems the "balancing" described by both Greg and Robin is a fruitful area for exploration as to Top Level Domains Jim Prendergast:sorry - but Im listening in from the middle of a conference so no ability to talk. Comment speaks for itself Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: Introducing an appeals process will significantly delay decisions and could be used as a tactic for delay even when decision is actually justified. I actually hope the ICANN process is more efficient and more swift than judicial systems - can we keep it that way without sacrificing rights or not? COMMENT Greg Shatan:I think we need to focus on a relatively lightweight process. Delay is not as big an issue as “getting it wrong.” Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Jeff Greg Shatan:Appeals generally do not have further discovery. They can be relatively swift. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: if we address inconsistencies in the processes, we likely won't need the appeals process. Maybe if the appeals process is based on a standard like "abuse of discretion" or "clear error" as noted in the Google comment - but this needs to be a swift process - not go on for years. COMMENT Robin Gross:Having an appeals mechanism tailored exclusively on tld decisions would make sense given it is so different from the other org management type of issues that go into the regual accountability mechanisms. Phil Buckingham:I agree Jamie . Evaluators need to be evaluated themselves Robin Gross:regual = regular Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think Jeff's approach is reasonable if we want to adopt appeals process. It should not be a "new trial" of all facts. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Anne ... just like the other accountability mechanisms, i think there would need to be a focus to the request for appeal. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jamie - could you elaborate on "focus to the request for appeal" Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Anne .. my thinking is that you would need to state your reason for appeal, just like you currently do with reconsideration requests, etc. For example it could be that key evidence/research supplied by applicant contradicts the research relied on by the evaluator (despite ever having to provide the research). this is in part the reason why the current CPE investigation is underway. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: re addressing inconsistencies that would reduce need for appeal - Panelist training seems very appropriate. Also, panelists have to be encouraged to request additional briefing on information they lack, rather than making assumptions about evidence they don't have. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):no -se comment in chat Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Anne avri doria:thanks. it was great working with you . Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):second to Karen's comments Robin Gross:thanks, Karen, and all, bye! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):bye all avri doria:bye Phil Buckingham:thanks Karen

1 0

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

Oct. 17, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 17 October. 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 document referenced on the call is attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 17 October 2017 1. SOIs: None 2. Pre-F2F Meeting Updates: -- Two sessions in Abu Dhabi. Saturday, 28 Oct 12:15-15:00. Each Work Track will have 30 minutes to discuss issues. -- Second session is 01 November from 08:30 to 12:00 devoted to Work Track 5 on Geographic Names. All 4 co-leaders are selected. Had first meeting of the co-chairs yesterday to begin discussion of a draft Terms of Reference. Will be sending out a Call for Volunteers for the Work Track participants. -- Topic for Work Track 3 on Saturday: Community Based Applications and Priority Evaluations. See: https://community.icann.org/x/Wz2AAw 3. CC2 Responses: a. Applicant Freedom of Expression: 3.2.1 - Noting that the 2007 Final Report on new gTLDs tried to balance the rights of applicants (e.g. Principle G) and rights holders (Recommendation 3), do you believe that the program was successful in doing so? If not, do you have examples of where either an applicant's freedom of expression or a person or entity's legal rights were infringed? -- Afilias & RySG: were not able to reach agreement on a response to this question. -- NCSG: Goal of balancing the rights of applicants and rights holders settled by the Final Report on new gTLDs much continue with special attention to whether the GAC's Advice, Community processes or the reserved names have impacted this goal in any way... [see full quote]. -- No one cited specific examples as requested in the question. Discussion: -- The issue of balance is still a work in progress. Not sure that one should focus on the GAC safeguards. Could be concerns if there was an expansion of reserved names except for technical reasons. The whole issue of freedom of expression is more complicated. -- Differ with the above interpretation. See lots of examples of people from companies who want to be able to use words on the Internet in whatever context. Companies do have freedom of expression rights to words. Concerned about excluding freedom of expression from the top level. -- Would agree that not allowing a top-level name due to sensitivities or because a government doesn't like it are appropriate reasons to take a domain off the table. These attempts to use power rather than legal rights are troubling. Rights get balanced against other rights so there is some care. We do need to distinguish between exercise of rights and exercise of power. -- Maybe we should think about how to balance these legitimate interests that does incorporate freedom of expression rights. Principle G was put in right at the end of the first round. Didn't include implementation guidelines. -- Closed generics and geographic names also are related to the issue. May need to look in the plenary to incorporate applicant freedom of expression and protection throughout the whole of the gTLD program -- tracking the dependencies. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: What are equivalents to First Amendment rights in other jurisdictions? Would be interested to study those statutes to see if there is any balancing language that is similar to U.S. case law. Robin Gross: Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is Free Expression (not a statute, but laws get implemented with that in mind) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thanks Robin. Have been aware of Article 19 for some time. Was just interested in implementing laws that you described. I Phil Buckingham: Agreed Karen . Do we have a clearly defination of "reserved names " that we need to use across all work tracks? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: It seems the "balancing" described by both Greg and Robin is a fruitful area for exploration as to Top Level Domains b. Accountability Mechanisms: 3.5.1 – Do you believe that the existing accountability mechanisms (Request for Reconsideration, Independent Review Process, and the Ombudsman) are adequate avenues to address issues encountered in the New gTLD Program? -- General Comments from GAC, John Poole, and NCSG. -- Specific responses received from Jim Prendergast, BRG, RySG, Afilias and ALAC. Discussion: -- With regard to the BRG, RySG, and Afilias comments we have discussed the appeals process -- should we narrow our focus to just the application process and appeals related thereto? -- More generally on concerns about what went wrong -- these were all big topics of conversation in the CCWG-Accountability. Think we have made a lot of reforms to the accountability mechanism. They are new so we don't know if they are working well or not. -- Concur with the suggestion that appeals mechanism should be put in place. Consider how an appeal mechanism would work when there are third-party evaluations involved. What is happening now is finally after many years there is a look back to the third-party evaluators to some of the things that were promised. Maybe an appeals mechanism makes more sense at the front of hte process. An appeals mechanism could have cut through many of the issues early on. -- Tend to agree that it would be a good idea to have a more direct appeal process where there were evaluators or panelists involved. Not something to a one-size-fits-all approach. Need to focus on this for the next level. Appeals process enables conflicts between decisions to be resolved. -- You have to look at this in context of what Work Track 2 just looked at -- the waiving of the right to hold ICANN accountable if violates the terms of the AGB. If we do not have an appeals process there will be no ability to have any of the decisions substantively reviewed, only for violation of the mission, commitment, Bylaws, etc. Don't think we can NOT have an appeals process. Doesn't have to be like a judicial proceeding. Has to be some way to challenge ICANN's or a third-party action. -- Seems unclear as to whether third-party action is a responsibility of the staff or Board. Are the evaluators the responsibility of the Board or the staff because they hired them? That loop needs to be closed. -- Not sure that if we address inconsistencies in the processes that we won't need an appeals process, but the process does need to be swift. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Introducing an appeals process will significantly delay decisions and could be used as a tactic for delay even when decision is actually justified. I actually hope the ICANN process is more efficient and more swift than judicial systems - can we keep it that way without sacrificing rights or not? COMMENT Greg Shatan: I think we need to focus on a relatively lightweight process. Delay is not as big an issue as “getting it wrong.” Greg Shatan: Appeals generally do not have further discovery. They can be relatively swift. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: if we address inconsistencies in the processes, we likely won't need the appeals process. Maybe if the appeals process is based on a standard like "abuse of discretion" or "clear error" as noted in the Google comment - but this needs to be a swift process - not go on for years. COMMENT Robin Gross: Having an appeals mechanism tailored exclusively on tld decisions would make sense given it is so different from the other org management type of issues that go into the regular accountability mechanisms. Phil Buckingham: I agree Jamie . Evaluators need to be evaluated themselves Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think Jeff's approach is reasonable if we want to adopt appeals process. It should not be a "new trial" of all facts. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Anne ... just like the other accountability mechanisms, i think there would need to be a focus to the request for appeal. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jamie - could you elaborate on "focus to the request for appeal" Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Anne .. my thinking is that you would need to state your reason for appeal, just like you currently do with reconsideration requests, etc. For example it could be that key evidence/research supplied by applicant contradicts the research relied on by the evaluator (despite ever having to provide the research). this is in part the reason why the current CPE investigation is underway. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: re addressing inconsistencies that would reduce need for appeal - Panelist training seems very appropriate. Also, panelists have to be encouraged to request additional briefing on information they lack, rather than making assumptions about evidence they don't have. COMMENT Jamie Baxter | dotgay: +1 Anne 3.5.2 – Should there be appeal mechanisms, specific to the New gTLD Program, introduced into the program? If yes, for what areas of the program (e.g., evaluations, objections, CPE)? Do you have suggestions for high-level requirements (e.g., if the appeal should be limited to procedural and/or substantive issues, who conducts the review, who is the final arbiter, safeguards against abuse, etc.). -- Comments from INTA, Google, BRG, Afilias, and RySG. Discussion: -- The delayed appeals was an interesting concept, but not sure how people would not be accused of gaming the system. Some hybrid approach might make the most sense. 4. AOB: -- Since Avri Doria has stepped down as a Co-Chair we want to thank her for her time and effort to help the Work Track Co-Chairs, Karen and Robin. She has been invaluable to this Work Track. >From the chat: avri doria: thanks. it was great working with you.

1 0

Agenda - Subsequent Procedures WT 3 - Meeting October 17, 2017 @ 1500 UTC
by Karen Day Oct. 16, 2017

Oct. 16, 2017

Dear WT 3 Members: Following on our conversation Tuesday, we have clarified with staff and the PDP leadership team that the 30 minutes WTs 1 & 3 will have with the GAC on Sunday in Abu Dhabi are not to present to the GAC, but rather to ask questions of the GAC to try to draw out more detailed input from them on the issues covered in our CC2 questions and their prior GAC Advice. Therefore, our face to face PDP WG session on Saturday will not be preparation for the GAC meeting. It will instead be the PDP membership’s time to discuss the input on communities received from CC2 responses and to look again at our strawbunny proposal defining what a community is. With that being the case, we will proceed as planned with our next topics of Applicant Freedom of Expression and Accountability Mechanisms on our call this coming Tuesday, October 17th at 15:00. And, although we only have 3 questions to cover, there is some significant input to review, so I would encourage you to read through the CC2 responses in full prior to the call. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… AGENDA: 1: Welcome 2. Updated SOIs 3. Pre-F2F meeting updates 4. Applicant Freedom of Expression: 3.2.1 Noting that the 2007 Final Report on new gTLDs tried to balance the rights of applicants (e.g., Principle G) and rights holders (Recommendation 3), do you believe that the program was successful in doing so? If not, do you have examples of where either an applicant’s freedom of expression or a person or entity’s legal rights were infringed? 5. Accountability Mechanisms: 3.5.1 – Do you believe that the existing accountability mechanisms (Request for Reconsideration, Independent Review Process, and the Ombudsman) are adequate avenues to address issues encountered in the New gTLD Program? 3.5.2 – Should there be appeal mechanisms, specific to the New gTLD Program, introduced into the program? If yes, for what areas of the program (e.g., evaluations, objections, CPE)? Do you have suggestions for high-level requirements (e.g., if the appeal should be limited to procedural and/or substantive issues, who conducts the review, who is the final arbiter, safeguards against abuse, etc.). 6. AOB Until Tuesday, 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]

3 4

Agenda and Materials for WT3 call on 10 October @ 20:00 UTC on STRING SIMILARITY
by Robin Gross Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 2017

All, In preparation for our next call on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 @ 20:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed agenda. We will continue our discussion from last week on the topic of string similarity. I hope you are able to join the discussion. Thank you. Best, Robin Discussion Agenda 1. Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI 3. Plenary Update 5. Should we add another meeting before ICANN#60? For week of 17 Oct.? 6. CC2 — String Similarity — Q 3.4.4 - 3.4.6 7. AOB CC2 Questions on String Similarity Themes document attached. Full responses are available for review at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp…> 3.4.4 - Do you believe that there should be some sort of mechanism to allow for a change of applied-for TLD when it is determined to be in contention with one or more other strings? If so, do you have suggestions on a workable mechanism?  3.4.5 - Do you feel that the contention resolution mechanisms from the 2012 round (i.e., CPE and last- resort auctions) met the needs of the community in a sufficient manner? Please explain. 3.4.6 – Do you believe that private auctions (i.e., NOT the auctions of last resort provided by ICANN) resulted in any harm? Could they lead to speculative applications seeking to participate in a private auction in future application processes? Should they be allowed or otherwise restricted in the future? 3.4 — General Feedback from GAC on string similarity

3 2

Recordings, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 10, 2017

Oct. 10, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4e3e3mssdk/<https://participate.icann.org/p4e3e3mssdk/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ba32205baa7d5c6f…> 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/roJEB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 October 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… jeff neuman:FYI - for the next 15 mins or so I will not be on adobe, but will be listening on the phone Karen Day:Hi all Julie Bisland:thanks Jeff, I've noted this on Adobe Julie Bisland:Avri, we can't hear you Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bad audio Julie Bisland:Still nothing Avri Julie Bisland:she's trying again to get audio Karen Day:As well as accountability mechinisms no? avri doria:after 3 tries back, avri doria:i think Jim Prendergast:is there a specific day you are looking at? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Maybe those are good topics for Face to Face Anne Aikman-Scalese:THanks Karen Jim Prendergast:see i t in notes Anne Aikman-Scalese:Be there or be square avri doria:24th people are travelling Julie Bisland:Donna, no audio Jim Prendergast:so the plenary on 10/23 will be cancelled? Donna Austin, Neustar:ok, thanks Karen Anne Aikman-Scalese:I think Donna has a pretty good idea about reversing the order here and preparing on GAC topics. Steve Chan:Note, the meeting with the GAC is only 30 minutes. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:makes sense Julie Bisland:Anne: no audio Cheryl Langdon-Orr:audio? Steve Chan:After the 30 minute GAC meeting with WT1 and WT3, the GAC will be talking amongst themselves, though it's an open session for anyone to attend. Donna Austin, Neustar:Given Jeff's examples, I think opening this up will create more problems then its worth. Phil Buckingham:That would be a great idea , Anne Jim Prendergast:if as Jeff said it can be gamed too easily - I think we need to be very very cautious. Roger Carney:@jeff @Jim, talking that one step further, I am not sure the benefits outwiegh the risks/costs Jim Prendergast:they way round 1 went - I would have loved to applied for a bunch of contended tlds. Would have made huge $$$ in private auctions. jeff neuman:@Jim - I know, but in the brands situation I can see areas where changing a string should be allowed Donna Austin, Neustar:@Roger, I don't think any benefit would outweigh the risk/cost. jeff neuman:Lets say a string is found to be "geographic" when no one thought it would be and the GAC objected. I think rather than the Board refusing to delegate anything, perhaps an alternative could be selected Roger Carney:@Donna :) Donna Austin, Neustar:@Roger, I meant to say I agree with you. Alan Greenberg:Can I please be unmuted? jeff neuman:I think we should separate String Similarity from String contention jeff neuman:They are 2 different things Anne Aikman-Scalese:Don't think you should be able to opt out of one string contention set into another. It would have to be an option to go to a clear string that was contemplated by your initial application as a fallback. jeff neuman:The first part is String Similarity (a check against existing strings) jeff neuman:if it is judged to be too similar to an existing string, the application dies Phil Buckingham:Anne , I think we could apply that ( a second choice ) to a closed brand , but would be more difficult , in terms of potential gaming for an open TLD jeff neuman:I am talking about at this stage that a string should be allowed to be changed as opposed to at the "Contention phase" Alan Greenberg:I am muted and cannot unmute myself. Jon Nevett:what if more than one party wanted to swtich to the same alternative TLD? Would that create another contention set? Steve Chan:Sorry Alan, just saw your note. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Rules: 1. you have to specify your alternates up front - max 4 total. You cannot opt into another contention set. (3) There should still be a reasonable relationship between the TLD name and the stated Question 18 purpose of the TLD. avri doria:Jon, I think they would need to agree among themselves with a rule of no new contention produced. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jon, I think it would create another contention set. Alan Greenberg:@Jeff, I did understand and I was (I thought) agreeing with you. jeff neuman:@Alan - yes....i was referring to some others jeff neuman:Does anyone agree with my example? I am not sure how that could be gamed jeff neuman:I am not sure people are happy...but not sure what the alternatives are Jamie Baxter | dotgay:the notion .. yes, the implementation .. no Jim Prendergast:arent we still waiting for CPE review by board? Donna Austin, Neustar:yes we are Jim Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Jim .. yes. we are now a year into the CPE investigation with no clear sight on a result avri doria:i think they may provide a form of gaming. avri doria:i mean private auctions - personal view jeff neuman:how do we prevent private auctions? avri doria:hard to prevent Jon Nevett:private auctions is just one form of contention resolution -- policy question is whether we should support private resolution or not. Jim Prendergast:you could allow for other resolutions - forming JVs wa prohibited last round Phil Buckingham:exactly Jeff . so do we make ALL auctions public ? But what happens to the proceeds in that case ? jeff neuman:Are there ideas on how we could stop private contention resolution avri doria:never understood the preventon of partnerships and joint ventures jeff neuman:The only other option for contention resolution is subjective evaluation..... avri doria:as a contention resolution mechansim Jon Nevett:JVs were permitted by the way -- just couldn't replace an applicant with a JV jeff neuman:@Jon - right....hence why you all created so many new entities Jon Nevett:"It is understood that applicants may seek to establish joint ventures in their efforts to resolve string contention" Donna Austin, Neustar:Was there any context to the GAC input? I think the comments are expressly related to IDN ccTLD Policy. What is the EPSRP? Steve Chan: Extended Process Similarity Review Panel, though I can't speak to the substance of the process. jeff neuman:yes Steve Chan:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_res… Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thought so Donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr:there is some supposed confusability with some scripts lettering. yes Jeff jeff neuman:it looked like .br not be jeff neuman:the cyrillic version of Bulgaria two characters Alan Greenberg:Yes, it was .br jeff neuman:I thought it looked more like 6r Emily Barabas:@Donna, the full text of the GAC comment is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attach… jeff neuman:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_e… Emily Barabas:Unfortunately, no additional context is provided in the document related to this comment Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Emily Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed Alan Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Alan, so its a decision relating to confusability that may be relevant/applicable to our discussions. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:good progress.. thanks everyone ð bye for now... avri doria:bye

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 10 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 10, 2017

Oct. 10, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 10 October. 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 document referenced on the call is attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 10 October 2017 1. Updates to SOI: None. 2. Plenary Update: -- Meeting on 09 October. After going through the work tracks had a discussion on work track 5 in terms of the co-leaders. Decision among the co-chairs and work track leaders: Martin Sutton. Took the decision to the GNSO Council. -- Went through the predictability track. Almost ready for a first reading in the full meeting. Time to bring the three issues to a close to produce draft recommendations. -- Planning for Abu Dhabi. -- Check to see if the full PDP WG meeting is still on for 23 October. 3. Meeting before ICANN#60? Move to week of 17 Oct.? -- Move up the meeting from the week of the 24th to the week of the 16th? Move to the same time 1500 UTC on 17 October? -- With all that we have to cover we need to hold another meeting with whomever is available on the 17th. -- Saving for the face-to-face the topic of communities -- evaluation and priority. Have a dedicated session with the GAC at 10:30-11:00 on Sunday, 29 October on community applications and applicant support. Consider using 17 October meeting to prep -- get guidance from PDP WG Leadership. Steve Chan: After the 30 minute GAC meeting with WT1 and WT3, the GAC will be talking amongst themselves, though it's an open session for anyone to attend. -- No meetings the week of the 23rd as people will be traveling. 4. CC2 — String Similarity — Q 3.4.4 - 3.4.6: 3.4.4 -- Do you believe that there should be some sort of mechanism to allow for a change of applied-for TLD when it is determined to be in contention with one or more other strings? -- ALAC, RySG, BRG, and Afilias opposed allowing applicants to change an applied-for TLD on the basis of contention. -- Valideus supported allowing applicants to name an alternative string at the time of application. Discussion: -- If you were going to allow something like that it would have to be done before any of the string swere made public. The rules would have to be pretty tight. Could see more problems than possible positive outcomes. -- In limited circumstance should consider allowing string to be changed to something similar or applied for. Example: If BC was found similar to BBC -- should allow one or both of them to change to something else. Better example if something applied for is similar to an existing string. Would need some tight rules. -- Wonder if it could be done at the time of application -- choices to be listed. If 1 was in contention fall back to 2. Would it work for the applicant name three or four options? -- Offering the ability to change offers massive opportunities for gaming. At best it should be a very limited set -- a preset list. We would have to think about ways to avoid gaming. -- Where brands might have similar looking names, even if they aren't in contention, if both couldn't go forward maybe one of them or both could have a very limited right to change their strings. -- Having a second choice in your application that you can opt to for avoiding string contention is a legitimate reason to have a backup. -- If it is to resolve string contention, but if you are in string contention and your second choice also is in string contention and that was a weaker contention set that could allow gaming. There needs to be guidance. -- In the policy the intention was that if there was contention those in contention should converse and pick other names in order to proceed. But this was not carried over into implementation. -- There was discussion earlier about gaming but all of the examples are where there is a string similarity problem, which would be initiated by ICANN. -- Two different things: 1) string similarity 2) string contention. At the string similarity stage: if a string was confusingly similar to another string already existing then it dies. If it is to another application then it is put into a contention set. If a company wants something different (instead of dying) it should be allowed. -- Example: .born -- under existing rules .born would not be allowed to exist. If that company could have .borne to be not so similar you coudl go ahead with that. Not talking about trying to avoid an auction, or contention. >From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: Given Jeff's examples, I think opening this up will create more problems then its worth. Phil Buckingham: That would be a great idea , Anne Jim Prendergast: if as Jeff said it can be gamed too easily - I think we need to be very very cautious. Roger Carney: @jeff @Jim, talking that one step further, I am not sure the benefits outwiegh the risks/costs Jim Prendergast: they way round 1 went - I would have loved to applied for a bunch of contended tlds. Would have made huge $$$ in private auctions. jeff neuman: @Jim - I know, but in the brands situation I can see areas where changing a string should be allowed Donna Austin, Neustar: @Roger, I don't think any benefit would outweigh the risk/cost. jeff neuman: Lets say a string is found to be "geographic" when no one thought it would be and the GAC objected. I think rather than the Board refusing to delegate anything, perhaps an alternative could be selected Donna Austin, Neustar: @Roger, I meant to say I agree with you. jeff neuman: I think we should separate String Similarity from String contention jeff neuman: They are 2 different things Anne Aikman-Scalese: Don't think you should be able to opt out of one string contention set into another. It would have to be an option to go to a clear string that was contemplated by your initial application as a fallback. jeff neuman: The first part is String Similarity (a check against existing strings) jeff neuman: if it is judged to be too similar to an existing string, the application dies Phil Buckingham: Anne , I think we could apply that ( a second choice ) to a closed brand , but would be more difficult , in terms of potential gaming for an open TLD jeff neuman: I am talking about at this stage that a string should be allowed to be changed as opposed to at the "Contention phase" Jon Nevett: what if more than one party wanted to swtich to the same alternative TLD? Would that create another contention set? Anne Aikman-Scalese: Rules: 1. you have to specify your alternates up front - max 4 total. You cannot opt into another contention set. (3) There should still be a reasonable relationship between the TLD name and the stated Question 18 purpose of the TLD. avri doria: Jon, I think they would need to agree among themselves with a rule of no new contention produced. avri doria: Jon, I think they would need to agree among themselves with a rule of no new contention produced. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jon, I think it would create another contention set. Alan Greenberg: @Jeff, I did understand and I was (I thought) agreeing with you. 3.4.5 - Do you feel that the contention resolution mechanisms from the 2012 round (i.e. CPE and last-resort auctions) meet the needs of the community in a sufficient manner? -- BRG, RySG, Afilias, and ALAC felt that CPE and last resort auctions are generally a reasonable approach. >From the chat: jeff neuman: I am not sure people are happy...but not sure what the alternatives are Jamie Baxter | dotgay: the notion .. yes, the implementation .. no Jim Prendergast: arent we still waiting for CPE review by board? Donna Austin, Neustar: yes we are Jim Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Jim .. yes. we are now a year into the CPE investigation with no clear sight on a result 3.4.6 -- Do you believe that private auctions (i.e., NOT the auctions of last resort provided by ICANN) resulted from any harm? -- Jim Prendergast, RySG, Afilias, and ALAC stated that private auctions resulted in speculative applications. ALAC favored prohibiting private auctions, while RySG and Afilias preferred other narrowly tailored mechanisms to address speculation. Discussion: -- Not sure how we prevent private auctions. Perhaps you can prevent the overt marketing of private auctions. -- May not be in a position to prevent them, but might be ways to disincentivise them. >From the chat: avri doria: i think they may provide a form of gaming. avri doria: i mean private auctions - personal view jeff neuman: how do we prevent private auctions? avri doria: hard to prevent Jon Nevett: private auctions is just one form of contention resolution -- policy question is whether we should support private resolution or not. Jim Prendergast: you could allow for other resolutions - forming JVs wa prohibited last round Phil Buckingham: exactly Jeff . so do we make ALL auctions public ? But what happens to the proceeds in that case ? jeff neuman: Are there ideas on how we could stop private contention resolution avri doria: never understood the preventon of partnerships and joint ventures jeff neuman: The only other option for contention resolution is subjective evaluation..... avri doria: as a contention resolution mechansim Jon Nevett: JVs were permitted by the way -- just couldn't replace an applicant with a JV jeff neuman: @Jon - right....hence why you all created so many new entities Jon Nevett: "It is understood that applicants may seek to establish joint ventures in their efforts to resolve string contention" 3.4 General Feedback: The GAC submitted an excerpt from the GAC Chair to the ccNSO on 28 September 2016: -- What about the discussion of IDNs from Work Track 4 about certain IDN rights going to a registry that has an English version of a word? -- Was there any context with this general feedback? The overall point is that there are certain IDN characters that could look a lot like ASCII characters. -- There was a situation that took a long time to resolve with an IDN ccTLD. -- There has been a recent disagreement between the ccNSO and SSAC and there were discussion about ways to get around it. An agreement has been reached. We may want to look at that. >From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: Was there any context to the GAC input? I think the comments are expressly related to IDN ccTLD Policy. What is the EPSRP? EPSRP? Steve Chan: Extended Process Similarity Review Panel, though I can't speak to the substance of the process: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/epsrp-reports-2014-10-14-en Cheryl Langdon-Orr: there is some supposed confusability with some scripts lettering. yes Jeff jeff neuman: it looked like .br not be jeff neuman: the cyrillic version of Bulgaria two characters Alan Greenberg: Yes, it was .br jeff neuman: I thought it looked more like 6r Emily Barabas: @Donna, the full text of the GAC comment is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attach… jeff neuman: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/epsrp-bulgaria-30sep14-en.pdf Donna Austin, Neustar: thanks Alan, so its a decision relating to confusability that may be relevant/applicable to our discussions.

1 0