November 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3

**Attached Mp3**, AC Recording, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 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, 28 November 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p89efwas11e/ 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-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rZlEB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 November 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 15:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Karen Day:Morning, Michelle. I'm going to let my headset charge up for another 5 min before I dial in. Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there Karen, good morning to you as well, sounds good! Jamie Baxter | dotgay:sure Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):fair enough Robin Gross:sounds good, Karen Jon Nevett:sounds good Samantha Demetriou:Fine by me :) Emily Barabas:Slides are unsynced Steve Chan:The three drafting teams can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… the bottom of each of the respective pages, you' fndl the current working document for each topic Jim Prendergast:link doesnt work Jim Prendergast:at least for me Steve Chan:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.o… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I apologize - i have not had time to read Mark's summary yet. Steve Chan:@Jim, rhere was a period at the end of the URL - I guess it got integrated into the link? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Are you linking to Mark's summary? I can't make ttha link work. Jim Prendergast:that worked Steve Chan:@Anne, you can find the Mark Carvell summary on the Wiki page here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Steve Chan:FYI, we are on slide 5 Donna Austin, Neustar:is that 75% figure accurate? Michael Flemming:Does the paper attempt to define the public interest? Apologies as I have not yet been able to read it yet either? Michael Flemming:.* Donna Austin, Neustar:What's the status of the CPE Review? Emily Barabas:@Donna, a summary document of community application is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Donna .. we've been trying to get info on the CPE review, but all we know at this point is that Scope 1 results were delivered to ICANN several weeks ago and that Scope 2 findings should have been delivered at this point. Jon Nevett:Did the GAC approve the paper or is it a committee of interested GAC members? Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Jamie Steve Chan:According to Emily's link, 5 Prevailed CPE and 21 Did not Prevail. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: THanks Steve for the link. I have the same QUESTION as Jon Nevett re this summary - Is this paper approved by GAC? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks Jamie Steve Chan:@Jon, Anne, I'm not sure actually. What I do know is that they consider the paper factual in nature (e.g., statistics and a collection of GAC Advice) and will, or already have, posted on the GAC site. Trang Nguyen:There were 84 applications that were designated as community applications. Of these 51 have been delegated. Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks for the data Trang Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):no reply that I am aware of Trang Nguyen:84 community applications. 51 delegated. 16 withdrawn. 4 in progress. 11 on-hold. 1 not approved. 1 will not proceed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):it is a piece of GAC work Emily Barabas:note, the above referenced spreadsheet only covers CPE results, which explains the discrepancy Jon Nevett:so let's not call it GAC Advice in our deck Alan Greenberg:I believe that it was approved by the GAC but will ask. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Mark holds the pen Jamie Baxter | dotgay:Of the community designated applications, only 5 actually passed CPE Jon Nevett:That has a formal meaning Donna Austin, Neustar:GAC input Jamie Baxter | dotgay:The pieces noted as GAC advise were actual elements of GAC advise duirng prior ICANN meetings. Jon Nevett:Combined with other input Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jon it is a review and status of GAC Advice on the topic, it is meant to be of assistance to our work Robin Gross:Unless we have confirmation that this is truly GAC Advice, we should consider this as GAC input (which discusses Advise). Susan Payne:Apologies if this has already been explained - is the first part of Mark's paper a summary of the Council of Europe report or something else? Alan Greenberg:As far as I know, GAC "ADVICE" only has specific meaning when directed at the Board. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):correct Alan Robin Gross:That is also my understanding, Alan. Robin Gross:So let's not muddy the water by calling this GAC Advice, if it isn't that specific thing. Robin Gross:I didn't hear any argument for changing the title of the document. Karen Day:@Robin Jon asked that I not call it advice in our deck Karen Day:that is what got the conversation going Susan Payne:@Alan, I think we need to be clear that it is advice. It has been referred to as Mark Carvell's document - has it actually been adopted by the full GAC and submitted as advice (some of it is not a summary of past advice). I don't know the answer to that, it seems unclear and we need clarification Jon Nevett:Getting to the substance. Am I reading this right? So under this input if some users of Banks had gotten together and applied for .BANK as a community applicant, they would have gotten .BANK over the current registry operator of .BANK as they are a collection of commercial entities? Alan Greenberg:I have asked the GAC Chair whether this document was formally approved by the GAC. Donna Austin, Neustar:If this has been attached to a communique then we should consider it advice, but what we probably should understand is how does that impact how we consider that advice. It doesn't necessarily mean that we have to accept it, but we should provide explanation as to why we did not accept it. Robin Gross:Completely agree, Donna Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Is there any reason why we couldn't as a Work Team write to Mark with clarifying questions (e.g., status of doc within GAC, answer to Jon's question, etc.)? I realize the fact that he's rotating out as UK GAC rep may complicate logistics, but it should be possible to have reasonable questions answered. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I will reach out to Mark and the GAC via the secretary to clarify some of your questions Alan Greenberg:@Jon, the operator of .bank DID designate that their application was a community application. Jon Nevett:@alan I was talking about two competing .BANK applicants Jon Nevett:two competing .BANK community applicants Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):and discussion on what constitutes Community as well as if there are class differences on how any preferences are given needs discussion and development Alan Greenberg:If there had been a 2nd application that was not withdrawn, then the community application would have taken precedence *IF* it had passed the CPE. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes exactly Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:so, if the CPE stays, an additional point might be in the offing for a non-commercial community? Robin Gross:That was my understanding as well, Jeff. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Jeff .. I have the same understanding Jon Nevett:Jeff, that is the scenario I am talking about -- two competing community applicants -- do we give preference to one over the other in the evaluation process because one is commercial and one isn't Emily Barabas:Full text of responses is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Emily Barabas:The CC2 Themes document is available at the bottom of this wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Emily Barabas:We are now at the top of page 2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jamie greater predictability Jamie Baxter | dotgay:missed the call last night, but will listed to the recording today. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:I am not sure an Ian Mplementation Team would have authority over an Evaluation Panel? Does that seem obvious to others? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):all good Jeff Neuman:Things that go to a "Standing Panel" would have general applicability, and would not be geared towards individual applications. But as Karen says, if there are questions of general applicability, that could be a topic for a standing panel Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to drop. Thanks all. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:If you go that direction, you make the Standing IRT the appeals Board for the determination in Community Priority Evaluation. Not really appropriate. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):top of the hour but we waited for more to join a Few minutes extension seems reasonable Karen Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):good point Alan Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:Guidelines should be published before next round. Jon Nevett:Agree with Jamie here -- goes to predictability Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):we have opportunity to look at and hopefully redress that now Jamie Donna Austin, Neustar:need to drop. Thanks Karen Jamie Baxter | dotgay:big lesson here .. community applicate processes cannot be an afterthought Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:Thank you Karen, Cheryl et al. Have a good day - and Cheryl hope you can get back to sleep! Robin Gross:+1 to using our mailing list to advance this discussion in the next two weeks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thank you all lots covered today (more to do of course) Thanks everyone. Thanks Karen, bye for now ðŸ‘‹ Robin Gross:Thanks Karen and all, bye! Emily Barabas:I believe the next call is actually 20:00 on the 12th Karen Day:thanks! Michael Flemming:thx

1 0

AC Recording, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 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, 28 November 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p89efwas11e/ 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/rZlEB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 November 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 15:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Karen Day:Morning, Michelle. I'm going to let my headset charge up for another 5 min before I dial in. Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there Karen, good morning to you as well, sounds good! Jamie Baxter | dotgay:sure Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):fair enough Robin Gross:sounds good, Karen Jon Nevett:sounds good Samantha Demetriou:Fine by me :) Emily Barabas:Slides are unsynced Steve Chan:The three drafting teams can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… the bottom of each of the respective pages, you' fndl the current working document for each topic Jim Prendergast:link doesnt work Jim Prendergast:at least for me Steve Chan:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.o… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I apologize - i have not had time to read Mark's summary yet. Steve Chan:@Jim, rhere was a period at the end of the URL - I guess it got integrated into the link? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Are you linking to Mark's summary? I can't make ttha link work. Jim Prendergast:that worked Steve Chan:@Anne, you can find the Mark Carvell summary on the Wiki page here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Steve Chan:FYI, we are on slide 5 Donna Austin, Neustar:is that 75% figure accurate? Michael Flemming:Does the paper attempt to define the public interest? Apologies as I have not yet been able to read it yet either? Michael Flemming:.* Donna Austin, Neustar:What's the status of the CPE Review? Emily Barabas:@Donna, a summary document of community application is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Donna .. we've been trying to get info on the CPE review, but all we know at this point is that Scope 1 results were delivered to ICANN several weeks ago and that Scope 2 findings should have been delivered at this point. Jon Nevett:Did the GAC approve the paper or is it a committee of interested GAC members? Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Jamie Steve Chan:According to Emily's link, 5 Prevailed CPE and 21 Did not Prevail. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: THanks Steve for the link. I have the same QUESTION as Jon Nevett re this summary - Is this paper approved by GAC? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks Jamie Steve Chan:@Jon, Anne, I'm not sure actually. What I do know is that they consider the paper factual in nature (e.g., statistics and a collection of GAC Advice) and will, or already have, posted on the GAC site. Trang Nguyen:There were 84 applications that were designated as community applications. Of these 51 have been delegated. Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks for the data Trang Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):no reply that I am aware of Trang Nguyen:84 community applications. 51 delegated. 16 withdrawn. 4 in progress. 11 on-hold. 1 not approved. 1 will not proceed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):it is a piece of GAC work Emily Barabas:note, the above referenced spreadsheet only covers CPE results, which explains the discrepancy Jon Nevett:so let's not call it GAC Advice in our deck Alan Greenberg:I believe that it was approved by the GAC but will ask. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Mark holds the pen Jamie Baxter | dotgay:Of the community designated applications, only 5 actually passed CPE Jon Nevett:That has a formal meaning Donna Austin, Neustar:GAC input Jamie Baxter | dotgay:The pieces noted as GAC advise were actual elements of GAC advise duirng prior ICANN meetings. Jon Nevett:Combined with other input Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jon it is a review and status of GAC Advice on the topic, it is meant to be of assistance to our work Robin Gross:Unless we have confirmation that this is truly GAC Advice, we should consider this as GAC input (which discusses Advise). Susan Payne:Apologies if this has already been explained - is the first part of Mark's paper a summary of the Council of Europe report or something else? Alan Greenberg:As far as I know, GAC "ADVICE" only has specific meaning when directed at the Board. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):correct Alan Robin Gross:That is also my understanding, Alan. Robin Gross:So let's not muddy the water by calling this GAC Advice, if it isn't that specific thing. Robin Gross:I didn't hear any argument for changing the title of the document. Karen Day:@Robin Jon asked that I not call it advice in our deck Karen Day:that is what got the conversation going Susan Payne:@Alan, I think we need to be clear that it is advice. It has been referred to as Mark Carvell's document - has it actually been adopted by the full GAC and submitted as advice (some of it is not a summary of past advice). I don't know the answer to that, it seems unclear and we need clarification Jon Nevett:Getting to the substance. Am I reading this right? So under this input if some users of Banks had gotten together and applied for .BANK as a community applicant, they would have gotten .BANK over the current registry operator of .BANK as they are a collection of commercial entities? Alan Greenberg:I have asked the GAC Chair whether this document was formally approved by the GAC. Donna Austin, Neustar:If this has been attached to a communique then we should consider it advice, but what we probably should understand is how does that impact how we consider that advice. It doesn't necessarily mean that we have to accept it, but we should provide explanation as to why we did not accept it. Robin Gross:Completely agree, Donna Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Is there any reason why we couldn't as a Work Team write to Mark with clarifying questions (e.g., status of doc within GAC, answer to Jon's question, etc.)? I realize the fact that he's rotating out as UK GAC rep may complicate logistics, but it should be possible to have reasonable questions answered. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I will reach out to Mark and the GAC via the secretary to clarify some of your questions Alan Greenberg:@Jon, the operator of .bank DID designate that their application was a community application. Jon Nevett:@alan I was talking about two competing .BANK applicants Jon Nevett:two competing .BANK community applicants Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):and discussion on what constitutes Community as well as if there are class differences on how any preferences are given needs discussion and development Alan Greenberg:If there had been a 2nd application that was not withdrawn, then the community application would have taken precedence *IF* it had passed the CPE. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes exactly Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:so, if the CPE stays, an additional point might be in the offing for a non-commercial community? Robin Gross:That was my understanding as well, Jeff. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Jeff .. I have the same understanding Jon Nevett:Jeff, that is the scenario I am talking about -- two competing community applicants -- do we give preference to one over the other in the evaluation process because one is commercial and one isn't Emily Barabas:Full text of responses is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Emily Barabas:The CC2 Themes document is available at the bottom of this wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Emily Barabas:We are now at the top of page 2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jamie greater predictability Jamie Baxter | dotgay:missed the call last night, but will listed to the recording today. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:I am not sure an Ian Mplementation Team would have authority over an Evaluation Panel? Does that seem obvious to others? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):all good Jeff Neuman:Things that go to a "Standing Panel" would have general applicability, and would not be geared towards individual applications. But as Karen says, if there are questions of general applicability, that could be a topic for a standing panel Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to drop. Thanks all. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:If you go that direction, you make the Standing IRT the appeals Board for the determination in Community Priority Evaluation. Not really appropriate. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):top of the hour but we waited for more to join a Few minutes extension seems reasonable Karen Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):good point Alan Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:Guidelines should be published before next round. Jon Nevett:Agree with Jamie here -- goes to predictability Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):we have opportunity to look at and hopefully redress that now Jamie Donna Austin, Neustar:need to drop. Thanks Karen Jamie Baxter | dotgay:big lesson here .. community applicate processes cannot be an afterthought Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:Thank you Karen, Cheryl et al. Have a good day - and Cheryl hope you can get back to sleep! Robin Gross:+1 to using our mailing list to advance this discussion in the next two weeks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thank you all lots covered today (more to do of course) Thanks everyone. Thanks Karen, bye for now ðŸ‘‹ Robin Gross:Thanks Karen and all, bye! Emily Barabas:I believe the next call is actually 20:00 on the 12th Karen Day:thanks! Michael Flemming:thx

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 28 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 28 November. 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 documents referenced on the call are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 28 November 2017 Action Items: The Working Group will provide questions for Cheryl Langdon-Orr to bring to the GAC. Question from 28 November call: Could a commercially-based community application ever be considered a community application? But, note that unless the GAC has given advice on this question they may not be able to answer the question. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: None. 2. Plenary Update: -- Met on 28 November. -- Discussed the drafting team activities -- predictability framework. -- Made good progress in getting the plenary members to indicate that there was value in further exploring the idea of a standing committee as an implementation method. -- More work to be done. WG members should look at the Google Doc: Predictability Framework https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8… 2. Continuing our discussions on Community Based Applications and Community Priority Evaluations -- paper prepared by Mark Carvell, UK GAC representative, concerning GAC advice to date on Community Based Applications: Slide 4: GAC Views & Advice Relating to Community Applications -- Lack of clarity relates to lack of a clear definition of what is a "community". -- Support communities and community prioritization, but we have work to do to define communites. Slide 5: Issues of Public Interest Concern Identified by the GAC -- Concern about community-based applicants going up against "wholly commercially-based applicants". -- High bar for community-based applicants against commercially-based applicants. -- Costly delays from Reconsideration Requests, Cooperative Engagement Process, and Independent Review Process Panel. Discussion: -- 75% could encompass other rejections than CPE that failed for other reasons. Such as applicants that weren't in contention. -- Is this GAC Advice? This is a compilation and status of GAC Advice on community applications -- linked to the relevant formal GAC Advice. -- Summary is observations of those interested in this topic. Can we have a frank discussion about community interests losing out to commercial interests? -- In the summary the internet users seem to be left behind in the process, or the community members standing behind that application. -- Consensus is that we should retitle the slide deck and call it GAC input relating to community applications. -- If the GAC calls this advice then it is advice. -- In Mark's document he calls out the advice given to the Board through the Communiques -- you can see the long list of reiterations around the equal treatment of applications and a number of elements. Slide 6: Previous GAC statements and advice in support of community-based applications on public interest grounds. -- Due preference given to applications with demonstrable community support. -- Consistent application of criteria when assessing community applications. -- Community evaluation processes will be improved in light of experiences of some community applicants in the recent round. -- Council of Europe on community applications will be considered by the WG. -- Question for the GAC: Could a commercially-based community application ever be considered a community application? But, note that unless the GAC has given advice on this question they may not be able to answer the question. >From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: is that 75% figure accurate? Michael Flemming: Does the paper attempt to define the public interest? Apologies as I have not yet been able to read it yet either? Michael Flemming: .* Donna Austin, Neustar: What's the status of the CPE Review? Emily Barabas: @Donna, a summary document of community application is available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735963/Community%20Appli… amie Baxter | dotgay: @Donna .. we've been trying to get info on the CPE review, but all we know at this point is that Scope 1 results were delivered to ICANN several weeks ago and that Scope 2 findings should have been delivered at this point. Jon Nevett: Did the GAC approve the paper or is it a committee of interested GAC members? Donna Austin, Neustar: Thanks Jamie Steve Chan: According to Emily's link, 5 Prevailed CPE and 21 Did not Prevail. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Thanks Steve for the link. I have the same QUESTION as Jon Nevett re this summary - Is this paper approved by GAC? Steve Chan: @Jon, Anne, I'm not sure actually. What I do know is that they consider the paper factual in nature (e.g., statistics and a collection of GAC Advice) and will, or already have, posted on the GAC site. Trang Nguyen: There were 84 applications that were designated as community applications. Of these 51 have been delegated. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): thanks for the data Trang Trang Nguyen: 84 community applications. 51 delegated. 16 withdrawn. 4 in progress. 11 on-hold. 1 not approved. 1 will not proceed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): it is a piece of GAC work Emily Barabas: note, the above referenced spreadsheet only covers CPE results, which explains the discrepancy >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Is there any reason why we couldn't as a Work Team write to Mark with clarifying questions (e.g., status of doc within GAC, answer to Jon's question, etc.)? I realize the fact that he's rotating out as UK GAC rep may complicate logistics, but it should be possible to have reasonable questions answered. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I will reach out to Mark and the GAC via the secretary to clarify some of your questions 3. Continuing our discussions on Community Based Applications and Community Priority Evaluations from CC2 comments: Full text of responses is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… 3.3.1 Do you believe that the implementation and delivery of CPE were consistent with the policy recommendations and implementation guidance provided by the GNSO? If no, do you have suggested improvements to either the policy/implementation guidance or implementation? -- ALAC support adopted preferential pricing and considering Community applications for preferential pricing. -- RYSG and Afilias suggested a Community priority approach that is not "all or nothing". -- NCSG recommended improving transparency. -- Jannik Skous suggested eliinating the community application type. 3.3.2 There is a general sentiment amongst many in the community that the CPE process did not provide consistency and predictability in the 2012 round. Do you believe this was the case and, if so, do you have examples or evidence of these issues? -- dotgay LLC, Afilias, RySG, and ALAC provided examples of issues with consistency and predictability. -- dotgay LLC, Afilias, and RySG provided suggestions for improving consistency and predictability. 3.3.3 Do you believe there is a need for community priority, or a similar mechanism, in subsequent procedures? Do you believe that it can be designed in such a fashion as to produce results that are predictable, consistent, and acceptable to all parties to CPE? -- ALAC responded that CPE is still reasonable if properly implemented. -- dotgay LLC suggested including review and evaluation of Public Interest Commitments in the CPE or another phase of the Program, and if deemed important for the community, then they should be required for any operator of the gTLD. -- vTLD Consortium, NABP recommended providing clarity on the public interest values Community TLDs are intended to serve. -- Afilias and RySG provided suggestions to reduce the possibility of gaming. -- Jim Prendergast responded that it is premature to make recommendations on this topic until the investigation undertaken by the ICANN CEO is complete. Discussion: -- Keep coming back to the definition of communities. The AGB provided guidelines on who was eligible, but there there were new guidelines in the CPE process. Drove a type of community application over others. -- Guidebook was very clear, but that shifted as CPE guidelines were published after applications were submitted. -- Overarching issue with predictability in the process -- proposal for an implementation team for subsequent rounds that would ensure that policy is implemented in the way it was written. -- Not sure that the predictability framework proposal would go to the issue of whether you are a community application or not. -- Where it could align is where you set up an evaluation panel and they start to set up their rules and they start adding words on how they are going to evaluate who fits the definition of community -- that sounds like implementation. -- Could go either way, depending on the words we put around it. If we want it covered we should explicitly say so. -- There was really no reason to wait for the CPE to publish their guidelines after applications were submitted. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Things that go to a "Standing Panel" would have general applicability, and would not be geared towards individual applications. But as Karen says, if there are questions of general applicability, that could be a topic for a standing panel Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2: If you go that direction, you make the Standing IRT the appeals Board for the determination in Community Priority Evaluation. Not really appropriate. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2: Guidelines should be published before next round. Jon Nevett: Agree with Jamie here -- goes to predictability Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): we have opportunity to look at and hopefully redress that now Jamie

1 0

Paper from UK on Community Based Applications & agenda for November 28, 2017
by Karen Day Nov. 22, 2017

Nov. 22, 2017

Dear WT 3 members, Our next regularly scheduled meeting will be on Tuesday, November 28th at 15:00 UTC and in accordance with our schedule (a copy is attached for your files) we will be continuing our discussions on Community Based Applications and Community Priority Evaluations. Also attached for your review prior to the meeting is a paper prepared by Mark Carvell, UK GAC representative, concerning GAC advice to date on Community Based Applications. With regard to our work plan, after some questions arose during the WT2 call yesterday and further discussion on our PDP Leadership call this morning, I wanted to lay out for you the way we envision conquering this rather aggressive schedule: We will discuss our topics during the calls in and between the columns labeled 'Begin Deliberation' and 'Coalesce Opinions'. Your co-leads have taken (with grateful help from staff) a goal to have circulated at least a rough written topic summary prior to the 'Coalesce Opinions' call. At the 'Call for Objections' meeting and an period of approximately 5-10 days after, we will take up objections to the summaries of positions/options as presented. As soon as practicable after each 'Call for Objections' period we will circulate a draft of what we are proposing to send up to the plenary for their consideration. During these times when drafts are circulated it will be incumbent on us all to participate by expressing our opinions via the email list or in the Google Docs as we won't have the luxury of time and waiting until the next call. The 'Refine Report' meeting on March 6th will then be, hopefully, just that - last minute refinements to the report that we will send up to the plenary at the end of the week. I will leave you then, with wishes for a safe and happy Thanksgiving for those in the US and an enjoyable weekend for those in other part of the world. Best regards, Karen

1 0

AC Recording, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 14 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 14, 2017

Nov. 14, 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, 14 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1jnhe8jmgk/ 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/qZlEB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 November 2017 Michelle DeSmyter: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 14 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter: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 Gg Levine (NABP):I will switch to audio only in 25 minutes. Tijani BEN JEMAA:Hi everyone Aslam G Mohamed:Hi everyone. Tijani BEN JEMAA:my first call Karen Day:Hi all, a gentle reminder to please mute if you are not speaking Jeff Neuman:i defer to Cheryl Jeff Neuman:Having mic issues Jeff Neuman:nope Aslam G Mohamed 2:there is an echo Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):ah that's a technical issue not a defer then Jeff ðŸ˜Š Jeff Neuman:its both Jeff Neuman:Yes we will have to be proactive and aggressive Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):That comes more naturally to some of us than others. ;-) Alan Greenberg:;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):perhaps reaching out to the wider community Jeff Neuman:@Kristina - I resemble that remark Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):offer briefing and webinars watch., Krishna Seeburn - Kris:+1 jamie and alan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jamie Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):important to try that again Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i guess the word is outreach Jeff Neuman:We have been trying, but it would help if you all know of people that are no longer participating that you can direct us to Karen Day:@Jamie we tried to socialize CC@ questions to Community applicanants but as Robin notes many are reluctant to speak until the review is complete Karen Day:sorry CC2 questions Jamie Baxter | dotgay:i think that the CPE website lists all those who went through the process and their contact info should still be listed on the Applicant website. Jeff Neuman:@Jamie - True, but we are reluctant to use that website to reach out to those in an unsolicited manner. Thus, if anyone knows them and can facilitate the communication, the better Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I'm happy to reach out to those I may have met along the way. Who should I ask them to reach back to? Jeff Neuman:If we were to have categories of communities, would we have different criteria? Krishna Seeburn - Kris:perhaps we can get a list of previous people and talk to them Gg Levine (NABP):How would the priveleges differ by category? Robin Gross:Gg, that would be for us to decide. Donna Austin, Neustar:What's the distinction between a community category and other categories? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yet to be determined I guess Donna Kurt Pritz 2:I think Anne's comments demonstrates the unworkability of this group trying to determine a priori how to accommodate the purposes of yet-to-be borne TLDs. Rather than create categories before the round, it’d be better to create a process for forgiving contractual conditions depending on the purpose of the application (and not the identity of the applicant). Emily Barabas:@Jaime, I just sent you a private message about points of contact regarding feedback on CPE. Thanks! Donna Austin, Neustar:agree with Kurt's comment Jeff Neuman:@Kurt - I dont believe we are talking about contractual forgiveness, but rather forgiveness of rigid criteria in the application process Jeff Neuman:and for that, we cannot adopt a wait and see approach Jeff Neuman:But perhaps there needs to be a closer association between the string and the community Kurt Pritz 2:@ Jeff: As an example, Aren't brands forgiven from the Code of Conduct contractual condition? Haven't we spoken about reduced registry fees for brands or not-for-profits? Jeff Neuman:I think Jon Nevett made a good comment during one of the sessions which stuck with me Jeff Neuman:Its not that we are trying to make it difficult for communities....but perhaps the string should be closer related to the community Kurt Pritz 2:The American Bowlers Association might object to the American Bar Association getting .ABA - it is very difficult to fix Jeff Neuman:Kurt, we can always think of those examples, but both could apply for those TLDs as communities and then work through contention Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Jeff ... it sounds good in theory, but in practice it got completely twisted in practice. When the world knows and refers to the "gay community" in every aspect of reality as the "gay community", but that community cannot secure .GAY in CPE then serious questions are raised. Donna Austin, Neustar:Isn't that what CPE was designed for? Jon Nevett:I think that the registries recommended that a community that meets a certain level of criteria, it gets some benefit (e.g. some multiplier at auction) and if they meet a higher level, they get the TLD outright. Jon Nevett:this way Navajo nation gets .navajo outright, but ABA doesn't necessarily get .law, but maybe gets some benefit Jeff Neuman:We have that option Jeff Neuman:Lets be precise Jeff Neuman:Can someone get the 2008 Final report which was passed by the GNSO Steve Chan:@Jeff, here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu… Jeff Neuman:Right....the GNSO did not define which communities it was targeting Donna Austin, Neustar:Only in terms of going through CPE Jamie Baxter | dotgay:that is correct Robyn ken stubbs:definitions are still vague here. especiall if you have groups of "groups" Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):We (GNSO Council at the time) intentionally interpreted community broadly. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):IG P: "community should be interpreted broadly and will include, for example, an economic sector, a cultural community, or a linguistic community. It may be a closely related community which believes it is impacted." Jeff Neuman:The GNSO defined a community only for purposes of filing objections Jeff Neuman:but not in terms of what would qualify as a community for purposes of priority Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Time to dust off the AGB redlines. Jeff Neuman:To clarify, the GAC did not support the recommendations of the report. Infact, I think I asked them to be specific identify which recommendations of the report they supported and which they did not Tom Dale:Jeff, that is correct. What GAC agreed was that the recommendations should go to the PDP as an input/resource. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Council of Europe refers to this definition: "Anky groups of individuals or any legal entities brought together in order to collectively act, express, promote, pursue or defend a filed of common interests". Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair) 2:Co-Chair hat off I prefer the variable approach over the "one size fits all" one.... ken stubbs:key here is the definition of what constitutes a "community" under the terms of the guidebook (incredibly political here) Donna Austin, Neustar:a variable approach gets tricky when you have two applicants from different community sectors applying for the same string ken stubbs:+1 donna ken stubbs:example = INTA a.https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__inta.gob.ar_&d=DwIFa… b. inta.org Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Problems with evaluators could be why we have problems. In other words, it may be the panel process, not the definition of Community. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I agree with Robin that a lack of direction was a problem Jon Nevett:I agree with Robin -- we need to have a clear definition Jeff Neuman:Rather than thinking of it as a "variable approach" could we think of it as a sliding scale Donna Austin, Neustar:i think the implementation of CPE and some of the difficult to understand decisions was what created the problems. Paul McGrady:Thanks Robin. Well run! ken stubbs:adios folks ! Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair) 2:thanks Robin, thanks everyone.. bye ðŸ‘‹ for now Karen Day:Thanks, All. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Donna re CPE evalution Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Donna re CPE evalution'

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 14 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 14, 2017

Nov. 14, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 14 November. 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 documents referenced on the call are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 14 November 2017 1. Updates to SOI: None. 2. Plenary Update: -- Had a meeting on 13 November -- first since ICANN60. -- Work Track 5 will kick off on 15 November at 20:00 UTC. Opening for volunteers runs to 20 November. -- Reviewed the very aggressive time line working back from the Final Report. 3. Proposed Work Plan for WT3 Through March 2018 -- Still in deliberations. -- Coalese opinions (Dec-Feb) -- Call for objections (Jan-Feb) -- Refine report (Mar) -- Present to plenary (Mar) Discussion: -- Question: How to bring in people from the community who might not be participating now so that their opinions can be heard now, rather than later? -- Reach out to the community applicant who had dropped out of the process, or who were not successful, to understand what their challenges were. Did get some feedback from some, but not much. >From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): perhaps reaching out to the wider community Jeff Neuman: @Kristina - I resemble that remark Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): offer briefing and webinars watch., Krishna Seeburn - Kris: +1 jamie and alan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): yes Jamie Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): important to try that again Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i guess the word is outreach Jeff Neuman: We have been trying, but it would help if you all know of people that are no longer participating that you can direct us to Karen Day: @Jamie we tried to socialize CC@ questions to Community applicants but as Robin notes many are reluctant to speak until the review is complete Karen Day: sorry CC2 questions Jamie Baxter | dotgay: i think that the CPE website lists all those who went through the process and their contact info should still be listed on the Applicant website. Jeff Neuman: @Jamie - True, but we are reluctant to use that website to reach out to those in an unsolicited manner. Thus, if anyone knows them and can facilitate the communication, the better Jamie Baxter | dotgay: I'm happy to reach out to those I may have met along the way. Who should I ask them to reach back to? 4. Continued Discussion of “Community” Applications -- Categories of Communities: -- There are people with strong feelings and somehow we need to investigate them. -- Maybe we should put out a strawperson document with suggested categories. -- Concern if the category just relates to the nature of the applicant. More to the purpose of the TLD. -- Based on the AGB when communities applied it seemed more welcoming to all types of communities, but then it seemed to get skewed with how do we deal with an industry approach on communities. Should explore this a little more. -- Ask the purpose of the TLD and decide if that is enough to be placed in a category. -- Who gets to decide who is a member of a community? -- What Thomas/GAC is getting at when the GAC was discussing the concept of communities they were discussing it in terms of cultural communities, but in the last round we seemed to have more industry-based communities. Perhaps certain requirements should be more stringent for those that are seeking a community that is socio-economic, cultural, geographic. We should discuss if more stringent requirements would produce a desirable result. -- Don't think we can treat all communities the same way. -- Example: solar energy -- could seek a solar energy industry TLD as a community application -- seems that it has to be a case-by-case basis, but how to do that without getting into content-based analysis. -- We are not trying to make it difficult for communities to apply. We want to encourage communities -- but it doesn't mean that they could apply for a generic string and then get favorable treatment. What happened in the last round communities came together and applied for the most generic strings. -- Maybe the way to fix it is to discourage community applicants from over-reaching and applying for such a large piece of real estate that they would fence it off for other legitimate uses. -- This is not dissimilar to the discussion on applicant support -- distinguishing between the haves and the have nots. The applicants that don't have the resources to compete in an auction situation we must find a way to support them in the criteria for applicant support. -- May want to have a recommendation that underprivileged applications should have applicant support if they meet the criteria. -- It is not only about helping those that may not have the resources it is also about ensuring that parties that the public believe should have a TLD should get that resource. -- We should try to swing the pendulum back to the original principle that there should be a preference for communities. -- The policy is that communities should be interpreted broadly -- cultural, economic, or linguistic -- would we change that? -- Could define it more clearly? -- We may well end up changing the exact words in the policy. What do we mean by "community"? Could also be used like "family". If that is what we are talking about then we need to craft words that allow them to succeed. -- If is an international group representing interests wouldn't that get priority over an individual applicant? That is the understanding. -- Could look at the definition of communities in the Council of Europe report given the GAC's support of that report. -- The GAC hasn't support the report, but has acknowledged it and discussed it. Asked the GAC if they could let us know which recommendations they support and which they don't. There were some radical proposals. -- Mark Carvell is working on a draft GAC paper on community applications. -- It may be more appropriate for ICANN to look at if you have a good purpose in relation to applicant support, as distinguish from evaluating for community TLDs. So, no content judgment on community applications. -- We cannot put on the same level a community of business as linguistic, cultural, etc. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: If we were to have categories of communities, would we have different criteria? Krishna Seeburn - Kris: perhaps we can get a list of previous people and talk to them Gg Levine (NABP): How would the privileges differ by category? Robin Gross: Gg, that would be for us to decide. Donna Austin, Neustar: What's the distinction between a community category and other categories? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): yet to be determined I guess Donna Kurt Pritz 2: I think Anne's comments demonstrates the unworkability of this group trying to determine a priori how to accommodate the purposes of yet-to-be borne TLDs. Rather than create categories before the round, it’d be better to create a process for forgiving contractual conditions depending on the purpose of the application (and not the identity of the applicant). Donna Austin, Neustar: agree with Kurt's comment Jeff Neuman: @Kurt - I dont believe we are talking about contractual forgiveness, but rather forgiveness of rigid criteria in the application process Jeff Neuman: and for that, we cannot adopt a wait and see approach Jeff Neuman: But perhaps there needs to be a closer association between the string and the community Kurt Pritz 2: @ Jeff: As an example, Aren't brands forgiven from the Code of Conduct contractual condition? Haven't we spoken about reduced registry fees for brands or not-for-profits? Jeff Neuman: I think Jon Nevett made a good comment during one of the sessions which stuck with me Jeff Neuman: Its not that we are trying to make it difficult for communities....but perhaps the string should be closer related to the community Kurt Pritz 2: The American Bowlers Association might object to the American Bar Association getting .ABA - it is very difficult to fix Jeff Neuman: Kurt, we can always think of those examples, but both could apply for those TLDs as communities and then work through contention Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Jeff ... it sounds good in theory, but in practice it got completely twisted in practice. When the world knows and refers to the "gay community" in every aspect of reality as the "gay community", but that community cannot secure .GAY in CPE then serious questions are raised. Donna Austin, Neustar: Isn't that what CPE was designed for? Jon Nevett: I think that the registries recommended that a community that meets a certain level of criteria, it gets some benefit (e.g. some multiplier at auction) and if they meet a higher level, they get the TLD outright. Jon Nevett: this way Navajo nation gets .navajo outright, but ABA doesn't necessarily get .law, but maybe gets some benefit Jeff Neuman: We have that option Jeff Neuman: Can someone get the 2008 Final report which was passed by the GNSO Steve Chan: @Jeff, here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm Jeff Neuman: Right....the GNSO did not define which communities it was targeting Donna Austin, Neustar: Only in terms of going through CPE Jamie Baxter | dotgay: that is correct Robyn ken stubbs: definitions are still vague here. especiall if you have groups of "groups" Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): We (GNSO Council at the time) intentionally interpreted community broadly. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): IG P: "community should be interpreted broadly and will include, for example, an economic sector, a cultural community, or a linguistic community. It may be a closely related community which believes it is impacted." Jeff Neuman: The GNSO defined a community only for purposes of filing objections Jeff Neuman: but not in terms of what would qualify as a community for purposes of priority Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Time to dust off the AGB redlines. Jeff Neuman: To clarify, the GAC did not support the recommendations of the report. In fact, I think I asked them to be specific identify which recommendations of the report they supported and which they did not Tom Dale: Jeff, that is correct. What GAC agreed was that the recommendations should go to the PDP as an input/resource. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Council of Europe refers to this definition: "Any groups of individuals or any legal entities brought together in order to collectively act, express, promote, pursue or defend a filed of common interests". Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair) 2: Co-Chair hat off I prefer the variable approach over the "one size fits all" one.... ken stubbs: key here is the definition of what constitutes a "community" under the terms of the guidebook (incredibly political here) Donna Austin, Neustar: a variable approach gets tricky when you have two applicants from different community sectors applying for the same string ken stubbs: +1 donna ken stubbs: example = INTA a.https://inta.gob.ar/ b. inta.org Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Problems with evaluators could be why we have problems. In other words, it may be the panel process, not the definition of Community. Jon Nevett: I agree with Robin -- we need to have a clear definition Jeff Neuman: Rather than thinking of it as a "variable approach" could we think of it as a sliding scale Donna Austin, Neustar: i think the implementation of CPE and some of the difficult to understand decisions was what created the problems.

1 0

Agenda and Materials for WT3 call on 14 November @ 20:00 UTC on COMMUNITY APPLICATIONS
by Robin Gross Nov. 13, 2017

Nov. 13, 2017

All, In preparation for our WT3 call tomorrow, Tuesday, 14 November 2017 @ 20:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed discussion agenda. We will continue and build on our discussion from ICANN #60 on the topic of Community Applications. I hope you will join the discussion. Thank you. Best, Robin Discussion Agenda 1. Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI 3. Plenary Update 5. Proposed Work Plan for WT3 Through March 2018 6. Continued Discussion of “Community” Applications (details below) A. Categories of Communities? B. Review of Community Comment 2 (CC2) on “Communities” Section 3.3 7. AOB ----- Detailed Substantive Discussion Agenda 6. Follow-up on Discussion at ICANN #60 on “Communities" A. Categories of Communities? Where to set boundaries and which privileges to grant to different categories of communities? (see attached transcript from ICANN#60 with GAC) B. Review of Community Comment 2 (CC2) on “Communities" (see “Themes" document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… ) Section 3.3 - Community Applications and Community Priority Applications (CPE) Treatment of GAC Advice CPE - Transparency and Appeals Mechanisms 3.3.1 - As indicated in the Implementation Guidance of the 2007 Final Report, the claim by an applicant to support a community was intended to be taken on trust unless the applied-for TLD is in contention with one or more TLDs or is the respondent in an objection. As a result, the claim to support a community was only evaluated in Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) and Community Objections. Do you believe that the implementation and delivery of CPE were consistent with the policy recommendations and implementation guidance provided by the GNSO? If no, do you have suggested improvements to either the policy/implementation guidance or implementation? 3.3.2 There is a general sentiment amongst many in the community that the CPE process did not provide consistency and predictability in the 2012 round. Do you believe this was the case and if so, do you have examples or evidence of these issues?  3.3.3 - CPE was the one instance in the New gTLD Program where there was an element of a comparative evaluation and as such, there were inherently winners and losers created. Do you believe there is a need for community priority, or a similar mechanism, in subsequent procedures? Do you believe that it can be designed in such a fashion as to produce results that are predictable, consistent, and acceptable to all parties to CPE? The GNSO policy recommendations left the issue of a method for resolving contention for community claimed names to Board and the implementation. Do you believe that a priority evaluation is the right way to handle name contention with community applicants? Should different options be explored? If so which options should be explored and why? 3.3.4 - Were the rights of communities (e.g., freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and principle of non-discrimination) infringed by the New gTLD Program? Please provide specific examples.  3.3.5 - Besides CPE, are there other aspects of the New gTLD Program related to communities that should be considered in a more holistic fashion? For instance, in the 2012 round, the claim to support a community is largely only relevant when resolving string contention. Do you think community applications should be structured and/or evaluated differently than other applications?

1 0