April 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3

- PICDRP Panelists Feedback
by Steve Chan April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

Dear WT3 Members, Staff has recently received comments/input from two members of the PICDRP (or, Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure) Standing Panel. For those that are not familiar, the procedure is intended to address complaints that a Registry may not be complying with the Public Interest Commitments(s) in Specification 11 of their Registry Agreement. You can read more about the procedure here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/picdrp-2014-01-09-en The Standing Panel performed their first PICDRP evaluation in relation to the .FEEDBACK registry – you can review the decision here: https://www.icann.org/uploads/compliance_notice/attachment/911/serad-to-wes… While the PICDRP is within scope for this WT, it has yet to be discussed. Once the WT does begin its deliberations, this input may prove useful. Note, there may be a need to coordinate with WT2 if it is determined that the PICDRP and the requirements in the Registry Agreement need to be better aligned. Finally, I would note that both panelists have indicated their willingness to participate in future discussions or provide additional input as deemed helpful. Input received from David JA Cairns: “Dear Steve, I write as a member of the PICDRP Standing Panel, and a member of the Panel that recently provided the first evaluation under the PICDRP in relation to the .FEEDBACK gTLD. Valerie Heng has suggested that you might find comments from the members of the Panel useful for Policy development. Our decision (which is publicly available on the ICANN website) was based on paragraph 3.c of Specification 11, which is concerned with transparency in establishing and adhering to registration policies. The Complainant (‘Reporter’ in the language of the PICDRP) presented the Panel with voluminous evidence of allegedly objectionable conduct by the Registry Operator which the Reporter sought to connect to paragraph 3 of Specification 11. Sometimes the connection was tenuous, and in fact raised issues of the contractual compliance of the Registry Operator with its Registry Agreement with ICANN outside the scope of the PICDRP, or possible civil wrongs. In short, the Reporter sought to ‘stretch’ the PICDRP procedure to address conduct it was not in fact designed to address. This suggests two observations to me: 1.Paragraph 2 of Specification 11 envisages specific public interest commitments made by each Registry Operator in relation to their gTLD. In the .FEEDBACK gTLD Registry Agreement there were no specific commitments. Unless there are specific commitments tailored for each registry agreement, or the general commitments in paragraph 3 are elaborated to include a broader range of objectionable behavior (such as deceptive marketing and abuse of trademark rights as alleged in our case), then there will be frustration that the PICDRP procedure is ineffective or simply not ‘fit for purpose’ . in short, the PICDRP purports to be a dispute resolution mechanism available to defend the public interest but really only addresses a very limited range of public interest concerns. 2. Another option is to issue some guidance to potential complainants so that they can distinguish between complaints that are properly addressed to a PICDRP Panel, and complaints that should properly be addressed either directly to ICANN or to the courts. There is no point presenting a complaint to a PICDRP Panel where the Panel is powerless to address the issues raised. I hope these comments are useful to you. Yours sincerely, David JA Cairns” Input received from Scott Austin “Steve: David and I had discussed this previously and we agreed that given some of the concerns we confronted in reaching our decision we should be consistent among the members of the panel with our suggestions. I write to register my concurrence with David’s points and observations, and would also add that our course was one of “judicial restraint”, albeit after persuading my fellow panelists (and exercising presiding panelist privilege) to request additional time and make inquiry with ICANN for clarification of scope, as noted in the decision. Without our agreement to that approach and the resulting clarification, the decision could have cut a much broader (and possibly unintended) swath, broadly interpreting 3a. or even leaping the bounds of Specification 11 to other Specifications to address the wrongs complained of in the complaint. It may be in the best interest of the PICDRP process and ICANN’s effective and consistent implementation of same to open a dialogue with the full list of PICDRP panelists to identify best practices or policy element clarifications to meet the goals of the process from ICANN’s perspective, and discuss whether expansion of the scope of Section 3a. to cover Registries or developing incentives for gTLD applicants to submit self-imposed PICS anticipated by Paragraph 2 of Specification 11 should be a matter of policy change and decision focus going forward. Best regards, Scott” Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 18 April 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew April 18, 2017

April 18, 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, 18 April 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p1nwlsw6tvp/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=270a392f7eacd741 b08abf3f2654f84519ad6e8cf34f5cf5e6c5e8497ddb0bc4> https://participate.icann. org/p1nwlsw6tvp/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** 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/FbHRAw> https://community.icann.org/x/FbHRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 18 April 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 18 April 2017 at 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_F bHRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann. org_x_FbHRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dX AvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=mcQdOdDwOVoOMjlV5jJ7PxHmA06-OcovUEMy _UVHTD4&s=w9dHvqlRMfjEKRgk_KY5jPcFEgZwTX56MYzVYODmzaA&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=mcQdOdDwOVoOMjlV5jJ7PxHmA06-OcovUEMy_UVHTD4&s=w9 dHvqlRMfjEKRgk_KY5jPcFEgZwTX56MYzVYODmzaA&e= John Laprise:Good morning Terri! Annebeth Lange:Hi all, I have a few minutes waiting for my flight. I'll try to listen in. Annebeth Lange:Thanks Michael Flemming:Good morning! Emily Barabas:Additional information about about geo names webinar is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_p 77RAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann. org_x_p77RAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dX AvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=mcQdOdDwOVoOMjlV5jJ7PxHmA06-OcovUEMy _UVHTD4&s=8xAct5O2zzlW4jTGunWstOhyGmF4OL6V9JQi3IswVYw&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=mcQdOdDwOVoOMjlV5jJ7PxHmA06-OcovUEMy_UVHTD4&s=8x Act5O2zzlW4jTGunWstOhyGmF4OL6V9JQi3IswVYw&e= Jeff Neuman:good afternoon (in London today) Michael Flemming:Happy to be here Emily Barabas:15:00 UTC and 22:00 UTC Alan Greenberg:Sorry, last meeting ran late. Emily Barabas:See link above for details. To RSVP, email Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org <mailto:Geo-Names-Session@icann.org> Jeff Neuman:yes avri doria:yes Jeff Neuman:Forward on.... Emily Barabas:Karen, yes, please do John Laprise:There's always a tension: defining a community externally vs. internally Jeff Neuman:the term we used to use was "sponsored TLDs" avri doria:that was a previous round Jeff Neuman:right......and every tld that applied that round was approved. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agreed Alan, that is why we need much more discussion on this avri doria:but the notion of supported was not as broad as the notion of community. and the degree of support needed to be considered supported was not as deep as that required by the AGB Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Jeff Neuman:In this "round" very few were accepted. Somehow we may need to try to swing the pendulum back to a balance....if we still favor community applications Robin Gross:It is important to remember we are creating classes with special privileges in tlds, and that will impact existing rights, like IPR. Alan Greenberg:Part of the concept I think is that the rules of the TLD are governed by "the community" Alan Greenberg:DOes the TLD need to be not-for-prfit?? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):not for profit reaaly limits freedom of association and freedom of speech. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I think that Anne's suggestion makes sense to look at this from the angle of freedom of association Jeff Neuman:I do not necessarily believe that there is a need to limit to not for profits Robin Gross:The problem I see with the freedom of association argument is that it doesn't extend to preculding others from identifying with an idea also. John Laprise:What about communities in jurisdictions that persecute non-profits? Alan Greenberg:As we know, a NFP can make money and turn it back into the community. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: What about a for-profit community of kennel clubs from around the world who want to associate and promote discussion around dog breeding? would that be bad somehow? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes ALAN, true the interdependencies are yet to be explored Gg Levine (NABP):@Anne -- no, not bad. Jeff Neuman:Again a for-profit and not-for-profit is not necessarily a universal concept adopted globally nor is it consistent amongst jurisdictions. Not sure how we can make being "not for profit" as defined in the US the standard...... Michael Flemming:I agree with Anne on that aspect. We have a habit of distinguishing what the Public Interest is and what may harm the Public Interest. This is similar to our discussion of Closed Generics. But if we have to define what the social good is, then how do we even begin to define that? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Anne could be a slippery slope here as well Alan Greenberg:Is the COMMUNITY of kennel clubs for profit, or are the kennel clubs for profit? Annebeth Lange:I agree with Anne here. THis is a dangerous road to go down. Jeff Neuman:All - It is hard to talk about the freedom of association as an absolute right. All communities have some form of qualifications to get into an stay in the community. We cant say that all of them are a restriction on the freedom of association John Laprise:If we take a social scientific perspective, a community is simply a group of actors who interact and exchange, bound by an interest. Michael Flemming:@Jeff, for my own personal question, is there no sense of what defines a collective community in international law? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):important distinguishing point Alan purpose if the classification has any privilege or advantage does need establishment IMO Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - they would still need to be a community. But ICANN should not get into the business os assessing social good. Michael Flemming:上My question doesn't need to be put into the agenda notes. Michael Flemming:Just for clarification. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I agree with Anne. Each community may have their own purpose for applying for a community TLD. Trust is a huge one that has previoulsy been discussed, but let's not forget that the current implemenation of community TLDs took none of this into consideration. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):NOTE Anne I was stating establishment of purpose is important not a opinion on the 'worthiness' of the purposeless essential Greg Shatan:Not a risk.... :-) Emily Barabas:The spreadsheet displayed in the center pod is also available in the wiki (directly under the heading Additional Information): https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_W z2AAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann. org_x_Wz2AAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dX AvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=mcQdOdDwOVoOMjlV5jJ7PxHmA06-OcovUEMy _UVHTD4&s=6wkrLcHL5m0fxsl7-TgWb6meovw2u3vzuvDLLWt7Hhc&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=mcQdOdDwOVoOMjlV5jJ7PxHmA06-OcovUEMy_UVHTD4&s=6w krLcHL5m0fxsl7-TgWb6meovw2u3vzuvDLLWt7Hhc&e= Jeff Neuman:Its all about the effective allocation of TLDs Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Cheryl - I agree with you. I really cannot see ICANN trying to decide which applicants qualify as promoting social good. Jeff Neuman:Hand up :) John Laprise:I can't see the GAC signing off on a definition of social good. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed John Robin Gross:For some, "community" is the new "beauty contest". Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):back to interdependencies in our works as well as an order of required decision order Jeff Christa Taylor:I agree with Jeff - there are multiple considerations Jamie Baxter | dotgay:i think that it is important to rememeber that despite being offered "priority", communities in the current round have actually been put through some of the hardest challeges (financially & legally) and suffered the longest delays. Nothing says priority about the current system, and if it is not addressed, or priority is taken away, it's likely a good guess that few to none will apply in the future.. Jeff Neuman:I agree with jamie Jeff Neuman:from a personal perspective Christa Taylor:Jamie +1 it has been a very long road for community applicants with a significant amount of time and resources Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: Please be very careful about limiting communities to non-profits. For example, our firm represents numerous Native American communities. These communities are not non-profit. They do have names that could operate as TLDs and they do promote cultural goals in relation to preserving indigenous language and culture. COMMENT John Laprise:Let's not forget that it's not just the road but the simple notion that applying for a gTLD is something to consider. Steve Chan:@Jamie, I'll try and see if I can get an update on that review Jamie Baxter | dotgay:much appreciate Steve. Michael Flemming:@Anne, even if a community was not an established non-profit, if the model behind the TLD itself was a non-profit or non-money making model, could that be used to tie into the model of a community TLD? Michael Flemming:Thank you for clarity. Christa Taylor:+1 Karen John Laprise:Just remember that for every "good" we want to support, there is an equal and opposite "bad" community. Conferring preference opens the door to malevolent communities too. Emily Barabas:please go ahead karen avri doria:John and some people's good is other people's evil. often the fate of many minority communitites. Emily Barabas:you have control John Laprise:Agreed Avri Annebeth Lange:Could you put the link to this presentation in the notes, Emily? Emily Barabas:@Annebeth, yes, one moment please Emily Barabas:The slides are available here under the heading Documents: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_F bHRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann. org_x_FbHRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dX AvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=mcQdOdDwOVoOMjlV5jJ7PxHmA06-OcovUEMy _UVHTD4&s=w9dHvqlRMfjEKRgk_KY5jPcFEgZwTX56MYzVYODmzaA&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=mcQdOdDwOVoOMjlV5jJ7PxHmA06-OcovUEMy_UVHTD4&s=w9 dHvqlRMfjEKRgk_KY5jPcFEgZwTX56MYzVYODmzaA&e= Annebeth Lange:Thanks @ Emily Jeff Neuman:It should be noted for the record that this version 3 of the GAC Subgroup has een abandoned for now Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... lots more to come on this of course... bye for now Jeff Neuman:Now there is a repository proposal.....but still may have similar implications Robin Gross:Can we see the latest GAC proposal, Jeff? Terri Agnew:next meeting: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 02 May 2017 at 20:00 UTC Jeff Neuman:WIll try to find it Annebeth Lange:Thanks Christa Taylor:Thank-you Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank yoiu. avri doria:bye Robin Gross:Thanks, Karen and all. Bye!

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 SubTeam Meeting 18 April
by Julie Hedlund April 18, 2017

April 18, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 April. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. In addition, the referenced slides are attached along with excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 18 April 2017 1. Update from PDP Full Group – Avri Doria, Co-Chair -- At our last full meeting we had a discussion with the CCT-RT and got a lot of questions clarified. -- At our next meeting we will discuss a comment on the CCT-RT report. -- CC2 has begun and been translated. Encourage your groups. We have a request pending to extend the deadline for comments by 2 weeks. -- Geo names webinar is being organized. A number of speakers. We will have two sessions. Most will be at both sessions. Be sure you sign up. 25 April at 15:00 UTC and 22:00 UTC. See link above for details. To RSVP, email Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org. -- Feel free to forward the invite to other groups. -- Drafting Teams are up and running. 2. Definition of Community & Other Follow-Up From Last Week -- Potential stumbling block is that we need a definition of what a community is before we move forward. -- Come to a decision about what it is that we are trying to achieve. Don't have a shared understanding about what it is we want to achieve and who are we trying to privilege. Is it underprivileged, noncommercial, etc.? -- Staff has started taking a look at some of the statements that have been made defining community. When we are talking about community we are starting to talk about types of community. -- One of the things to challenge us with: the optics of the concept of "community." It is how we refer to a particular group of people. To go to the process and find out that you are not a community is difficult. If it is the words specifically in ways that clearly define a group it sends a strange optic. Maybe we need to think of whether to select a different word. -- Part of the issue is that there are multiple types of communities - commercial versus noncommercial for example. The challenge is how do we resolve issues if we have multiple groups claiming to be the community for group X. I think we need to be really open in terms of the classes of community. -- Might need to make sure that we have consensus on the principles. -- In line with those who are looking for a broad definition. One of the principles could be freedom of expression which invokes freedom of association. -- Keep in mind the lack of data for communities. Don't think we can answer the question of whether to have a community since there is a lack of data on community TLD. -- Concept in the first round implies a social good in having community TLDs. It is the social good aspect that implies that they should have priority. If we go to first-come, first-served process then their may not need to be a priority. -- ICANN very specifically avoids content regulations so deciding what community is for social good is a dangerous area for ICANN to be in. Could there be a community of kennel clubs that could be for profit -- who will decide that they are a community or for the social good. Careful about limiting freedom of association, or what we think is good or not. - 28 applications in the first round, need to look at what we can learn from these applications and how well they fit with the criteria we are discussing now. This issue of how to handle appeals and objections -- Need to consider what a mess communities was for the first round. Already getting too nuanced over the is in any ways accurate. We need to go back and look at the facts of what is happening and of the applications and what happened with them. Also all the communications that were sent to the Board. Need to reconsider the concept of a community and why give it a priority in terms of what should be a community. One might even consider taking away priority. -- Ask ourselves why we are creating the concept of community? There was a notion that there was some social good -- to recognize underprivileged groups. But never codified or defined that way. -- Don't agree with the above statement. Boils down to how to allocate namespace when there is contention. One answer is having an auction, but that may not be appropriate for a public namespace. Then there were the sponsored names, which was too easy. This rounds ended up being too hard. Not sure it is right to say that TLDs should only be allocated via auction in any circumstance. In 2000 it was a "beauty contest." Need to consider the allocation methods -- a way that is not a pure "beauty contest" that will preserve the use of a namespace other than the TLD model. -- Try to come up with a plan for a structured way through this. >From the chat: John Laprise: There's always a tension: defining a community externally vs. internally Jeff Neuman: the term we used to use was "sponsored TLDs" avri doria: that was a previous round Jeff Neuman: right......and every tld that applied that round was approved. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agreed Alan, that is why we need much more discussion on this avri doria: but the notion of supported was not as broad as the notion of community. and the degree of support needed to be considered supported was not as deep as that required by the AGB Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Jeff Neuman: In this "round" very few were accepted. Somehow we may need to try to swing the pendulum back to a balance....if we still favor community applications Robin Gross: It is important to remember we are creating classes with special privileges in tlds, and that will impact existing rights, like IPR. Alan Greenberg: Part of the concept I think is that the rules of the TLD are governed by "the community" Does the TLD need to be not-for-prfit?? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): not for profit really limits freedom of association and freedom of speech. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: I think that Anne's suggestion makes sense to look at this from the angle of freedom of association. Jeff Neuman: I do not necessarily believe that there is a need to limit to not for profits. Robin Gross: The problem I see with the freedom of association argument is that it doesn't extend to preculding others from identifying with an idea also. John Laprise: What about communities in jurisdictions that persecute non-profits? Alan Greenberg: As we know, a NFP can make money and turn it back into the community. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: What about a for-profit community of kennel clubs from around the world who want to associate and promote discussion around dog breeding? would that be bad somehow? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes ALAN, true the interdependencies are yet to be explored Gg Levine (NABP): @Anne -- no, not bad. Jeff Neuman: Again a for-profit and not-for-profit is not necessarily a universal concept adopted globally nor is it consistent amongst jurisdictions. Not sure how we can make being "not for profit" as defined in the US the standard...... Michael Flemming: I agree with Anne on that aspect. We have a habit of distinguishing what the Public Interest is and what may harm the Public Interest. This is similar to our discussion of Closed Generics. But if we have to define what the social good is, then how do we even begin to define that? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Anne could be a slippery slope here as well Alan Greenberg: Is the COMMUNITY of kennel clubs for profit, or are the kennel clubs for profit? Annebeth Lange: I agree with Anne here. THis is a dangerous road to go down. Jeff Neuman: All - It is hard to talk about the freedom of association as an absolute right. All communities have some form of qualifications to get into an stay in the community. We cant say that all of them are a restriction on the freedom of association John Laprise: If we take a social scientific perspective, a community is simply a group of actors who interact and exchange, bound by an interest. Michael Flemming: @Jeff, for my own personal question, is there no sense of what defines a collective community in international law? Jamie Baxter | dotgay: I agree with Anne. Each community may have their own purpose for applying for a community TLD. Trust is a huge one that has previoulsy been discussed, but let's not forget that the current implemenation of community TLDs took none of this into consideration. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): NOTE Anne I was stating establishment of purpose is important not a opinion on the 'worthiness' of the purposeless essential Greg Shatan: Not a risk.... :-) eff Neuman: Its all about the effective allocation of TLDs Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Cheryl - I agree with you. I really cannot see ICANN trying to decide which applicants qualify as promoting social good. John Laprise: I can't see the GAC signing off on a definition of social good. Communication Applications Spreadsheet: https://community.icann.org/x/Wz2AAw -- Results of the community priority evaluation (CPE). Whether or not they failed with high-level data. -- Added overall score, individual breakouts, averages for the total outcomes and the individual core areas, links to reconsideration requests. -- Add that there is a current investigation by the new CEO looking at all the aspects about how the CPEs were done. Keep in mind what comes back from that investigation. Not sure when that is expected. -- Keep in mind needs for cultural identity when considering definition. >From the chat: Michael Flemming: @Anne, even if a community was not an established non-profit, if the model behind the TLD itself was a non-profit or non-money making model, could that be used to tie into the model of a community TLD? 3. Applicant Freedom of Expression The slides are available here under the heading Documents: https://community.icann.org/x/FbHRAw -- One of the aspects is the ability to use geographic names, that is based on international law. -- Slide 2: Background -- Slide 3: International Law -- ICCPR & UDHR, Article 19 -- ability for persons to express themselves. -- Slide 4: Issue Description -- PDP tasked with examining GAC Advice, community processes (WT 3), and reserved names (WT 2); several interlocking groups. -- Slide 5: ICANN's Procedures and Policies in the Light of Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms and Democratic Values (CoE report). -- Slide 7: 2014 GAC Proposal on Geographic Names. -- Alternative view -- chilling effects on applicant Freedom of Expression in the Joint Civil Society Comments on the GAC proposal. -- Concern that the proposal was extremely broad. These claims that governments have over words are not internationally recognized laws. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: It should be noted for the record that this version 3 of the GAC Subgroup has een abandoned for now Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thanks everyone... lots more to come on this of course... bye for now Jeff Neuman: Now there is a repository proposal....but still may have similar implications

1 0

Agenda for WT3 - Tuesday, APRIL 18th @ 15:00 UTC [date correction]
by Karen Day April 17, 2017

April 17, 2017

Hi everyone, Attached please find our agenda for our meeting tomorrow, April 18th at 15:00 UTC. We will begin with a follow-up from last week’s meeting regarding how do we wish to define “Community” and any other community related issues you may care to bring up. We will then shift our focus to Applicant Freedom of Expression in preparation for the geo-names intersessional meetings on the 25th. Also, we wanted to share with you the attached spreadsheet which staff had previously prepared that captures all of the CPEs that were conducted, the results, related requests for reconsideration, and some other basic details along with the scoring (community establishment, nexus, registration policies, endorsement, and total) and calculated the average and median scores for each. We will look at this in more depth in one of our future calls after we pick back up the CPE topic, but please prepare your questions/comments on this as you have time. Discussion on the list is always welcome. Thanks & I look forward to speaking with you all tomorrow. Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

1 0

Recall: Agenda for WT3 - Tuesday, May 18 @ 15:00 UTC
by Karen Day April 17, 2017

April 17, 2017

Karen Day would like to recall the message, "Agenda for WT3 - Tuesday, May 18 @ 15:00 UTC".

1 0

Agenda for WT3 - Tuesday, May 18 @ 15:00 UTC
by Karen Day April 17, 2017

April 17, 2017

Hi everyone, Attached please find our agenda for our meeting tomorrow. We will begin with a follow-up from last week’s meeting regarding how do we wish to define “Community” and any other community related issues you may care to bring up. We will then shift our focus to Applicant Freedom of Expression in preparation for the geo-names intersessional meetings on the 25th. Also, we wanted to share with you the attached spreadsheet which staff had previously prepared that captures all of the CPEs that were conducted, the results, related requests for reconsideration, and some other basic details along with the scoring (community establishment, nexus, registration policies, endorsement, and total) and calculated the average and median scores for each. We will look at this in more depth in one of our future calls after we pick back up the CPE topic, but please prepare your questions/comments on this as you have time. Discussion on the list is always welcome. Thanks & I look forward to speaking with you all tomorrow. Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

1 0

UPDATED Mp3, Attendance, AC Chat & AC Recording for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Monday, 10 April 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter April 11, 2017

April 11, 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 Monday, 10 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track3-10apr17-en.mp3 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/fczRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 April 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 10 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):is audio ok ...not hearing anything Michelle DeSmyter:yes - I will send you a private chat Cheryl Paul McGrady:Would be helpful to have them explain who the Counsel of Europe is. avri doria:Paul, you habe not heard of the Council of Europe? Paul McGrady:I have, but it would be good to have clarity. "Council of Europe" sounds governmental, but it is my understanding that they are not the government. Rubens Kuhl:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe Paul McGrady:If no one is here from the Council of Europe, perhaps we should just all read it on our own. Rubens Kuhl:"Unlike the EU, the Council of Europe cannot make binding laws, but it does have the power to enforce select international agreements reached by European states on various topics. The best known body of the Council of Europe is the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces the European Convention on Human Rights." Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup avri doria:they are a treaty organization that is rather governmental. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):welcome aboard Anne ðŸ˜ Emily Barabas:For those who would like to revisit the recommendations in the COE report, they are included in the slides currently in the AC room. Everyone has scroll control. Rubens Kuhl:My take is that we have to consider it. Julie Hedlund:@All: As emily notes for reference see slides 7 and 8. Paul McGrady:Thanks Avri. Would be nice to have someone from the CoE on the line to address their status. Sounds fuzzy and I'd like to understand how much weight we should be giving to their recommendations. Also, would be nice to know if the CoE voted to adopt this report or if it just went out under their auspices. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree @Avri... damn close to it if not Steve Chan:I do not believe it is GAC Advice at this time, although I've only re-skimmed the GAC Communique: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Robin Gross:GAC Advice applies to the board Paul McGrady:GAC Consensus Advice applies to the Board unless the Board votes it down. There has been no notice of an up or down vote yet by the Board, so the best we can say about the content in the Copenhagen Communique is that it might be binding on the Board someday. avri doria:Right but if we know something is dvice, or likely to be advice, we ought to consider it carefully and deal with the issues brought up. Saves the end game difficulties we wish to avoid. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):depends from my POV Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I guess it was not under the heading of GAC Consensus Advice - it was just a recommendation for full consideration: Paul McGrady:@Avri - agree that it behooves us to take it seriously in our process, but we also can't let the GAC instruct policy to the GNSO. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes to clarity Gg Levine (NABP):@Robin: I agree that there is a need for greater clarity. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):from the GAC: "Community-based gTLD applications: Following the Council of Europe's submission to theGAC at ICANN 57 of their report “Applications to ICANN for community-based new gTLDs:Opportunities and Challenges from a Human Rights Perspective”, a presentation of thereport's recommendations was provided by one of the authors. The GAC expressessupport for these recommendations going forward for further consideration by the NewgTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group." Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Steve - very helpful. Rubens Kuhl:I don't think we need to go to this level of ad-hominem; someone wrote this, someone else seemed to agree, we need to consider it, doesn't matter who are those someones. Paul McGrady:Robin - is it a new right or is often already the right of likeminded people to assemble? Paul McGrady:+1 Avri Alan Greenberg:Sorry for being late. Meeting not on my agenda! Paul McGrady:This is great. It sounds like there may be some different views on how to fix it, but it doesn't sound like anyone is saying the way we did it last time doesn't need fixing. Emily Barabas:For more detail on the CPE, see AGB beginning on p193, section 4.2.3: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Rubens Kuhl:We need to fix it, for sure. Emily Barabas:Note the recommendations on the screen are excerpted. For full text, see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rm.coe.int_CoERMPublic… Rubens Kuhl:I think this a topic for applicant support... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agreed Avri Steve Chan:Regarding the last bullet, registration requirements related to communities is captured in Spec 12 of the Registry Agreement and PICs are in Spec 11. Steve Chan:And RAs are published and available for review. Paul McGrady:But the "true communities" vs "not true communities" sorting that was just suggested begs the question. If they are "not true communities" they presumably they won't get past our (soon to be) revised definition and test. Alan Greenberg:I think that community appications and applications from developing economies are really two different issues. Perhaps some overlap. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):right Alan - Applicant Support does not currently apply - but should it for non-profits or other types of community applicants we want to encourage as a matter of public interest? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):OR should we think about Community Applicants who meet certain guidelines getting support from Auction Proceeds? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):well said @Avri Rubens Kuhl:The only supported application for the 2012-round still in play happens to be a self-defined community application that failed CPE, .kids. Paul McGrady:Supporting non-profit applications is very different than picking winners and losers based upon whether or not they are commercial communities. Emily Barabas:For a summary of Community Applications, outcomes, and related reconsideration requests, see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Gg Levine (NABP):Yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):noisy Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):better now Trang Nguyen 2:The review that Avri just mentioned is the subject of this Board resolution: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… avri doria:seems like a good idea avri doria:thanks Trang Trang Nguyen 2:There was a question regarding this review at the second Public Forum in Copenhagen and John Jeffrey's response can be viewed here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schd.ws_hosted-5Ffiles_… (page 11 of the transcript). avri doria:that the benefits of supporting communities is an essential part of the requires of a corproation in the public interest. that overweighs most cost.. avri doria:yes we need to define. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed we do Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... Bye Bye for now avri doria:thanks Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC Chat & AC Recording New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3
by Michelle DeSmyter April 11, 2017

April 11, 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 Monday, 10 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track3-10apr17-en.mp3 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/fczRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 April 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 10 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):is audio ok ...not hearing anything Michelle DeSmyter:yes - I will send you a private chat Cheryl Paul McGrady:Would be helpful to have them explain who the Counsel of Europe is. avri doria:Paul, you habe not heard of the Council of Europe? Paul McGrady:I have, but it would be good to have clarity. "Council of Europe" sounds governmental, but it is my understanding that they are not the government. Rubens Kuhl:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe Paul McGrady:If no one is here from the Council of Europe, perhaps we should just all read it on our own. Rubens Kuhl:"Unlike the EU, the Council of Europe cannot make binding laws, but it does have the power to enforce select international agreements reached by European states on various topics. The best known body of the Council of Europe is the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces the European Convention on Human Rights." Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup avri doria:they are a treaty organization that is rather governmental. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):welcome aboard Anne ðŸ˜ Emily Barabas:For those who would like to revisit the recommendations in the COE report, they are included in the slides currently in the AC room. Everyone has scroll control. Rubens Kuhl:My take is that we have to consider it. Julie Hedlund:@All: As emily notes for reference see slides 7 and 8. Paul McGrady:Thanks Avri. Would be nice to have someone from the CoE on the line to address their status. Sounds fuzzy and I'd like to understand how much weight we should be giving to their recommendations. Also, would be nice to know if the CoE voted to adopt this report or if it just went out under their auspices. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree @Avri... damn close to it if not Steve Chan:I do not believe it is GAC Advice at this time, although I've only re-skimmed the GAC Communique: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Robin Gross:GAC Advice applies to the board Paul McGrady:GAC Consensus Advice applies to the Board unless the Board votes it down. There has been no notice of an up or down vote yet by the Board, so the best we can say about the content in the Copenhagen Communique is that it might be binding on the Board someday. avri doria:Right but if we know something is dvice, or likely to be advice, we ought to consider it carefully and deal with the issues brought up. Saves the end game difficulties we wish to avoid. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):depends from my POV Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I guess it was not under the heading of GAC Consensus Advice - it was just a recommendation for full consideration: Paul McGrady:@Avri - agree that it behooves us to take it seriously in our process, but we also can't let the GAC instruct policy to the GNSO. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes to clarity Gg Levine (NABP):@Robin: I agree that there is a need for greater clarity. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):from the GAC: "Community-based gTLD applications: Following the Council of Europe's submission to theGAC at ICANN 57 of their report “Applications to ICANN for community-based new gTLDs:Opportunities and Challenges from a Human Rights Perspective”, a presentation of thereport's recommendations was provided by one of the authors. The GAC expressessupport for these recommendations going forward for further consideration by the NewgTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group." Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Steve - very helpful. Rubens Kuhl:I don't think we need to go to this level of ad-hominem; someone wrote this, someone else seemed to agree, we need to consider it, doesn't matter who are those someones. Paul McGrady:Robin - is it a new right or is often already the right of likeminded people to assemble? Paul McGrady:+1 Avri Alan Greenberg:Sorry for being late. Meeting not on my agenda! Paul McGrady:This is great. It sounds like there may be some different views on how to fix it, but it doesn't sound like anyone is saying the way we did it last time doesn't need fixing. Emily Barabas:For more detail on the CPE, see AGB beginning on p193, section 4.2.3: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Rubens Kuhl:We need to fix it, for sure. Emily Barabas:Note the recommendations on the screen are excerpted. For full text, see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rm.coe.int_CoERMPublic… Rubens Kuhl:I think this a topic for applicant support... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agreed Avri Steve Chan:Regarding the last bullet, registration requirements related to communities is captured in Spec 12 of the Registry Agreement and PICs are in Spec 11. Steve Chan:And RAs are published and available for review. Paul McGrady:But the "true communities" vs "not true communities" sorting that was just suggested begs the question. If they are "not true communities" they presumably they won't get past our (soon to be) revised definition and test. Alan Greenberg:I think that community appications and applications from developing economies are really two different issues. Perhaps some overlap. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):right Alan - Applicant Support does not currently apply - but should it for non-profits or other types of community applicants we want to encourage as a matter of public interest? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):OR should we think about Community Applicants who meet certain guidelines getting support from Auction Proceeds? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):well said @Avri Rubens Kuhl:The only supported application for the 2012-round still in play happens to be a self-defined community application that failed CPE, .kids. Paul McGrady:Supporting non-profit applications is very different than picking winners and losers based upon whether or not they are commercial communities. Emily Barabas:For a summary of Community Applications, outcomes, and related reconsideration requests, see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Gg Levine (NABP):Yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):noisy Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):better now Trang Nguyen 2:The review that Avri just mentioned is the subject of this Board resolution: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… avri doria:seems like a good idea avri doria:thanks Trang Trang Nguyen 2:There was a question regarding this review at the second Public Forum in Copenhagen and John Jeffrey's response can be viewed here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schd.ws_hosted-5Ffiles_… (page 11 of the transcript). avri doria:that the benefits of supporting communities is an essential part of the requires of a corproation in the public interest. that overweighs most cost.. avri doria:yes we need to define. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed we do Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... Bye Bye for now avri doria:thanks Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 SubTeam Meeting 10 April
by Julie Hedlund April 10, 2017

April 10, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 10 April. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. In addition, the referenced slides are attached along with excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 10 April 2017 1. Community Issues: Community Objections, Community Applications, Community Priority Evaluations (CPE) a. Council of Europe Report: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?docum…. Review of presentation from last call and discussion on issues raised in report. -- Similar to GAC advice, but doesn't constitute GAC advice per se. No endorsed by the CoE. -- Need to give the CoE report strong consideration even if it is not GAC advice. See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-icann-15mar17-e…. -- CoE Report Recommendations at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?docum…) 1) Clear consistent definition of "community" (slide 7): -- Agree that there is a need for clarify. Probably the number one irritant. Some were clearly community and some were not. -- Recommendations go to the issues that caused concern. -- Right of assembly and association as a fundamental right -- affects our definition. Previously, the test defined what was considered a community. To consider for future rounds whether a points-based test is the right way to do this. -- One of the problems is there was no clarity on how wide the community had to be. Too much discretion on those judging. -- What is the public interest objective we are trying to achieve? Want some level of certainty. Sets a level of expectations and controls on what a TLD can do. >From the chat: Paul McGrady: GAC Consensus Advice applies to the Board unless the Board votes it down. There has been no notice of an up or down vote yet by the Board, so the best we can say about the content in the Copenhagen Communique is that it might be binding on the Board someday. avri doria: Right but if we know something is advice, or likely to be advice, we ought to consider it carefully and deal with the issues brought up. Saves the end game difficulties we wish to avoid. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): depends from my POV Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I guess it was not under the heading of GAC Consensus Advice - it was just a recommendation for full consideration: Paul McGrady: @Avri - agree that it behooves us to take it seriously in our process, but we also can't let the GAC instruct policy to the GNSO. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): from the GAC: "Community-based gTLD applications: Following the Council of Europe's submission to theGAC at ICANN 57 of their report “Applications to ICANN for community-based new gTLDs: Opportunities and Challenges from a Human Rights Perspective”, a presentation of thereport's recommendations was provided by one of the authors. The GAC expresses support for these recommendations going forward for further consideration by the NewgTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group." Paul McGrady: Robin - is it a new right or is often already the right of likeminded people to assemble? Paul McGrady: This is great. It sounds like there may be some different views on how to fix it, but it doesn't sound like anyone is saying the way we did it last time doesn't need fixing. Emily Barabas: For more detail on the CPE, see AGB beginning on p193, section 4.2.3: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf Steve Chan: Regarding the last bullet, registration requirements related to communities is captured in Spec 12 of the Registry Agreement and PICs are in Spec 11. 2) Community Priority Evaluation (slide 8): -- Always keep the big picture in mind when considering the details. -- If we decide that there are certain types of applications we want to prioritze -- how do we do that (subject that comes later). -- Need a definition of "community" in any case. Consider reducing the costs for CBAs for future gTLD rounds: -- May be a Work Track 1 topic re: differential fees. Is this a category where we would recommend them. Consider whether to have means testing, but differentiate communities that are for profit and those that are not-for-profit. -- Have clear timelines and definitions of the terms. -- How can we encourage more community applications? >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: I think this a topic for applicant support... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Paul McGrady: But the "true communities" vs "not true communities" sorting that was just suggested begs the question. If they are "not true communities" they presumably they won't get past our (soon to be) revised definition and test. Alan Greenberg: I think that community appications and applications from developing economies are really two different issues. Perhaps some overlap. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): right Alan - Applicant Support does not currently apply - but should it for non-profits or other types of community applicants we want to encourage as a matter of public interest? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): OR should we think about Community Applicants who meet certain guidelines getting support from Auction Proceeds? Either re-evaluate the scoring system and points to lower the bar or develop a new process altogether for assessing community applicants: -- Do we agree with this recommendation? -- Calling it "lowering the bar" is a prejudicial way to do it. No nuances could be captured -- make the test and results more reasonable and statistically valid. -- When you talk about special rights it really is a redress in many cases for persecuted communities. -- Different understanding of what we are trying to achieve. -- It is not only the nuance, it is also a set of what are reasonable expectations. Don't know if we will need examples or ranges. One thing that may be useful is to go through the CPE responses and what things did people lose points for. -- Board has requested a complete review of how the CPE judgment was done. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: The only supported application for the 2012-round still in play happens to be a self-defined community application that failed CPE, .kids. Paul McGrady: Supporting non-profit applications is very different than picking winners and losers based upon whether or not they are commercial communities. Emily Barabas: For a summary of Community Applications, outcomes, and related reconsideration requests, see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735963/Community%20Appli… Trang Nguyen 2: The review that Avri just mentioned is the subject of this Board resolution: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-09-17-en. There was a question regarding this review at the second Public Forum in Copenhagen and John Jeffrey's response can be viewed here: http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/60/I58CPH_Thu16Mar2017-Pu… (page 11 of the transcript). Full registry conditions...should be published (slide 8, last bullet) -- This one is already accomplished. b. Do “costs" of community applications outweigh any “benefits” from the mechanism? -- Don't think we achieved what we were trying to achieve because some thought applications that should have gone through didn't. -- Don't know how we measure the cost. -- Seems like circular logic if we can't agree what we are supporting. We need to define. >From the chat: avri doria: that the benefits of supporting communities is an essential part of the requirements of a corporation in the public interest. that overweighs most cost.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3
by Robin Gross April 10, 2017

April 10, 2017

Discussion Agenda for WT3 Call for Today, 10 April at 20:00 UTC 1. Welcome / Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Status Update from Plenary Chair 4. Community Issues: Community Objections, Community Applications, Community Priority Evaluations (CPE) a. Council of Europe Report https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?docum… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rm.coe.int_CoERMPublic…> Review of presentation from last call and discussion on issues raised in report b. Continue discussion from points raised in background slides from last WT3 meeting on 7 March (attached) c. Do “costs" of community applications outweigh any “benefits” from the mechanism? 5. AOB > On Apr 5, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Monday, 10 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC. > 13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 21:00 London, 22:00 CET > > For other times: http://tinyurl.com/lte794r <http://tinyurl.com/lte794r> > > Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ <https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/> > You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option below (also sent in the calendar invitation). > > Kind regards > Terri Agnew > > You're Invited. > You've been invited to a GlobalMeet® phone only meeting. > Have the meeting call you. > Click the Connect Me link below. No need to dial-in. > Connect Me [toolbar.conferencinghub.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__toolbar.conferencinghu…> > Not at your computer? > You can join by dialing one of the access numbers below. > Mobile: > tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825# <tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825> > Access Number: > 1-605-475-5604 > Guest Passcode: > 8650457825 > Additional Access: > USA: > 1-605-475-5604 > USA: > 1-712-770-4203 > USA: > 1-719-457-6209 > Canada, Calgary: > +1 403 407 5793 > Canada, Montreal: > +1 514 669 5928 > Canada, Toronto: > +1 647 426 9172 > Canada, Vancouver: > +1 604 222 7836 > Argentina, Buenos Aires: > +54 (0) 11 5172 6003 > Argentina (toll free): > 0800 800 1223 > Australia, Sydney: > +61 (0) 2 8017 6064 > Australia, Melbourne: > +61 (0) 3 8687 0553 > Australia, Brisbane: > +61 (0) 7 3015 0535 > Australia (toll free): > 1 800 804 786 > Austria, Vienna: > +43 (0) 1 25302 1785 > Austria (toll free): > 0800 8866 3413 > Bahrain, Manama: > +973 1619 8739 > Bahrain (toll free): > 800 04212 > Belarus (toll free): > 8 820 0011 0341 > Belgium, Brussels: > +32 (0) 2 400 6928 > Belgium (toll free): > 0800 39279 > Brazil, Sao Paulo: > +55 11 4935 7169 > Brazil, Rio de Janeiro: > +55 21 4560 0072 > Brazil (toll free): > 0800 887 0233 > Bulgaria, Sofia: > +359 (0) 2 491 6045 > Bulgaria (toll free): > 00800 111 4950 > Cambodia, Phnom Penh: > +855 23 965 723 > Canada (toll free): > 1 855 950 3717 > Chile, Santiago: > +56 (0) 2 2666 0696 > Chile (toll free): > 171 800 835 783 > China (national): > +400 613 8103 > China, Beijing: > +86 10 5667 0003 > China, Shanghai: > +86 21 2039 7081 > Colombia, Bogota: > +57 1 508 8137 > Colombia (toll free): > 01 800 755 0102 > Costa Rica (toll free): > 800 542 5328 > Croatia (toll free): > 0800 805 940 > Cyprus (toll free): > 800 97424 > Czech Republic, Prague: > +420 225 986 554 > Czech Republic (toll free): > 800 701 532 > Denmark, Copenhagen: > +45 32 72 78 10 > Denmark (toll free): > 80 70 35 86 > Egypt (toll free): > 0800 000 0593 > Estonia, Tallinn: > +372 622 6551 > Estonia (toll free): > 800 011 1589 > Fiji (toll free): > 00800 3322 > Finland, Helsinki: > +358 (0) 9 2310 1677 > Finland (toll free): > 0800 772 236 > France, Paris: > +33 (0) 1 70 37 16 56 > France (toll free): > 0800 946 531 > France (national): > 0811 655 100 > France (national): > 0821 231 671 > Georgia, Tbilisi: > +995 32 2 050 778 > Germany, Frankfurt: > +49 (0) 69 2222 10612 > Germany, Munich: > +49 (0) 89 2030 31207 > Germany (national): > 01801 003 899 > Germany (toll free): > 0800 588 9170 > Greece, Athens: > +30 211 181 3824 > Greece (toll free): > 00800 128 913 > Hong Kong: > +852 3018 9111 > Hong Kong (toll free): > 800 901 787 > Hungary, Budapest: > +36 1408 8953 > Hungary (toll free): > 068 001 9673 > Iceland (toll free): > 800 9847 > India, Delhi: > +91 (0) 11 6641 1394 > India, Bangalore: > +91 (0) 80 6127 6710 > India, Mumbai: > +91 (0)22 6187 5028 > India, Chennai: > +91 (0)44 6688 6061 > India (toll free): > 1800 200 9415 > Indonesia, Jakarta: > +62 21 2188 9084 > Indonesia (toll free): > 007 803 321 8927 > Ireland, Dublin: > +353 (0) 1 526 9421 > Ireland (national): > 0818 270 271 > Ireland (toll free): > 1800 937 649 > Ireland (national): > 1890 907 630 > Israel, Tel Aviv: > +972 (0)3 721 7943 > Israel (toll free): > 1809 213 168 > Italy, Milan: > +39 02 3600 8006 > Italy, Rome: > +39 06 8750 0676 > Italy (toll free): > 800 146 094 > Japan, Tokyo: > +81 (0) 3 4560 1270 > Japan, Osaka: > +81 (0) 6 4560 2410 > Japan (toll free): > 0120 305 211 > Japan (mobile): > 0120 632 611 > Japan (national): > 0570 085 744 > Kazakhstan (toll free): > 8800 333 7554 > Kenya, Nairobi: > +254 (0)20 529 3581 > South Korea, Seoul: > +82 (0) 2 6007 0079 > South Korea (toll free): > 00798 6136 1454 > Latvia, Riga: > +371 6601 3627 > Latvia (toll free): > 8000 4418 > Lithuania, Vilnius: > +370 5205 5468 > Lithuania (toll free): > 8800 31449 > Luxembourg: > +352 2088 1749 > Luxembourg (toll free): > 800 28433 > Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur: > +60 (0) 3 7724 8010 > Malaysia (toll free): > 1 800 816 152 > Mexico, Guadalajara: > +52 33 4162 4504 > Mexico, Mexico City: > +52 55 8421 0326 > Mexico, Monterrey: > +52 81 4162 5648 > Mexico (toll free): > 01 800 733 4102 > Morocco, Casablanca: > +212 (0) 520 48 0022 > Morocco (toll free): > 0800 091 296 > Netherlands, Amsterdam: > +31 (0) 20 716 8345 > Netherlands (toll free): > 0800 020 2597 > New Zealand, Christchurch: > +64 (0) 3 974 2596 > New Zealand, Wellington: > +64 (0) 4 909 4674 > New Zealand, Auckland: > +64 (0) 9 929 1825 > New Zealand (toll free): > 0800 452 947 > Nigeria, Lagos: > +234 1 277 3944 > Norway, Oslo: > +47 21 00 48 15 > Norway (toll free): > 800 56081 > Oman (toll free): > 800 77265 > Panama, Panama City: > +507 8 335 913 > Panama (toll free): > 00800 223 1390 > Peru, Lima: > +51 (0) 1 700 9571 > Peru (toll free): > 0800 78102 > Philippines, Manila: > +63 (0)2 395 3426 > Philippines (toll free): > 1 800 111 013 99 > Poland, Warsaw: > +48 22 295 3570 > Poland (toll free): > 00 800 121 4356 > Portugal, Lisbon: > +351 21 316 4093 > Portugal (toll free): > 800 784 442 > Qatar (toll free): > 00 800 100 491 > Romania, Bucharest: > +40 (0) 21 529 3992 > Romania (toll free): > 0800 801 035 > Russia, Moscow: > +7 495 646 9181 > Russia (toll free): > 8 800 500 9241 > Saudi Arabia (toll free): > 800 844 6641 > Saudi Arabia (toll free): > 800 850 0219 > Serbia (toll free): > 0800 190 712 > Singapore: > +65 6622 1957 > Singapore (toll free): > 800 616 3192 > Slovakia, Bratislava: > +421 (0)2 3321 5498 > Slovakia (toll free): > 0800 002 002 > Slovenia, Ljubljana: > +386 1600 8695 > Slovenia (toll free): > 0800 81193 > South Africa, Johannesburg: > +27 (0)11 589 8321 > South Africa (toll free): > 0800 999 434 > Spain, Madrid: > +34 91 114 6653 > Spain, Barcelona: > +34 93 800 1946 > Spain (toll free): > 900 828 035 > Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka: > +94 720 910 333 > Sweden, Stockholm: > +46 (0) 8 5065 3956 > Sweden (toll free): > 0200 125 588 > Switzerland, Geneva: > +41 (0) 22 595 4795 > Switzerland, Zurich: > +41 (0) 44 580 7207 > Switzerland (toll free): > 0800 740 360 > Taiwan, Taipei: > +886 (0) 2 2650 7329 > Taiwan (toll free): > 0800 666 596 > Thailand, Bangkok: > +66 (0) 2104 0761 > Thailand (toll free): > 001 800 6136 1473 > Tunisia, Tunis: > +216 31 378 101 > Turkey, Istanbul: > +90 212 375 50 49 > Turkey (toll free): > 00800 4488 26642 > Ukraine (toll free): > 0800 500 896 > UAE (toll free): > 8000 3570 2662 > UK (03): > +44 (0)330 336 6002 > UK (toll free): > 0800 358 6385 > UK (national): > 0844 473 5010 > UK (national): > 0845 545 0015 > USA /Canada (toll free): > 1-866-398-2885 > Uruguay (toll free): > 0004 019 0152 > Venezuela, Caracas: > +58 212 720 2164 > Venezuela (toll free): > 0 800 162 7451 > Vietnam, Hanoi: > +84 4 4458 3312 > Vietnam (toll free): > 1800 9226 > > <New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention Objection 10 April.ics>_______________________________________________ > Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list > Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org <mailto:Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3>

1 0