May 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3

WT3 - Definition of "community" Proposal
by Karen Day June 1, 2017

June 1, 2017

Hi everyone, After our last call on the basics of community, Avri very generously dove in and has pulled together a strawbunny proposal of the definition of community for us to discuss and refine. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yKuFzTgIel53nxM9tOWgoH6evMTk4wdxVreVH2m… Let’s see if we can come to consensus on how we want to define community for subsequent procedures, for applications, for CPE & objection purposes. Or, alternatively, if we can not achieve consensus on what community is, then we will discuss what those implications are on subsequent procedures. Please feel free to use “suggest” mode to comment directly in the document, but for the benefit of all, please send a short note to the list when you make suggestions, highlighting what your suggestions, comments or questions are. Best, Karen _________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

3 4

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 23 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland May 23, 2017

May 23, 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, 23 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7ewzrbz9pe/<https://participate.icann.org/p7ewzrbz9pe/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4020b23172121acd…> 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/IdTRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 23 May 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 23 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Karen Day:Welcome Jamie - and thanks for your CC2 comments. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:Good morning .. my pleasure to offer comments from our experience as a community applicant. Annebeth Lange:Good afternoon from Norway avri doria:wow, a new intro to mtgs slide. Annebeth Lange:Karen, have you recieved my comments to CC2? I have sent them in, but I am a little unsure if I have done it the right way Karen Day:HI Annabeth, Yes, I saw yours as well this morning. Here's the link https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/2017-… Annebeth Lange:Thanks Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):No questions. Steve Chan:FYI, the slides are unsynced at the moment. We are on slide 4 now. Steve Chan:We can of course sync them if you'd prefer. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:are these slides available somewhere? Steve Chan:@Jamie, we will send them along with the meeting notes/action items after the meeting Jamie Baxter | dotgay:great. thanks Steve Emily Barabas:You can also find them on the wiki here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Jamie Baxter | dotgay:Excellent. thanks Emily Annebeth Lange:Won't the ongoing discussion on categories on the list go into this as well? Robin Gross:If we do want to continue the preference given to "communities", we need to arrive at a shared definition of "community". Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):With apologies, I have to drop. I have a conflicting BRG meeting that's been in progress since the top of the hour. I'll read the transcript. avri doria:draftng team from the Work Track to work on defintion might be useful. avri doria:from a personal perspectiive (without chair hat) : i supported communities in the orignal policy of 2007 and still support the notion. Trang Nguyen:@Jamie, are you referring to implementation in the context of the criteria and evaluation methodology in the AGB, or in the context of execution (applying those criteria)? Annebeth Lange:+1, Avri Gg Levine (NABP):+1, Jamie Jim Prendergast:The character limits on responses alos impeded community applicants ability to explain their community approach. But thats probably implementation Trang Nguyen:Thank you for the clarification, Jamie! Annebeth Lange:+1, Jamie Robin Gross:I'm not convinced we should have communities Phil Buckingham:I personally think that there should be no priority given for any applicant for R2 -, but need also to eliminate contention sets - as money always wins at the end of the day . We must have a level playing field from the outset Robin Gross:be happy to. Annebeth Lange:I think there should be communities, but: Could post-delegation procedures stop gaming? If you claim to be a community and it turns out you are not after the delegation. Greg Shatan:Annebeth, I was thinking along the same lines. It might just inspire new gaming, but anything that keeps "community" from simply being gamed to get priority would be welcome. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:based on the inconsistencies and concerns of the current round, and as already advised by GAC, an appeals mechanism for CPE must be available. Gg Levine (NABP):It seems practical that the will of the many (community) would supercede the will of one (individual applicant). Robin Gross:I don't think there would be agreement on what kind of "community" should be given preferences. Gg Levine (NABP):Robin, do you mean if there is contention by two communities for the same string? Steve Chan:https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/pddrp Robin Gross:I mean as a general concept. The idea that some groups are more valued than others. I don't think this WG or the icann community generally can come to agreement on whom to privilege in this process. Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 06 June 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Greg Shatan:Bye all! Annebeth Lange:Bye all Robin Gross:thanks, Karen and all, bye! avri doria:bye

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Work Track 3 - 23 May 2017
by Emily Barabas May 23, 2017

May 23, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the notes and action items captured by staff in the meeting today. 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 chat room or the recording. Call recording and chat transcripts will soon be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/IdTRAw. Slides from the meeting are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily =========================== Notes: 2. SOIs & Plenary Update - Gg Levine -- updated SOI: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606347 - Full group update: - After a slow start on Drafting Teams, a full group call was devoted to discussion of one of the DT topics: TLD Types. Conversation moved to the list and also touched on application rounds or other mechanisms. - Leadership group is looking at how to move work from the Sub Teams to a close. First pass examining the topics (known as the "blue sky" or pros/cons phase) is nearly complete, CC2 comments have been received. The second cycle will aim to make deliberations more concrete. In the third cycle, we gauge consensus. - Following these three cycles, the outputs will be considered in the full Working Group. - As WT 3 starts to go through CC2, does the WT see places where it is completely stuck and needs input from the plenary? WT should write these issues up in a single page to share the full group for feedback and input. - CC2: Deadline for comments was 22 May. 21 comments received, a few more are expected. Staff is organizing comments for further review and analysis. The staff report is planned for 12 June. Comments available at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/2017-….<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/2017-…> 3. History of Community Priority - Staff and WT leads reviewed transcripts from discussions in 2005-2007. Slides offer some takeaways from the discussion. No additional questions or input from the group. - Review of current policy -- Implementation Guidelines F and H. - Review of provisions for Community Applications in the 2012 AGB -- Module 1, 2.3 and Mondule 4, 4.2. 4. Questions to evaluate intial WT positions: a. Should Communities receive differential treatment in any subsequent procedures? - Likely that the provisions from 2012 will stand. - Many of the goals of community priority were laudable, but the reality has been less than satisfactory. Without contention, the issues of whether something is community is not very controversial. With contention, there are many potential problems. There were many issues with contention sets in the 2012 round. Same issue is raised with potential rounds just for communities, and the risks of gaming may be higher. - Can anyone think of a way to seperate communities from non-communities effectively and accurately? - Are these policy or implementation issues? - Would need to review the policy to see how abstract or flexible it is to accomodate changes to implementation. This issue should be treated more like a policy issue than an implementation issues, and considered by the wider community. - Policy and implementation are bound together, and we will be considering the provisions of the AGB to the extent that they are tied to policy. Chat excerpt: Annebeth Lange: Won't the ongoing discussion on categories on the list go into this as well? Robin Gross: If we do want to continue the preference given to "communities", we need to arrive at a shared definition of "community". - Would anyone on the list like to circulate a proposed definition of community for group discussion? - Core values and ideas still apply, but might have been watered down in implementation. It is important for policy and implementation to stay closely connected. A large part of CPE process was created after applications were submitted. It is important that the process is established before the next application window. - Community applicants approach this process in a different way than other applicants. It requires community engagement, which can take years.The time requirements and other external factors that play into developing an application must be taken into account in policy and implementation. Chat excerpt: avri doria: draftng team from the Work Track to work on defintion might be useful. avri doria: from a personal perspectiive (without chair hat) : i supported communities in the orignal policy of 2007 and still support the notion. Trang Nguyen: @Jamie, are you referring to implementation in the context of the criteria and evaluation methodology in the AGB, or in the context of execution (applying those criteria)? - Jaime responding to Trang -- if evaluators were only using the AGB, the results would have been different. Applicants only had access to the AGB, and the evaluators came later and developed process after the fact. New procedures were published after the application, applicants could not change applications at that point. There needs to be transparency about the process before applications are submitted. Chat excerpt: Annebeth Lange: +1, Avri Gg Levine (NABP): +1, Jamie Jim Prendergast: The character limits on responses alos impeded community applicants ability to explain their community approach. But thats probably implementation Annebeth Lange: +1, Jamie - A lot of time and energy was put into answering question (18 or 20?) but this was not taken into account in scoring. It should be considered in the evaluations process in a tangible manner. - Does anyone believe that community application should not receive priority? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: I'm not convinced we should have communities Phil Buckingham: I personally think that there should be no priority given for any applicant for R2 -, but need also to eliminate contention sets - as money always wins at the end of the day . We must have a level playing field from the outset Annebeth Lange: I think there should be communities, but: Could post-delegation procedures stop gaming? If you claim to be a community and it turns out you are not after the delegation. Greg Shatan: Annebeth, I was thinking along the same lines. It might just inspire new gaming, but anything that keeps "community" from simply being gamed to get priority would be welcome. Gg Levine (NABP): It seems practical that the will of the many (community) would supercede the will of one (individual applicant). Robin Gross: I don't think there would be agreement on what kind of "community" should be given preferences. Gg Levine (NABP): Robin, do you mean if there is contention by two communities for the same string? Robin Gross: I mean as a general concept. The idea that some groups are more valued than others. I don't think this WG or the icann community generally can come to agreement on whom to privilege in this process. ACTION ITEM: Robin will write up additional discussion of her response on the mailing list. b. Should Communities have a separate or priority application process? c. Should Communities TLDs have a unique contract? d. Can Communities be accommodated solely via implementation updates? e. Is policy revision necessary? 5. Topic Introduction: Accountability Mechanisms - See slides. Chat excerpt: Jamie Baxter | dotgay: based on the inconsistencies and concerns of the current round, and as already advised by GAC, an appeals mechanism for CPE must be available. 6. AOB / Next Meeting The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 06 June 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

1 0

Subsequent Procedures WT 3 - Agenda for May 23rd @ 15:00
by Karen Day May 21, 2017

May 21, 2017

Dear All, At our next call on Tuesday, we will be focusing in on the history of community priority as a means to helping us establish a common baseline for our deliberations. 1. Welcome / Update SOIs 2. Review / Revise Agenda 3. History of Community Priority 4. Questions to evaluate intial WT positions a. Should Communities receive differential treatment in any subsequent procedures? b. Should Communities have a separate or priority application process? c. Should Communities TLDs have a unique contract? d. Can Communities be accommodated solely via implementation updates? e. Is policy revision necessary? 5. Topic Introduction: Accountability Mechanisms 6. AOB / Next Meeting Looking forward to seeing you on Tuesday, Karen _______________________________________________________________ Karen L. Day, ACP NCCP SAS Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ gTLDinfo(a)sas.com 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas<http://www.nic.sas/>; www.nic.jmp<http://www.nic.jmp/>; www.nic.analytics<http://www.nic.analytics/>

1 0

FW: [Ws2-hr] Public Comment HR is open
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne May 9, 2017

May 9, 2017

For consideration by our Work Track 3 group - FOI-HR open for comment. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _______________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 6:00 AM To: ws2-hr(a)icann.org Subject: [Ws2-hr] Public Comment HR is open Dear all, In case you did not see it yet, the fruit of our work is open for Public Comment: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/foi-hr-2017-05-05-en Best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 SubTeam Meeting 02 May
by Julie Hedlund May 2, 2017

May 2, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 02 May. 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 02 May 1. Status Update from Plenary Chair -- Avri Doria: -- Over the last couple of plenary meetings we have been working on the WG comment to the CCT-RT. Did another read-through at the WG meeting today. Some wordsmithing. Get completed by 10 May. -- Gave a reminder get involved with the Drafting Teams on CC1 issues that we need to close on. -- CC2 is out there and we hope you are responding. -- No meetings next week because of GDD Summit. 2. Applicant Freedom of Expression Rights in New GTLD Program: Background (slide 2) Principle G: Applicant Freedom of Expression Rights in New GTLD Program Recommendation 3: Rec. #3: must not infringe rights of others including free expression. Approved by both the GNSO Council and the Board. International Law -- ICCPR & UDHR (slide 3) -- Worth noting that these were things that the CCWG Human Rights Work Stream 2 dealt with in great detail for many weeks. -- Some of these are just declarations, they aren't treaties. -- The GNSO Council policy is what governs, as also approved by the Board. GAC Advice (slide 4) 2013 GAC Advice (slide 5) 2013 GAC issues Advice against strings considered “sensitive”, “problematic”, and “regulated markets” >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Under new ByLaws, it takes a 2/3 vote of the Board to overcome GAC Consensus Advice. COMMENT 2014 ICANN Board Response -- Final New gTLD Policy (slide 6) Board Response & Treatment in Final ICANN Policy -- Feb. 2014 -- ICANN Board NGPC adopted implementation framework for treatment of "Category 1" strings. -- Strings in regulated markets or that potentially violate national law or raise sensitivities. "Category 2" Strings: "Generics" (slide 7) -- May not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD -- no exclusivity in registration of a word considered "generic". -- This is looking at "generic" strings from a freedom of expression angle. >From the chat: Paul McGrady 2: We are currently discussing generic strings in the Legal WT of this PDP. Work Track 2. Questions for Discussion (slide 8) Discussion Questions -- Are applicants’ freedom of expression rights adequately protected in GTLD program? -- Should applicants’ use of words considered sensitive, problematic, or generic be exempt from freedom of expression rights? -- How do ICANN bylaws require handling of competing policy preferences between GAC and GNSO on GTLD policy? Discussion: -- CCWG Work Stream 2 -- Human Rights/freedom of expression. Seems that this group would be in a good position to observe the comments on the framework of interpretation on human rights because of the way the new core value works. Current developments -- framework deals pretty directly with this topic. -- Don't want to duplicate each other. Need to work with them. -- The WG has to consider the statements from the GAC and the ALAC and the expectations people have. The CCT-RT is also doing a lot of work. The drafts says that it appears that users are starting to presume some things because of the name (bank, insurance, etc.). Not sure we can develop a definitive answer until the CCT-RT publishes its final report. -- Don't think is a mechanism for cross-community groups to do away with GNSO policy that has been approved by the Council and the Board. Don't think there is a mechanism in the Bylaws for that. Could even be in violation of Annex A of the Bylaws. -- The work of the CCWG Subgroup on Human Rights was rather limited -- just to develop a framework. Don't think there will be anything that will be a game changer here. Could look again at what the human rights Bylaw says, but that is a larger question. -- One of the things is that we don't have to wait for the human rights framework, but it does have value in the new gTLD process -- looking at the impact of policy decisions. The framework frames how those can come in and go. Could be a useful tool. When we ask what is the human rights impact on what we are doing, such as freedom of expression? -- With respect to WS2 work that will go to the GNSO as a chartering organization. There is no one human right that absolutely takes precedent over another human right -- a balancing, which is in the draft framework. There are author's rights and property rights in the declaration. WG needs to take into account the principles in the human rights framework. -- We will need to look at this in the overall context including the Bylaws, which is one of several core values. -- Clarify that the framework of interpretation does not mandate a human rights impact assessment. It is something SOs and ACs can consider in their processes. -- It is up to the GNSO to determine if and when its PDP should include a human rights impact assessment as a mandate. Could be included in a PDP charter. >From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): let's make sure we interact Alan Greenberg: But we are bound to consider the work and conclusions of the cct-rt. Alan Greenberg: The entire issue of "core values" is that they compete with each other and one does not necessarily and uniformaly trump another. avri doria: and this PDP WG is one of the place where policy is done. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Alan - I agree we also need to consider recommendations of CCT-RT. Anne Category 1 and 2 Strings Impact on Freedom of Expression -- Words that are considered "sensitive", "problematic", or "generic" -- should these be exempt from freedom of expression rights? -- Is legitimate speech being chilled by ICANN policy on Category 1 and 2 string? Discussion: -- These terms are not in the GNSO policy as adopted by the Board. This was a midstream modification of the policy from GAC advice. North American bias: There are only a handful of things you can't say in public. Category of words because they are sensitive to governments are no longer allowed to be used. Here from people who don't have the North American bias. -- The US is not all of North American. There are things you can say in Canada and I suspect Mexico is different. -- Trying to define freedom of expression -- that is a big challenge as it is defined differently in different countries. -- There is a big difference between what the GAC comments re: generic strings versus problematic strings. Was there a general GAC concern about generic words? -- The generic string comes under Category 2 -- from the GAC having a Communique in Beijing where they said they wanted strings with generic meanings had to be registered with a public interest goal. It was about exclusive registration for words considered generic. -- The GAC's observations regarding generic TLDs support principles of freedom of expression than restricting them. -- Doesn't allow people to express themselves in the way they want to if they are requiring non-exclusive registration. -- Related also to community registrations -- could be a similar principle. Question: None of the human rights are absolute so what limits are appropriate under gTLD policy. -- Concerned -- as important as the freedom of expression is -- concerned that we may be looking at things through a freedom of expression lense things that aren't a freedom of expression restriction/concern. No one wants to be anti-freedom of expression. -- Be careful about overusing freedom of expression and look at what type of expression is being hampered, and how does this interact with other criteria and goals of the new gTLD program. -- This is one of many different interests that we are discussing this time. -- Freedom of expression is one of our core issues, but it's not the only one and it will have to be balanced. >From the chat: Paul McGrady 2: @Robin - how about the public interest goal of freedom of expression in generic term TLDs by their operators? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I suspect so Greg, and from my POV this is shaky area to try and navigate Greg Shatan: So we have another balancing act. Greg Shatan: Agree that we should discuss the issue. Don't want to take away anyone's freedom to express themselves. avri doria: i kind of thought that PDPs in general were all gigantic balancing acts.

2 1

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 02 May 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew May 2, 2017

May 2, 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, 02 May 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p4gkpmlia8z/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=029929868fed1ad2…> https://participate.icann.org/p4gkpmlia8z/ 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/H9TRAw> https://community.icann.org/x/H9TRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 02 May 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 02 May 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=oSBc0AIJVS9fGv6TFV_dCacSuLtjEYgb_elE2XerGRM&s=8I19HlO4bAyIsA1dLYcjxlQp5NJKUTB2dwzMAfHW7MA&e= Terri Agnew:We would like to introduce Julie Bisland as GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator. Emily Barabas:Welcome Julie B! Annebeth Lange:Good evening, everyone Robin Gross:Greetings! Paul McGrady:Hi everyone! Emily Barabas:correct, no SubPro calls next week due to the GDD Summit Paul McGrady 2:Can we go back to the last slide for a moment? avri doria:Just read the chat: Hello Julie, welcome. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: Under new ByLaws, it takes a 2/3 vote of the Board to overcome GAC Consensus Advice. COMMENT Julie Bisland:Thank you, Avri! Paul McGrady 2:We are currently discussing generic strings in the Legal WT of this PDP. Steve Coates:WT2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Anne Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hell no Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):let's make sure we interact Alan Greenberg:But we are bound to consider the work and conclusions of the cct-rt. Alan Greenberg:The entire issue of "core values" is that they compete with each other and one does not necessarily and uniformaly trump another. avri doria:and this PDP WG is one of the place where policy is done. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Alan - I agree we also need to consider recommendations of CCT-RT. Anne avri doria:Is Canada more 'senstive' about this than the US, when we say NA? Paul McGrady 2:Geography lesson learned. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Alan Alan Greenberg:Sorry, but I am a mite sensitive to the equivalence of the US and Canada, not to even speak of Mexico. avri doria:Though in ICANN, Mexico is not NA Paul McGrady 2:@Alan, understood, but I think the differences between Canadian speech rights compared to US are extremely close compared to free speech rights in the US vs. other places around the world. That said, sorry for lumping the Canadians with the Yankees. Paul McGrady 2:@Robin - how about the public interest goal of freedom of expression in generic term TLDs by their operators? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):lost me there Robin Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):seems so Anne Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I suspect so Greg, and from my POV this is shaky area to try and navigate Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@GREG - Many citizens have to deal DAILY with oppression of freedom of expression. Greg Shatan:So we have another balancing act. Greg Shatan:Agree that we should discuss the issue. Don't want to take away anyone's freedom to express themselves. avri doria:i kind of thought that PDPs in general were all gigantic balancing acts. Alan Greenberg:Yup. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Yes Avri - so true Alan Greenberg:If they do their job well. Greg Shatan:We are they Flying Wallendas of policy... Terri Agnew 2:nexct call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 23 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone bye for now Karen Day:Thanks, Robin. See you all in 3 weeks!

1 0

Discussion Agenda for WT3 - Tuesday 2 May at 20:00 UTC
by Robin Gross May 2, 2017

May 2, 2017

I hope you all will join our Work Team 3 meeting tomorrow to continue our discussion on freedom of expression and category 1 and 2 strings (detailed discussion agenda below). Thank you. Best, Robin Discussion Agenda for WT3 - Tuesday 2 May at 20:00 UTC 1. Welcome / Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Status Update from Plenary Chair 4. Applicant Freedom of Expression Rights in New GTLD Program a. Background i) 2007 Final Report Principle G: The string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant's freedom of expression rights & Rec. #3: must not infringe rights of others including free expression. ii) 2013 GAC issues Advice against strings considered “sensitive”, “problematic”, and “regulated markets” iii) Board Response & Treatment in Final ICANN Policy b. Discussion Questions i) Are applicants’ freedom of expression rights adequately protected in GTLD program? ii) Should applicants’ use of words considered sensitive, problematic, or generic be exempt from freedom of expression rights? iii) How do ICANN bylaws require handling of competing policy preferences between GAC and GNSO on GTLD policy? 5. AOB > On May 1, 2017, at 6:31 AM, 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 Tuesday, 02 May 2017 at 20:00 UTC. > 13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 21:00 London, 22:00 CET > For other times: http://tinyurl.com/kywoxx2 <http://tinyurl.com/kywoxx2> > > 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, Objections & Disputes [2].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>

3 2