July 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3

August 1st 15:00 UTC Discussion Agenda
by Robin Gross July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

Dear WT3 Members: Our next WT3 meeting is scheduled for Tuesday August 1st at 15:00 UTC (60 minutes). The meeting’s discussion agenda and CC2 questions on which we'll focus are below. Please note that staff has compiled a number of responses to our discussion questions already in the attached “themes” document, and so please review these responses in advance to our call for the fullest discussion on Tuesday. Thank you. I hope you all can join in the call. Best, Robin Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. Plenary Update 4. CC2 Response Reviews Objections Continued - Questions 3.1.6 - 3.1.11 (see below) 5. AOB We will continue our review of the CC2 responses and in particular to the following questions: 3.1.6 - Do you believe that the use of an Independent Objector (IO) is warranted in future application processes? If not, then why? If yes, then would you propose any restrictions or modifications be placed on the IO in future rounds?  3.1.7 - Do you believe that parties to disputes should be able to choose between 1 and 3 member panels and should the costs of objections reflect that choice?  3.1.8. - Is clearer guidance needed in regards to consolidation of objections? Please explain.  3.1.9 - Many community members have highlighted the high costs of objections. Do you believe that the costs of objections created a negative impact on their usage? If so, do you have suggestions for improving this issue? Are there issues beyond cost that might impact access, by various parties, to objections?  3.1.10 - Do you feel that GAC Early Warnings were helpful in identifying potential concerns with applications? Do you have suggestions on how to mitigate concerns identified in GAC Early Warnings? 3.1.11. - What improvements and clarifications should be made to GAC Advice procedures? What mitigation mechanisms are needed to respond to GAC Advice? How can timelines be made more precise?

1 0

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew July 18, 2017

July 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 July 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p3hu557v9ng/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3011643f1f7b0839 e912cc31b822a52f47df76a428b3e4dce623421de5d0964f> https://participate.icann.org/p3hu557v9ng/ 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/mnHwAw> https://community.icann.org/x/mnHwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 18 July 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday18 July 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_m nHwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ mnHwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=1XzvS_BUYogQD9npo882Fg3oEOp06wj-6MmAW2BSuV M&s=GTqj4rkkqhnn-QjYU0tNuyXI5n82E_PbOf62mrpQClM&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=1XzvS_BUYogQD9npo882Fg3oEOp06wj-6MmAW2BSuVM&s=GT qj4rkkqhnn-QjYU0tNuyXI5n82E_PbOf62mrpQClM&e= Steve Chan:Full WG meets on 24 July at 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Terri .. yes Jim Prendergast:Does Recommendation 2 include singular and plurals? Emily Barabas:Full versions of comments excepted above are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads heets_d_1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0_edit-23gid-3D845153891 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread sheets_d_1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0_edit-23gid-3D845153891 &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=1XzvS_BUYogQD9npo882Fg3oEOp06wj-6MmAW2BSuVM&s=bF fqtquszig0F4x8_V2VQnNv3Uo9KVDegF0FDcAfxJg&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=1XzvS_BUYogQD9npo882Fg3oEOp06wj-6MmAW2BSuVM&s=bF fqtquszig0F4x8_V2VQnNv3Uo9KVDegF0FDcAfxJg&e= Emily Barabas:*excerpted Jeff Neuman:@JIm - agree and that was discussed previously by this group when we looked at the small RySG group recommendations Jon Nevett:If we have a clear recommendation, let's make it clear in the policy Jon Nevett:ok to add it to guidance if we don't want to change the policy Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Policy needs to be clear and unambiguous Jim Prendergast:yes Gg Levine (NABP):I agree that the policy should be clear. Jim Prendergast:clear and unambiguous as CLO says Jim Prendergast:thats a very important distinction Jeff Susan Payne:need to be clear. if we are talking about singular/plural it needs to be policy Jamie Baxter | dotgay:agree it needs to be clear Jeff Neuman:@Alan - Just to clarify, the GNSO policy did not just think about visual similarity. That was much more of an ICANN-staff interpretation later on Jeff Neuman:but agree that being clear here is important and agree with Paul that singular/plural is not the only kind of confusion Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I agree with Alan as to developing policy on singular and plural. However it also has to be qualified in relation to closed generics, if awarded. Jeff Neuman:WE would also incorporate the previous discussions on this Alan Greenberg 2:Jeff, My recollection is that we discussed all sorts of confusions during the PDP, but that it was only visual that we included as something to review during the application process. Other types of confusion could be raised in objections. Trang Nguyen:String similarity review vs. string confusion objection. Paul McGrady:@Jeff, correct. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):For example, if a closed generic is awarded for .poppy, I would feel more favorably disposed of .poppies - but we also have to be aware that the meaning and purpose of the particular word may not be the generic. So, for example, if there is a registered trademark for .poppy that is for children's clothing as a brand, that probably should not prevent .poppies for sale of the flowers. Paul McGrady:@Jeff, two different times to look at confusion, but only one policy governing both. Jon Nevett:early on for sure Jim Prendergast:yeah - why create a situation where applicants spend time and resoruces applying, only to be denied once ICANN has the application fee? Trang Nguyen:@Alan, are you talking about an appeals mechanism for the string similarity review and not using string confusion objection if the applicant disagrees with the string similarity panel's determination? Jeff Neuman:We have string similarity review in this Work Track :) Jon Nevett:But we should not foreclose the opportunity for an objection Alan Greenberg:@Trang, yes. Correct. Jeff Neuman:@Paul - if there are other types of "String similarity" other than singular/plurals that should be handled up front, you should propose that Alan Greenberg:Where are we in the document? Steve Chan:@Alan, the bottom of page 2 Steve Chan:and page 3 Alan Greenberg:Thanks. Paul McGrady:Is this a policy issue or an implementation issue? Paul McGrady:It feels like it should be in the implementation Guidance instead of policy. Flat fee is a good idea but it seems granular. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:as long as implementation guidance provides assurance to applicants Paul McGrady:@Jamie, it will if it makes it into the Guidebook Jamie Baxter | dotgay:my concern is that the guidebook in the last round provided markers that were not adhered to, so that is not really assurance Jon Nevett:ICANN could do the remediation Paul McGrady:+1 SLO Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thankyou.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 18 July
by Julie Hedlund July 18, 2017

July 18, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 18 July. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The meeting recording and chat transcript are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/DBLfAw[community.icann.org]. The document referenced on the call is attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 18 July 2017 1. Full WG Update -- Update from ICANN59, Geonames, and Next Steps for the Plenary: -- The WG will meet on 24 July at 1500 UTC. WT1 and WT2 also meeting next week. -- Each WT is going through the CC2 comments to see if they change or support the current line of thinking. Going through a second reading of all of the topics. -- Goal will be for the WT Chairs and leadership to see if we can draw up preliminary recommendations for the full WG to come to a preliminary report towards the end of this year or early next. -- Geonames: Will start a WT 5 on geographic names at the top level. Invites will go out to the SOs and ACs to appoint one person to serve as a co-leaders of the WT. The PDP rules allow great flexibility in how sub teams are set up for each PDP WG. We hope by ensuring leadership can come from these SOs and ACs there will be more incentive for them to participate. Goal is to start up WT5 by the beginning of September. 2. CC2 Response Reviews: Note that the full versions of comments are at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… 3.1.1 Do you think the policy recommendations (recs 2, 3, 6, and 20) require any modifications? if so, what would you suggest? -- Received 6 separate responses: INTA, Nominet, RySG, BRG, Afilias, and ALAC -- INTA, Nominet, RySG, BRG and Afilias believe that the existing recommendations do not need to be revised. [Reading excerpts.] -- RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggest a minor change to Recommendation 20 -- to clarify what constitutes "a significant portion of the community." -- ALAC suggests a change to Recommendation 2. Discussion: -- Some of them are saying that the recommendation remains the same but the implementation could change. -- Re: question about Recommendation 2 including singular and plurals -- asked the question because it is not clear. It has to be explained explicitly some place so people are aware of what they can and cannot apply for. -- Question for the group: Should the policy for Recommendation 2 be changed, or only the implementation? Or keep the policy the same but in the guidance notes section we say that the WG believes, for example, plurals and singulars should be included (or whatever we want to say). Or, do we write the rules on plurals and singulars into the policy? -- When it comes to policy we are telling staff/Board that you must implement this in this way. When we give implementation guidance we are recommending it -- how it should be implemented -- but it is not as strong as being part of the policy. It seems that this is of such importance it may need to be in the policy. -- What we don't want to do is put in singular and plural so strongly that it suggests that this is the only way to be confusing. -- We need to make a strong recommendation as policy. It was such a huge gaping hole in the policy. -- Think about the mechanisms in which we use confusion: 1) confusingly similar done on the front end; 2) the recommendation is also implemented in the objection process -- legal rights objection on the basis that the string is confusingly similar. There are two different times, at least, that we look at confusion. -- For the string similarity review up front -- if singular or plural of an existing TLD it won't go forward (small group of registries proposal). Need to decide if the analysis up front governs the objection process. -- Optimally we would deal with this up front and one time only. Action: Paul McGrady volunteered to work on some language. Need to tap into the definition of confusion to make it clear when confusion analysis is undertaken what it is that we are looking at. >From the Chat: Jim Prendergast: Does Recommendation 2 include singular and plurals? Jeff Neuman: @JIm - agree and that was discussed previously by this group when we looked at the small RySG group recommendations Jon Nevett: If we have a clear recommendation, let's make it clear in the policy Jon Nevett: ok to add it to guidance if we don't want to change the policy Jim Prendergast: thats a very important distinction Jeff Susan Payne: need to be clear. if we are talking about singular/plural it needs to be policy Jamie Baxter | dotgay: agree it needs to be clear Jeff Neuman: @Alan - Just to clarify, the GNSO policy did not just think about visual similarity. That was much more of an ICANN-staff interpretation later on Jeff Neuman: but agree that being clear here is important and agree with Paul that singular/plural is not the only kind of confusion Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Policy needs to be clear and unambiguous Jim Prendergast: yes Gg Levine (NABP): I agree that the policy should be clear. Jim Prendergast: clear and unambiguous as CLO says Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I agree with Alan as to developing policy on singular and plural. However it also has to be qualified in relation to closed generics, if awarded. Jeff Neuman: WE would also incorporate the previous discussions on this Alan Greenberg 2: Jeff, My recollection is that we discussed all sorts of confusions during the PDP, but that it was only visual that we included as something to review during the application process. Other types of confusion could be raised in objections. Trang Nguyen: String similarity review vs. string confusion objection. Paul McGrady: @Jeff, correct. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): For example, if a closed generic is awarded for .poppy, I would feel more favorably disposed of .poppies - but we also have to be aware that the meaning and purpose of the particular word may not be the generic. So, for example, if there is a registered trademark for .poppy that is for children's clothing as a brand, that probably should not prevent .poppies for sale of the flowers. Paul McGrady: @Jeff, two different times to look at confusion, but only one policy governing both. Jon Nevett: early on for sure Jim Prendergast: yeah - why create a situation where applicants spend time and resoruces applying, only to be denied once ICANN has the application fee? Trang Nguyen: @Alan, are you talking about an appeals mechanism for the string similarity review and not using string confusion objection if the applicant disagrees with the string similarity panel's determination? Jon Nevett: But we should not foreclose the opportunity for an objection Alan Greenberg: @Trang, yes. Correct. Jeff Neuman: @Paul - if there are other types of "String similarity" other than singular/plurals that should be handled up front, you should propose that 3.1.2: Do you believe that those recommendations (which led to the establishment of the String Confusion, Legal Rights, Limited Public Interest, and Community Objections grounds) were implemented effectively and in the the spirit of the original policy recommendations? -- Jannik Skou, BC, RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested that String Confusion needs to be improved. [Reading sample excerpts.] -- Jannik Skou and the ALAC suggested that Legal Rights Objections need to be improved. -- The RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested that Community Objections need to be improved. -- The BC suggested developing a process to appeal decisions. -- The RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested specific procedural improvements to the objections processes. Discussion: -- From the ALAC, string confusion is probably the single largest issue of gTLDs. Specific cases (hotel/hotels) if a user doesn't remember what he used last time then it is confusing. -- Legal rights objection takes place at the application stage not use stage -- note strawman from Paul McGrady. -- Seems that we are talking about two different things. Seems like someone is talking about adding a remediation step -- don't know how that could work practically with the panel. -- Should remediation be part of the objection process or separate? -- The opportunity for mediation leading to possible remediation should be an option for a precursor to arbitration. >From the chat: Paul McGrady: Is this a policy issue or an implementation issue? Paul McGrady: It feels like it should be in the implementation Guidance instead of policy. Flat fee is a good idea but it seems granular. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: as long as implementation guidance provides assurance to applicants Paul McGrady: @Jamie, it will if it makes it into the Guidebook Jamie Baxter | dotgay: my concern is that the guidebook in the last round provided markers that were not adhered to, so that is not really assurance Jon Nevett: ICANN could do the remediation Paul McGrady: +1 CLO

1 0

WT3 Meeting Agenda - Tuesday, July 18, 2017 @ 20:00 UTC
by Karen Day July 17, 2017

July 17, 2017

Dear WT3 Members, Our next meeting will take place next Tuesday @ 20:00 UTC and our agenda will be as follows 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. Plenary Update/ICANN 59 Review 4. CC2 Response Reviews 5. AOB For the substance of the meeting, we will begin our review of CC2 feedback, specifically looking at the following questions: 3.1.1 - Do you think that the policy recommendations (Recommendations 2, 3, 6, and 20) require any modifications? If so, what would you suggest? 3.1.2 - Do you believe that those recommendations (which led to the establishment of the String Confusion, Legal Rights, Limited Public Interest, and Community Objections grounds) were implemented effectively and in the spirit of the original policy recommendations? If no, please provide examples. 3.1.3 - Do you believe there were any issues with standing requirements as defined in the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), or as carried out by the providers? Please explain. 3.1.4 - Do you believe there is evidence of decisions made by objection dispute panels that were inconsistent with other similar objections, the original policy recommendations, and/or the AGB? Please explain.  3.1.5 - Are you aware of any instances where any party or parties attempted to ‘game’ the Objection procedures in the 2012 round? If so, please provide examples and any evidence you may have available. Please take a moment prior to the meeting to review the responses to these questions on the wiki https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63155738 Some of these responses are quite substantial so we hope avoid having to read them verbatim in during the call in favor of discussion of themes derived from the responses. Thanks & I look forward to talking to you on Tuesday! Karen

1 1