September 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 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, 26 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p35fihbcdeu/<https://participate.icann.org/p35fihbcdeu/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=96c8662b94871fcc…> 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/AhohB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 26 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ staff - the 520 phone number is Anne Aikman-Scalese Julie Bisland:thank you Anne Alan Greenberg:We have. Christopher Wilkinson Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I believe the plenary said they would seek permission from the 3 GNSO Co-Chair nominees for WT5 to disclosse their names. avri doria:for example i did not mention the rrreport the poolicy staff is working on describinf all the issues and state of discussions and which they gave out a url on. avri doria:... report that policy staff ... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ Avri - it would be so great if staff could post the associated pdfs on the Wiki rather than having every member copy and paste the urls in the Summary document that are NOT live links. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Or post the live links on the wiki along with the link to the Summary doc. Alan Greenberg:Better to sort bby pair and not purely alphabetically. avri doria:Thank you Anne, I am sure they will take your comment into account for their later versions and will react appropriately. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you Avri. Michael Flemming (GMO):I support this. It was a nightmare going through filing procedures in such a limited time period. Michael Flemming (GMO):In regards to the first comment. Michael Flemming (GMO):Sorry, thanks for the clarification. Paul McGrady:I'm happy to hold my comments until the chair is ready. :) Michael Flemming (GMO):I wanted to get in the que too Julie Bisland:Paul, no sound at all Julie Bisland:ok, now good Alan Greenberg:My adobe connect speaker just came on and phone mutted of disconnected! Alan Greenberg:Ahh. My phone died. Paul McGrady:So sorry about the audio problems. Ugh. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Paul Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):For example, what happens when we compare .hardrock with .hardrocks? (I don't represent the Hard Rock or any rock bands or any rock climbers.) Roger Carney:+1 Michael, on synonyms Michael Flemming (GMO):Potentially confusing, maybe, but not restrictively. Unless the application itself outlined a plan to operate within the field that shared similarity with its synonym, then I could see that, but other than that it is too widestretched. Paul McGrady:@Alan - that wasn't my comment RE: Drs. Paul McGrady:Ha! Michael Flemming (GMO):Poor Paul Michael Flemming (GMO):Never Paul McGrady:Sword tools worse than useless. Jim Prendergast:https://icannwiki.org/String_Similarity_Panel Jim Prendergast:second section Jim Prendergast:and the link to the tool does not work... live by the Sword.... Alan Greenberg:Thanks Paul. Reminds me about an old joke that involves the line that particular information is "100% accurate and 100% meaningless" Paul McGrady:@Kurt - I promised that my description should be highly editorialized. Paul McGrady:@Kurt - how would the algorythm take into account trademark registrations? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Too bad the tool is o longer live. We could run hypothetical strings against it to help find examples that might lead to a better tool. Paul McGrady:@Kurt - would the new Sword be for only comparing strings for string similarity and not for rights objection? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):But should we incorporate any new tool into the panel decisions? Phil Marano:SWORD results (high or low) were routinely cited by either party in string similarity objections, though deference by Panels was unclear at best. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thinking about "predictability". Michael Flemming (GMO):Question: Does the similarity review panel used in the ccTLD fast track, if applicable to gTLD similarity, allow for an appeals process for being placed in a contention set or being refused based upon similarity with an existing TLD? Kurt Pritz:@ Paul - the algorithm merely compares any two strings and provides a similarity score. Someone would have to draw a line under a certain score. I should write a sad obituary of a good idea that didn't make it (cf. digital archery) Michael Flemming (GMO):Wish Rubens was here Emily Barabas:ALAC response to 3.1.1: "The recommendation on string confusion is one that must be enhanced. Singular and plural versions of related strings proved to be problematic in the first round and must be addressed this time. Such provision should not be limited to just the addition of an S but should be more generalized as suggested in a recent Registry SG document. That being said, as discussed in relation the ccNSO Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) document, for strings that are inherently confusing in their own right, but for which STRONG irrevocable policies mitigating against confusion in full domain names, delegation could be considered." Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):It would also be pretty useless when there is a trademark involved in one string that has secondary meaning to the public - probably need to just scrap it. Michael Flemming (GMO):@Anne is that in regards to the harmonization with the ccTLD fast track harmonization? Michael Flemming (GMO):sorry, used by noun twice Michael Flemming (GMO):my* Michael Flemming (GMO):I would be support of exploring that further Michael Flemming (GMO):Not at the current time avri doria:appeals could apply to that as much as anything, i think. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Another tough question. What about .star compared to .starz? And is that confusing with .etoile? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Not sure what Michael is supporting (or opposing) avri doria:does that mean that japanese see car and cars as different and have no confusion? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):And what do we think about the phonetic equivalent of a plural? e.g. starz? Michael Flemming (GMO):Theoritically, though, the IDN equivalent of English is recognized completely differently. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Gg: If I'm understanding you correctly, wouldn't that mean we would have to do the community evaluation at the beginning (and leaving string similarity and confusion to the end)? Michael Flemming (GMO):I don't want to pick at .shop, but .通販 and .shop are two different words and have different target communtiies. Michael Flemming (GMO):If they are thrown into the same contention set, don't we close ourselves off to allowing for the IDN to go live? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Michael : +1 :-) Gg Levine (NABP):@Kristina: perhaps; that would be one approach. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I can tell you how we got to the result. Amazon was one of the applicants. Paul McGrady:I think we need to talk about both contention sets (2 new applications) and string preclusion (1 new application v an already delegated gTLD, which already delegated gTLD wins). Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):IN Track 4 we are talking about a registry getting the right to the equivalent idn when it is awarded the English word. I dont really understand to what degree that is being proposed but it relates to string similarity and contention sets in my mind because the issue is not JUST foreign languages that use the script we use - it's also idns an idn equivalents. Don't really know how this was treated in 2012 but Work Track 4 is now working on the idn issue. Would appreciate if Rubens or Cheryl could clarify. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye for now... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to drop for another meeting. Michael is correct. Board ordered the hearing of .shop v. online shopping (japanese). Panel strongly argued that upholding the string contention would, in fact, undermine the existence of IDNs, which were one of the stated (and perhaps only widely supported) rationales for the new gTLD program. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to run. Michael Flemming (GMO):Thx, Kristina Paul McGrady:Great call, but I need to go. Have a great day y'all! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think the methodology is fine. You get lots of opinions out on the table and issues get raised. Julie Bisland:Next TRACK 3 call: Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Avri and Karen. Have a good day all. Michael Flemming (GMO):I will be there Michael Flemming (GMO):Great call avri doria:bye

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 26 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 26 September. 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 documents referenced on the call are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 26 September 2017 1. Plenary Update: -- We reached consensus on appointing Cheryl-Langdon Orr as Co-Chair of the PDP WG, pending approval from the GNSO Council. -- Went through the four Work Track Sub Team reports. No issues. -- Work Track Sub Team 5: At least 3 out of the 4 of having appointed a co-leader. ccNSO has already appointed someone and GAC and ALAC are in their approval processes. [ALAC chose Christopher Wilkinson.] GNSO choice discussions are ongoing. -- Discussion on overarching issues on categories, which is ongoing. >From the chat: Alan Greenberg: We have. Christopher [for the Worktrack Subteam 5] Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I believe the plenary said they would seek permission from the 3 GNSO Co-Chair nominees for WT5 to disclosse their names. 2. CC2 — String Similarity — Q 3.4.1 - 3.4.6: Singular/Plural Same Owner Analysis: -- Question from last meeting about how many singulars and plurals of strings ended up being owned by the same entity. -- Looked at currently delegated strings. There are 21 pairs of singulars and plurals. The specific question was where singular and plurals and the owners are the same. There are only 4 pairs of those. Car/Cars was merger and acquisition; fan/fans was acquisition; riese/riesen was acquisition; appliance/appliances applied with the same ower. CC2 Document: 3.4.1 -- There was a perception that consistency and predictability of the string similarity evaluation needs to be improved. Do you have examples or evidence of issues? If so do you have suggested changes to the policy recommendations or implementation that may lead to improvement? For instance, should the standard of string confusion that the evaluation panel be updated or refined in any way? -- INTA, BC, RySG, BRG, Afilias, and ALAC provided suggestions with improving the string similarity evaluation with respect to singulars and plurals. -- INTA and NCSG recommended a longer period of time between the string similarity review, and the deadline to file a string confusion objection. -- NABP stated that where there is a verified TLD in a partiular industry sector, any string in the same industry sector should have the same or substantially similar restrictions to address possible confusion. -- RySG, BRG, Afilias, and Google recommended eliminating the SWORD tool. -- NCSG provided feedback that string evaluation should be consistent and effective at avoiding confusion and promoting confidence through fair resolution mechanisms. -- Additional suggestions for dealing with string similarities were suggested on the list. -- Reporting back on unified definition or framework to determine whether strings are similar. Concluded that when you compare two generic terms that aren't tied to any trademark -- trying to develop a uniform framework, such as .hammers against a pre-existing TLD for .hammer is a very different analysis than comparing a pre-existing TLD consisting of a trademark against another TLD consisting of a trademark, but only one of which will be used as a brand -- there is no simple way to do that. -- The idea of tying synonyms together should be left outside of the string similarity issue. Don't support the comment from NABP. -- One of the factors the NABP comments brought into consider is if there is the potential for confusion the potentially confusing string could be operated in a way that could be designated for a specific community. -- We are talking about balancing the public interest and consumer safeguards. Not a given that we have to go in one direction or another. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Paul Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): For example, what happens when we compare .hardrock with .hardrocks? (I don't represent the Hard Rock or any rock bands or any rock climbers.) Roger Carney: +1 Michael, on synonyms Michael Flemming (GMO): Potentially confusing, maybe, but not restrictively. Unless the application itself outlined a plan to operate within the field that shared similarity with its synonym, then I could see that, but other than that it is too widestretched. Question: Should we get rid of the SWORD tool? -- Yes, it is worse than useless. -- The idea behind it was to provide an objective measure. The fact that the scores differed from the similarity panel that was more of an indictment of the similarity panel, rather than the algorithym. Shouldn't evaluate a tool that wasn't finished. Should do a trial. >From the chat: Alan Greenberg: Thanks Paul. Reminds me about an old joke that involves the line that particular information is "100% accurate and 100% meaningless" Paul McGrady: @Kurt - I promised that my description should be highly editorialized. Paul McGrady: @Kurt - how would the algorythm take into account trademark registrations? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Too bad the tool is o longer live. We could run hypothetical strings against it to help find examples that might lead to a better tool. Paul McGrady: @Kurt - would the new Sword be for only comparing strings for string similarity and not for rights objection? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): But should we incorporate any new tool into the panel decisions? 3.4.2 -- Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs? -- SSAC reference advice provided in SAC060: SSAC Comment on Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs Report (23 July 2013). -- Nominet and ALAC supported harmonization. Question: Could there be an appeals process for a TLD being consider in the ccTLD fastrack? Response: On the notion of appeal. That came out when the draft AGB was being discussed. There was a strong request for appeals on the decisions of the review panel, but the notion was denied. This group could suggest this in implementation. >From the chat: Emily Barabas: ALAC response to 3.1.1: "The recommendation on string confusion is one that must be enhanced. Singular and plural versions of related strings proved to be problematic in the first round and must be addressed this time. Such provision should not be limited to just the addition of an S but should be more generalized as suggested in a recent Registry SG document. That being said, as discussed in relation the ccNSO Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) document, for strings that are inherently confusing in their own right, but for which STRONG irrevocable policies mitigating against confusion in full domain names, delegation could be considered." Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): It would also be pretty useless when there is a trademark involved in one string that has secondary meaning to the public - probably need to just scrap it. Michael Flemming (GMO): @Anne is that in regards to the harmonization with the ccTLD fast track harmonization? Michael Flemming (GMO): sorry, used by noun twice Michael Flemming (GMO): my* avri doria: appeals could apply to that as much as anything, i think. 3.4.3 -- The WG and the wider community have raised concerns specifically related to singles and plurals of the same word. Do you have suggestions on how to develop guidance on singles and plurals that will lead to predictable outcomes? Would providing for more predictability of outcomes unfairly prejudice the rights of applicants or others? -- RySG, BRG, Valideus, BC, Google, and vTLD Consortium supported putting singulars and plurals in the same language and script in a contention set. -- Proposal from the Registry based on language and script. -- So confusing for non-native English speakers. Support the notion of singulars and plurals in the same contention set, but not their equivalents in another language in that same set. -- Based on the application -- if IDNs are thrown together with their equivalent in the same contention set, doesn't that suggest that only one will be delegated? -- Concerned about how we are doing this. At some point are we going to discuss whether these comments have merit. I don’t know how we go back to make decisions based on the comments. -- The idea is that in this pass we are doing the due diligence. In some cases you can see consensus on the way to go. The staff is working on a compendium of where we are and where there may be something approaching consensus. Next each Worktrack goes through its third and deciding pass and decide if we are going to change what exists with enough case, or will we stick with the status quo. If we are going to change it in what way will we change it. The next pass is where we have to come to a consensus point. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): And what do we think about the phonetic equivalent of a plural? e.g. starz? Michael Flemming (GMO): Theoritically, though, the IDN equivalent of English is recognized Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Another tough question. What about .star compared to .starz? And is that confusing with .etoile?completely differently. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Gg: If I'm understanding you correctly, wouldn't that mean we would have to do the community evaluation at the beginning (and leaving string similarity and confusion to the end)? Michael Flemming (GMO): I don't want to pick at .shop, but .通販 and .shop are two different words and have different target communtiies. Michael Flemming (GMO): If they are thrown into the same contention set, don't we close ourselves off to allowing for the IDN to go live? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Michael : +1 :-) Gg Levine (NABP): @Kristina: perhaps; that would be one approach. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I can tell you how we got to the result. Amazon was one of the applicants. Paul McGrady: I think we need to talk about both contention sets (2 new applications) and string preclusion (1 new application v an already delegated gTLD, which already delegated gTLD wins). Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): IN Track 4 we are talking about a registry getting the right to the equivalent idn when it is awarded the English word. I dont really understand to what degree that is being proposed but it relates to string similarity and contention sets in my mind because the issue is not JUST foreign languages that use the script we use - it's also idns an idn equivalents. Don't really know how this was treated in 2012 but Work Track 4 is now working on the idn issue. Would appreciate if Rubens or Cheryl could clarify.

1 0

WT3 - Agenda & Materials for Tuesday, 26 September @ 15:00 UTC - String Similarity
by Karen Day Sept. 22, 2017

Sept. 22, 2017

Dear All, In preparation for our next call, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 @ 15:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed agenda. We will be focusing on string similarity. In addition to the CC2 comments we received, which I am attaching for your review, I’d like us to again look at a the proposals that were submitted to our group in February. Those are attached here as well and if you have time and inclination, feel free to start making markups or highlight specific points of concern to you that we can address on the call. Staff is working on gathering some statistics for us on common ownership of singular and plural gTLDs as had been previously requested. Have a great weekend and for those of you celebrating the holiday, happy new year. Karen __________________________ 1.Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI 3. Plenary Update 5. CC2 — String Similarity — Q 3.4.1 - 3.4.6 6. AOB CC2 Questions on String Similarity [ Themes document attached. Full responses are available for review at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… ] 3.4.1 - There was a perception that consistency and predictability of the string similarity evaluation needs to be improved. Do you have examples or evidence of issues? If so, do you have suggested changes to the policy recommendations or implementation that may lead to improvement? For instance, should the standard of string confusion that the evaluation panel used be updated or refined in any way? 3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?  3.4.3 - The WG and the wider community have raised concerns specifically related to singles and plurals of the same word. Do you have suggestions on how to develop guidance on singles and plurals that will lead to predictable outcomes? Would providing for more predictability of outcomes unfairly prejudice the rights of applicants or others? 3.4.4 - Do you believe that there should be some sort of mechanism to allow for a change of applied-for TLD when it is determined to be in contention with one or more other strings? If so, do you have suggestions on a workable mechanism? 

1 0

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Sept. 12, 2017

Sept. 12, 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, 12 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p8x5f57o8sw/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4c3b942c19b662a3…> https://participate.icann.org/p8x5f57o8sw/ 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/-RkhB> https://community.icann.org/x/-RkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 September 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 12 September 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_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=xAzc5LwSIPMmFNMEuP3PR-y_eM6ZMcfPoTwMby0_S_k&s=LrzTk_No_U-xc_JnrLWCVNngmPo09YaUwHmlHstdGck&e= Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi all, Robin Gross:Greetings! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):just stepping away from the screen for a short while Karen Day:hello! Jeff Neuman:no, you covered it Robin Gross: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? Robin Gross:“There seemed to be some confusion and uncertainty about the implications and consequences of a GAC EarlyWarning. Several steps could minimize this confusion and uncertainty in the future:change the name to GAC Member Early Warning (or something similar) to communicate clearly that the EarlyWarning has not been issued by the entire GAC, but, instead, by one or more GAC members;(adopt and identify a clear timetable for action by the issuing GAC member(s) to provide certainty toapplicants;(iii) require the issuing GAC member(s) to identify the national law(s) on which the Early Warning is based;(iv) have the issuing GAC member(s) designate the type of action(s) desired from the applicant; and(v) emphasize that the GAC Member Early Warnings have no precedential value.” – RySG, BRG, Afilias Karen Day:yes Jamie Baxter | dotgay:yes Karen Day:we hear you Karen Bernstein:Yes Steve Chan:FYI, the CC2 themes document being displayed can also be viewed on the Objections Wiki page here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=xAzc5LwSIPMmFNMEuP3PR-y_eM6ZMcfPoTwMby0_S_k&s=Mzt2yo295slAc7FNJ0NkS-JsZgKUnncLLAQWoHPlbwg&e= Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I would say no Alan because the GAC advises on Public Policy. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I didn't think it was... but also not an expert here avri doria:i do beleive it was. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):really Available? Jim Prendergast:this might help - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=xAzc5LwSIPMmFNMEuP3PR-y_eM6ZMcfPoTwMby0_S_k&s=ZiUCb7JenXJgSw6SCmNPBFFJKJk3CnP9LjBlU8Y297g&e= Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):argh Avri sorry auto correct strikes again Trang Nguyen:Section 1.1.2.4 of the AGB says "GAC EW typically results from a notice to the GAC by one or more governments that an application might be problematic, e.g., potentially violate national law or raise sensitivities. Jeff Neuman:Concurrent with the 60-day comment period, ICANN’sGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC) may issue aGAC Early Warning notice concerning an application. Thisprovides the applicant with an indication that theapplication is seen as potentially sensitive or problematicby one or more governments.The GAC Early Warning is a notice only. It is not a formalobjection, nor does it directly lead to a process that canresult in rejection of the application. However, a GAC EarlyWarning should be taken seriously as it raises the likelihoodthat the application could be the subject of GAC Adviceon New gTLDs (see subsection 1.1.2.7) or of a formalobjection (see subsection 1.1.2.6) at a later stage in theprocess. Karen Bernstein:AGB 3.1: The process for GAC Advice on New gTLDs is intended toaddress applications that are identified by governments tobe problematic, e.g., that potentially violate national lawor raise sensitivities. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: It would actually be great if we could get further definition from the GAC of the terms "sensitive" and "problematic". COMMENT Jeff Neuman:The AG also states: ". A GAC Early Warning may be issued forany reason" Steve Chan:From that same section (1.1.2.4) A GAC Early Warning typically results from a notice to theGAC by one or more governments that an applicationmight be problematic, e.g., potentially violate national lawor raise sensitivities. A GAC Early Warning may be issued forany reason.1 The GAC may then send that notice to theBoard – constituting the GAC Early Warning. ICANN willnotify applicants of GAC Early Warnings as soon aspracticable after receipt from the GAC. The GAC EarlyWarning notice may include a nominated point of contactfor further information. Jeff Neuman:but has a footnote that states: "While definitive guidance has not been issued, the GAC has indicated that strings that could raise sensitivities include those that"purport to represent or that embody a particular group of people or interests based on historical, cultural, or social components ofidentity, such as nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, belief, culture or particular social origin or group, political opinion, membershipof a national minority, disability, age, and/or a language or linguistic group (non-exhaustive)" and "those strings that refer toparticular sectors, such as those subject to national regulation (such as .bank, .pharmacy) or those that describe or are targeted to apopulation or industry that is vulnerable to online fraud or abuse.”" Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff. This is helpful. Maybe we should take the public comment to mean that if the objection is based on "those subject to national regulation", we ask the GAC to specify the "national regulation" they are citing. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think Greg will clarify that there is already a definition in the ByLaws as to what GAC Advice constitutes a presumption and what vote of the Board is required to overcome it - 60 % vote I think. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I hate to state the obvious, but the Amazon v. ICANN IRP Final Declaration has some useful guidance on these topics. Jeff Neuman:I am talking about something very different Jeff Neuman:I am not talking about a presumption that the advice will be accepted. I am talking about the presumption that a TLD will not move forward. Jeff Neuman:They are NOT the same thing Jeff Neuman:In other words the Board could "accept the GAC advice", but if the advice were contrary to what the rules allowed to reject a TLD, it would not be bound to not delegate the TLD Donna Austin, Neustar: There were 187 applications that received early warnings and 2 applications were withdrawn as a result. Jeff Neuman:@Karen you are right. Some govts were hoping that applicants would withdraw knowing they would not be able to get GAC advice Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Jeff - the issue is actually your description of "contrary to what the rules allowed to reject a TLD". If it is GAC Consensus Advice on an Early Warning, then I think as of now it is "within the rule". Do you want to say that an Early Warning coming from only one country cannot delay a TLD from moving forward? Donna Austin, Neustar:In addition, the Board received advice on specific applications affecting 23 applications, and the Beijing communique contained advice on broad categories tof strings affecting 491 applications. Donna Austin, Neustar:My data comes from page 95 of ICANN's Program Implementation Review Steve Chan:The report Donna is referencing is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=xAzc5LwSIPMmFNMEuP3PR-y_eM6ZMcfPoTwMby0_S_k&s=iZuSUzHdDAhH3jloicqCKPnZNh7As7dTA8BKGiqkowo&e= Greg Shatan:I don't see how the "board" could accept GAC Advice that the GAC can't give. Trang Nguyen:page 96 of the Program Implementation Review Report says: "Indeed, there was some correlation between Early Warnings and Advice, but not all applications that received Advice had received an Early Warning. While only 187 applications received Early Warnings, 517 applications were subject to GAC Advice. Over 300 applications that were subject to GAC Advice did not receive any Early Warning. Based on this data, if the intent of the Early Warning process was to provide applicants with predictability, that intent was achieved in only 38% of cases." Jeff Neuman:By the same taken i dont see the board having to have a 60% threshhold to overcome GAC Advice that should have never been issued or beyond their scope Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think this is a tough nut to crack in relation to GAC Consensus Advice. Should Work Track 5 take the position that objections to Geo Names are not objections based on Public Policy? How would we frame issues as issues that are not based on public policy? Jim Prendergast:just because the GAC would push back dosnt mean we shouldnt go there Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):See paragraphs 100 and following: "We conclude that GAC consensus advice . .. must be based on a well-founded public interest concern and this public interest basis must be ascertained or ascertainable from the entirety of the record before the NGPC. In other words, the reason(s) supporting the GAC consensus advice, and hence the NGPC decision, must be tethered to valid and legitimate public policy considerations." (Para. 103) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Great language but how do you prove that it's not based on public policy and who is the arbiter? Donna Austin, Neustar:I think we should acknowledge that while GAC advice was problematic, the approach of the NGPC in dealing with the GAC advice was also problematic. Jeff Neuman:I am not saying that there could be no exceptions, but there needs to be a predictable proccess to deal with those Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Donna - that is a good angle as to GAC Advice that is not Consensus Advice at least. Jeff Neuman:Is there any GAC Advice that is not Consensus Advice Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Yes. Greg, can you elaborate? Alan Greenberg:Perhaps there needs to be a method for the gac to object to (for instance geographic names), but there needs to be defined process for resolving it and not depend on a somewhat arbitrary board decision. Susan Payne:@Anne - not entirely GAC advice isn't a veto that must be blindly followed bvy the board. It is advice they must take on board. Donna Austin, Neustar:Anne: I believe it was all consensus advice as it was provided in communiques Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ Donna - but maybe that changes after the Accountability work? Couldn't we point out that an Early Warning from only one country is not Consensus Advice and NGPC equivalent should treat that differently? (Maybe that is not possible if the full GAC endorses that Early Warning and it is "tit for tat". Greg Shatan:Early Warning is not advice at all, consensus or otherwise. Donna Austin, Neustar:Anne: I don't believe GAC Early Warnings were considered by the NGPC. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Donna: They did for the .AMAZON TLDs. Can't speak to others. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Kristina, after .amazon was subject to GAC advice or before? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Cheryl that a diplomatic approach is preferable - especially in terms of new EC Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Donna: After. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_gac… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_gac…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=xAzc5LwSIPMmFNMEuP3PR-y_eM6ZMcfPoTwMby0_S_k&s=mIjXJ8U2OIMYBhGMJqw4hov5qZopOfcxM3-uMy7psko&e= Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):ByLaws were revised. They do govern as far as I know. See 12.2 (a) (x) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):especially if Gac has actively contributed now to the development of such guidelines @Donna, and I also doubt that there could be a 'waiving of any right to give Advice ' but a greater predictability and benefits from any ensuin post application processes Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):New by-Law dfines Consensus Advice as "the practice of adopting decision by general agreement in tehe absence of any formal objection ("GAC Consensus Advice") Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that is a good example of a good or potentially beneficial 'new' process @Jeff Jim Prendergast:I like the idea of an applicant having a chance to respond directly to the board about advice issued agains them. adds an element of due process Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Para. 94: "Thus, under the facts of this IRP, the procedural fairness obligation applicable to the GAC, at a minimum, required that the GAC allow a written statement or comment from a potentially adversely affected party, before it decided whether to issue consensus advice objecting to an application. The Board’s obligation was to see that the GAC, as a constituent body of ICANN, had such a procedure and that it followed it." Jeff Neuman:@Anne - would you support the right of an applicant to provide a response to the Board on GAC Advice? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):On our next call, I'll be happy to recite the IRP Panel Final Declaration from memory. (kidding) Jim Prendergast:was the concept of EW as a prerequisite explicity addressed in previous round and if so, why wasnt it implemented? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - absolutely. Board has discretion to override GAC Advice by 60 % vote. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):exactly @Susan Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff, right now I think there is no individual right of reply but why not? Jeff Neuman:@Anne - Because the Board historically has not allowed anyone other than ICANN staff present to the Board Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Indeed - they would normaly just rely on GNSO policy advice. But you asked if it would be theoretically possible. Jeff Neuman:@Anne - I am not even just talking about in cases with Policy Advice. Its also this case with contract amendments, approval of registry servivces, etc. Jeff Neuman:The ICANN Board should always allow parties that may be adversely affect be able to present to the Board Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff, not the case. reconsideration requests have been allowed to speak directly with the Board. Terri Agnew:Next meeting: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Gg Levine (NABP):I agree that applicants should be given the opportunity to respond to GAC advice. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good discussion I'm today's call more to discuss on the topic though... ðŸ‘‹ bye for now... thanks everyone... Jeff Neuman:In a few Reconsideration requests, but not all Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Robin Susan Payne:good call robin Karen Day:thanks all

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 12 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 12, 2017

Sept. 12, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 12 September. 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 documents referenced on the call are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 12 September 2017 Notes: 1. Plenary Update: -- Met on 11 September. Went through the progress on the various work tracks. Talked about procedures going forward and work track 5 as well as interaction with RPM. -- Started working toward some initial consensus on having categories and starting from the base of categories from the last round. Started talking about possible new categories. -- Reviewed the status and noted that if there isn't consensus to change something we have the standing policy and AGB to fall back on if there is no consensus to change. 2. CC2 — GAC Objections — Q 3.1.10 – 3.1.11 (see attached): The CC2 themes document being displayed can also be viewed on the Objections Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Vz2AAw 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? -- Nominet responded that GAC Early Warnings were helpful in identifying potential concerns with applications. -- BC, RySG, BRG, Afilias provided suggestions for improving the Early Warning mechanism. Discussion: -- Requiring GAC members to identify the national law(s) on which the Early Warning is based seems to be a good suggestion. -- Question: Is it clear in the AGB that Early Warnings must be based on national law? -- Explaining the rationale should be required and if it is national law it should be cited. Also should be GAC member warnings. -- If we articulate this carefully that there might be a point in time when the power of GAC advice might be mustered and we provide rationale that could be a good thing. Also, the potential for violation of national law or potential concern. Perhaps ask GAC colleagues for proposed text. -- Could figure out where the GAC advice has a rebuttal presumption it won't be approved we may want limits on what type of GAC advice could give rise to that presumption. Shouldn't be able to provide an Early Warning based on anything. Be clear on the impact of the Early Warning and if the applicant responds. -- We spent a whole lot of time in CCWG Accountability WS1 discussing how the Board deals with GAC advice. I don't think we need to repeat that. Should exercise the full power of this group to look at the Early Warning to look at what went right and what went wrong. -- We discussed GAC advice at our Copenhagen meeting. The number of GAC Early Warnings that were issued were so small in comparison to the applications that got GAC advice later that that did not work as a predictability indicator for applicants. We need to look at some way to make it predictable for applicants. From the Chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: There were 187 applications that received early warnings and 2 applications were withdrawn as a result. In addition, the Board received advice on specific applications affecting 23 applications, and the Beijing communique contained advice on broad categories of strings affecting 491 applications. -- It is important to note that community applications are not allowed to change their applications, so we should consider how community could be given the ability to adjust to GAC advice. -- We should definitely make sure there is a period where applicants can respond to government concerns. -- There is a difference on what the CCWG Accountability WS1 did on GAC advice and what the AGB has on GAC advice. -- Several CC2 commenters agreed that GAC members giving advice or Early Warnings needed to give rationale. -- There are a couple of areas that we should look at, such as differentiating between GAC consensus advice and advice from a member. Good idea to have them cite the regulation or national law, but don't want the Board or others to decide whether that advice is based in public policy. -- Even if the GAC pushes back that is no reason not to go there. We need the predictability. -- If the AGB sets forth the rules with specificity on a particular topic and the applicant follows those rules but then the GAC provides advice, even if it has agreed to those rules. The GAC reserved this right to provide advice on anything, which created a presumption that the TLD won't be accepted. Geonames for example, AGB said this is a list of names that weren't allowed and then the GAC gave advice on other names that were applied for but were not on the list of names not allowed in the AGB. For situations that were foreseen there should be limits on what we allow for objections or GAC advice. -- If the above is done with no exceptions then it will be hard to get compromises. Could some level of exception allow us to get to a better rule. Jeff Neuman: I am not saying that there could be no exceptions, but there needs to be a predictable process to deal with those. -- Stats: In the 2012 round only 38% of applications that were subject to GAC advice received an early warning. There were 25 applications that received only an early warning. There were 355 that recevied GAC advice without receiving an early warning. -- There should be a strong disincentive to do through GAC advice what didn't get done elsewhere. We need to look at the interaction with the GAC in the application process. -- The concept of what Early Warning would do shouldn't be lost. We do need to look very carefully at the equitable treatment in terms of opportunity. Make sure it is a fairer playing field. Make sure we don't spend too much time bemoaning some of the issues that happened in the 2012 round. Shoudl look for an opportunity where we can ask for specific, timely, and efficient input from the GAC to improve predictability. -- Don't know that there is anyway the GAC could provide that type of information until such time they saw the applications and the strings themselves. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I would say no Alan because the GAC advises on Public Policy. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I didn't think it was... but also not an expert here avri doria: i do beleive it was. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): really Available? Jim Prendergast: this might help - https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-early-warning Trang Nguyen: Section 1.1.2.4 of the AGB says "GAC EW typically results from a notice to the GAC by one or more governments that an application might be problematic, e.g., potentially violate national law or raise sensitivities. Jeff Neuman: Concurrent with the 60-day comment period, ICANN’sGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC) may issue aGAC Early Warning notice concerning an application. Thisprovides the applicant with an indication that theapplication is seen as potentially sensitive or problematicby one or more governments.The GAC Early Warning is a notice only. It is not a formalobjection, nor does it directly lead to a process that canresult in rejection of the application. However, a GAC EarlyWarning should be taken seriously as it raises the likelihoodthat the application could be the subject of GAC Adviceon New gTLDs (see subsection 1.1.2.7) or of a formalobjection (see subsection 1.1.2.6) at a later stage in theprocess. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: It would actually be great if we could get further definition from the GAC of the terms "sensitive" and "problematic". COMMENT Jeff Neuman: The AG also states: ". A GAC Early Warning may be issued forany reason" Steve Chan: From that same section (1.1.2.4) A GAC Early Warning typically results from a notice to theGAC by one or more governments that an applicationmight be problematic, e.g., potentially violate national lawor raise sensitivities. A GAC Early Warning may be issued forany reason.1 The GAC may then send that notice to theBoard – constituting the GAC Early Warning. ICANN willnotify applicants of GAC Early Warnings as soon aspracticable after receipt from the GAC. The GAC EarlyWarning notice may include a nominated point of contactfor further information. Jeff Neuman: but has a footnote that states: "While definitive guidance has not been issued, the GAC has indicated that strings that could raise sensitivities include those that"purport to represent or that embody a particular group of people or interests based on historical, cultural, or social components ofidentity, such as nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, belief, culture or particular social origin or group, political opinion, membershipof a national minority, disability, age, and/or a language or linguistic group (non-exhaustive)" and "those strings that refer toparticular sectors, such as those subject to national regulation (such as .bank, .pharmacy) or those that describe or are targeted to apopulation or industry that is vulnerable to online fraud or abuse.”" Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thanks Jeff. This is helpful. Maybe we should take the public comment to mean that if the objection is based on "those subject to national regulation", we ask the GAC to specify the "national regulation" they are citing. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think Greg will clarify that there is already a definition in the ByLaws as to what GAC Advice constitutes a presumption and what vote of the Board is required to overcome it - 60 % vote I think. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I hate to state the obvious, but the Amazon v. ICANN IRP Final Declaration has some useful guidance on these topics. Jeff Neuman: I am talking about something very different Jeff Neuman: I am not talking about a presumption that the advice will be accepted. I am talking about the presumption that a TLD will not move forward. Jeff Neuman: They are NOT the same thing Jeff Neuman: In other words the Board could "accept the GAC advice", but if the advice were contrary to what the rules allowed to reject a TLD, it would not be bound to not delegate the TLD Jeff Neuman: @Karen you are right. Some govts were hoping that applicants would withdraw knowing they would not be able to get GAC advice Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Jeff - the issue is actually your description of "contrary to what the rules allowed to reject a TLD". If it is GAC Consensus Advice on an Early Warning, then I think as of now it is "within the rule". Do you want to say that an Early Warning coming from only one country cannot delay a TLD from moving forward? Donna Austin, Neustar: My data comes from page 95 of ICANN's Program Implementation Review Steve Chan: The report Donna is referencing is available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf Greg Shatan: I don't see how the "board" could accept GAC Advice that the GAC can't give. Trang Nguyen: page 96 of the Program Implementation Review Report says: "Indeed, there was some correlation between Early Warnings and Advice, but not all applications that received Advice had received an Early Warning. While only 187 applications received Early Warnings, 517 applications were subject to GAC Advice. Over 300 applications that were subject to GAC Advice did not receive any Early Warning. Based on this data, if the intent of the Early Warning process was to provide applicants with predictability, that intent was achieved in only 38% of cases." Jeff Neuman: By the same taken i dont see the board having to have a 60% threshhold to overcome GAC Advice that should have never been issued or beyond their scope Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think this is a tough nut to crack in relation to GAC Consensus Advice. Should Work Track 5 take the position that objections to Geo Names are not objections based on Public Policy? How would we frame issues as issues that are not based on public policy? Jim Prendergast: just because the GAC would push back dosnt mean we shouldnt go there Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): See paragraphs 100 and following: "We conclude that GAC consensus advice . .. must be based on a well-founded public interest concern and this public interest basis must be ascertained or ascertainable from the entirety of the record before the NGPC. In other words, the reason(s) supporting the GAC consensus advice, and hence the NGPC decision, must be tethered to valid and legitimate public policy considerations." (Para. 103) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Great language but how do you prove that it's not based on public policy and who is the arbiter? Donna Austin, Neustar: I think we should acknowledge that while GAC advice was problematic, the approach of the NGPC in dealing with the GAC advice was also problematic. Jeff Neuman: I am not saying that there could be no exceptions, but there needs to be a predictable proccess to deal with those Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Donna - that is a good angle as to GAC Advice that is not Consensus Advice at least. Jeff Neuman: Is there any GAC Advice that is not Consensus Advice Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Yes. Greg, can you elaborate? Alan Greenberg: Perhaps there needs to be a method for the gac to object to (for instance geographic names), but there needs to be defined process for resolving it and not depend on a somewhat arbitrary board decision. Susan Payne: @Anne - not entirely GAC advice isn't a veto that must be blindly followed bvy the board. It is advice they must take on board. Donna Austin, Neustar: Anne: I believe it was all consensus advice as it was provided in communiques Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Donna - but maybe that changes after the Accountability work? Couldn't we point out that an Early Warning from only one country is not Consensus Advice and NGPC equivalent should treat that differently? (Maybe that is not possible if the full GAC endorses that Early Warning and it is "tit for tat". Greg Shatan: Early Warning is not advice at all, consensus or otherwise. Donna Austin, Neustar: Anne: I don't believe GAC Early Warnings were considered by the NGPC. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Donna: They did for the .AMAZON TLDs. Can't speak to others. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kristina, after .amazon was subject to GAC advice or before? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Cheryl that a diplomatic approach is preferable - especially in terms of new EC Other issues raised in CC2: GAC Advice was provided against strings. This was problematic because it went against the AGB since objections were supposed to be against applicants, not strings. Another issue was that applicants should be able to participate in the GAC deliberation process. Could have prevent misunderstandings or inaccuracies. Discussion: -- It would be difficult for us to inject ourselves into the GAC process, but prior to the Board considering that GAC advice -- we provide an opportunity to the Board to allow a hearing or responsive documents. There should be a fair hearing before the Board adopts the advice. -- Look at GAC consensus advice in the Bylaws Section 12.2 (a) (x). -- Don't think we should make recommendation that we want the GAC to consider. If there had been a mechanism for an applicant could be heard then inaccuracies could have been addressed. >From the Chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): ByLaws were revised. They do govern as far as I know. See 12.2 (a) (x) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): especially if Gac has actively contributed now to the development of such guidelines @Donna, and I also doubt that there could be a 'waiving of any right to give Advice ' but a greater predictability and benefits from any ensuin post application processes Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): New by-Law dfines Consensus Advice as "the practice of adopting decision by general agreement in tehe absence of any formal objection ("GAC Consensus Advice") Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that is a good example of a good or potentially beneficial 'new' process @Jeff Jim Prendergast: I like the idea of an applicant having a chance to respond directly to the board about advice issued agains them. adds an element of due process Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Para. 94: "Thus, under the facts of this IRP, the procedural fairness obligation applicable to the GAC, at a minimum, required that the GAC allow a written statement or comment from a potentially adversely affected party, before it decided whether to issue consensus advice objecting to an application. The Board’s obligation was to see that the GAC, as a constituent body of ICANN, had such a procedure and that it followed it." Jeff Neuman: @Anne - would you support the right of an applicant to provide a response to the Board on GAC Advice? Jim Prendergast: was the concept of EW as a prerequisite explicity addressed in previous round and if so, why wasnt it implemented? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - absolutely. Board has discretion to override GAC Advice by 60 % vote. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly @Susan Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff, right now I think there is no individual right of reply but why not? Jeff Neuman: @Anne - Because the Board historically has not allowed anyone other than ICANN staff present to the Board Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Indeed - they would normaly just rely on GNSO policy advice. But you asked if it would be theoretically possible. Jeff Neuman: @Anne - I am not even just talking about in cases with Policy Advice. Its also this case with contract amendments, approval of registry servivces, etc. Jeff Neuman: The ICANN Board should always allow parties that may be adversely affect be able to present to the Board Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jeff, not the case. reconsideration requests have been allowed to speak directly with the Board.

1 0

WT3 - Agenda & Materials for Tuesday, 12 September @ 25:00 UTC - Discussion GAC Objections / Early Warnings / GAC Advice / String Similarity
by Robin Gross Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 2017

Dear All, In preparation for our next call, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 @ 20:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed agenda. Thanks, Robin __________________________ 1.Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI 3. Plenary Update 4. CC2 — GAC Objections — Q 3.1.10 – 3.1.11 (see attached) 5. CC2 — String Similarity — Q 3.4.1 - 3.4.6 (see attached) 6. AOB Discussion on GAC Early Warnings and GAC Advice in New GTLD program 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? Discussion on String Similarity 3.4.1 - There was a perception that consistency and predictability of the string similarity evaluation needs to be improved. Do you have examples or evidence of issues? If so, do you have suggested changes to the policy recommendations or implementation that may lead to improvement? For instance, should the standard of string confusion that the evaluation panel used be updated or refined in any way? 3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?  3.4.3 - The WG and the wider community have raised concerns specifically related to singles and plurals of the same word. Do you have suggestions on how to develop guidance on singles and plurals that will lead to predictable outcomes? Would providing for more predictability of outcomes unfairly prejudice the rights of applicants or others? 3.4.4 - Do you believe that there should be some sort of mechanism to allow for a change of applied-for TLD when it is determined to be in contention with one or more other strings? If so, do you have suggestions on a workable mechanism?  3.4.5 - Do you feel that the contention resolution mechanisms from the 2012 round (i.e., CPE and last- resort auctions) met the needs of the community in a sufficient manner? Please explain. 3.4.6 – Do you believe that private auctions (i.e., NOT the auctions of last resort provided by ICANN) resulted in any harm? Could they lead to speculative applications seeking to participate in a private auction in future application processes? Should they be allowed or otherwise restricted in the future?

1 0