- Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 - lists.icann.org

SubPro WT 3 Meeting Agenda - 13DEC16 @ 1500 UTC
by Karen Day Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 2016

Hi Everyone, Just a quick reminder that since we had to cancel last week's call due to lack of participation, we will be sticking with the previously proposed agenda tomorrow. See Below. If you know you cannot make the call, please let us know ahead of time. Thanks! Karen _______________________________________________________________ Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ gTLDinfo(a)sas.com 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas; www.nic.jmp; www.nic.analytics -----Original Message----- From: Karen Day Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 6:16 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org Subject: SubPro WT 3 Meeting Agenda - 06DEC16 @ 1500 UTC Dear All, Below please find the proposed agenda for our next WT3 meeting which will take place on 6 December 2016 at 15:00 UTC. 1. Welcome / Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Frequency or Duration of Future WT3 meetings 4. Recap & Reminders of Hyderabad Discussions a. Council of Europe Report on Community -Based gTLD Applications b. Role of Independent Objector 5. Update from Full WG since Hyderabad - Jeff 6. Recap and positioning on Limited Public Interest Objections a. Content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and 3.5.3 b. Needs with regard to future implementation 7. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3 8. AOB 9. Confirmation of Date/Time of next meeting. I'd like to draw your attention to item 3. I'm attaching a copy of our previously developed work schedule. As you can see we're not likely to make our first target date of mid-Dec for finishing our review of objections. What I'd very much like you to think about over the next few days is whether or not we need to adjust our meeting frequency, our meeting duration (60 to 90) or otherwise adjust our schedule to so that we can at least try to stay as on schedule as possible. If you see that we've allotted too much time for future subjects that you feel will be more quickly dealt with so that we should just shift some dates, let us know that too. If you won't be on the call on Tuesday (I know some of you will be at IGF), please provide some feedback on the list when you can. If anyone has any comments/additions or concerns regarding the agenda itself, please let me know. Look forward to speaking with you all on Tuesday. Best, Karen _______________________________________________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ gTLDinfo(a)sas.com 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas; www.nic.jmp; www.nic.analytics

1 0

SubPro WT 3 Meeting Agenda - 06DEC16 @ 1500 UTC
by Karen Day Dec. 3, 2016

Dec. 3, 2016

Dear All, Below please find the proposed agenda for our next WT3 meeting which will take place on 6 December 2016 at 15:00 UTC. 1. Welcome / Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Frequency or Duration of Future WT3 meetings 4. Recap & Reminders of Hyderabad Discussions a. Council of Europe Report on Community -Based gTLD Applications b. Role of Independent Objector 5. Update from Full WG since Hyderabad - Jeff 6. Recap and positioning on Limited Public Interest Objections a. Content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and 3.5.3 b. Needs with regard to future implementation 7. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3 8. AOB 9. Confirmation of Date/Time of next meeting. I'd like to draw your attention to item 3. I'm attaching a copy of our previously developed work schedule. As you can see we're not likely to make our first target date of mid-Dec for finishing our review of objections. What I'd very much like you to think about over the next few days is whether or not we need to adjust our meeting frequency, our meeting duration (60 to 90) or otherwise adjust our schedule to so that we can at least try to stay as on schedule as possible. If you see that we've allotted too much time for future subjects that you feel will be more quickly dealt with so that we should just shift some dates, let us know that too. If you won't be on the call on Tuesday (I know some of you will be at IGF), please provide some feedback on the list when you can. If anyone has any comments/additions or concerns regarding the agenda itself, please let me know. Look forward to speaking with you all on Tuesday. Best, Karen _______________________________________________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ gTLDinfo(a)sas.com 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas; www.nic.jmp; www.nic.analytics

1 0

Sub-Pro WT3 Position on Limited Public Interest Objections
by Karen Day Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

Dear WT3 members: Based on our discussions and feedback thus far, I’d like to seek confirmation of my understanding that, we are approaching consensus that the existing policy and AGB (see attached for the specific language) remain in good order, functioned as envisioned and within scope, and are sufficient for subsequent procedures. I do note that we do have concerns about the high cost of these objections, whether or not the Panel implemented the “quick look” procedure appropriately, and the role of the Independent Objector. These items will be specifically covered later in our work flow and the outcomes applied accordingly. Please let us know whether you are in agreement, you disagree (stating why) or whether you would prefer to reserve judgement until further work is done (stating what work you’d like to see). Silence will be taken as agreement. ☺ Thanks for your participation and I wish safe travels to those of you going to Hyderabad. Best regards, Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com<mailto:karen.day@sas.com> SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA

4 4

New Co-leader
by avri doria Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

Hi, Having seen support on calls, chats and in private email and no objections anywhere, I congratulate and thank Robin Gross for becoming this tracks co-lead with Karen. We have added her to the leadership group just in time for Hyderabad. Thanks to all who commented. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

2 1

WT 3 - New co-chair and 10/25 meeting update
by Karen Day Oct. 24, 2016

Oct. 24, 2016

Hi Everyone, I wanted to bring you up to date on a few administrative matters with regards to our Work Track 3 team. As I announced on the full Sub-Pro team call last week, due to previously unforeseen circumstances, Jian Zhang has stepped down from his position as co-chair. I am happy to report that Robin Gross has volunteered to step-in as our new co-chair assuming the members are in agreement. Under normal circumstances, we would affirm Robin as co-chair on our next call, however as you have no doubt guessed from the cancellation notice staff sent last week, we are not going to have another WT 3 call until after Hyderabad. As I will not be attending the meetings in Hyderabad in person, I would like to ask that we affirm Robin as our new co-chair via email this week, so that she can function as such in Hyderabad and we can keep our work moving forward. It would be most appreciated if you could express your preference on this matter within the next two or three days. In lieu of our meeting tomorrow, I will be circulating some questions for your via the list and I hope that we can get some discussions going to advance our work. Best regards, Karen ____________________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Registry Operations Manager SAS Institute Inc. 100 Matrix Drive, Cary, NC 27513 Direct: 919-531-6016

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC.
by Terri Agnew Oct. 11, 2016

Oct. 11, 2016

**Apologies for the technical issues on today’s call, we are investigating the cause. Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. **Due to the technical difficulties on today’s call, please find the Adobe Connect recording URL:: https://participate.icann.org/p7bq4x972g7/<https://participate.icann.org/p7bq4x972g7/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=fb21aab66502774a…> 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 11 October 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Karen Day:I'm trying to get it to call me... Jeff Neuman:Agenda looks good Emily Barabas 2:yes Mary Wong:Thursday 13 October, 1200 UTC (Council call) Jeff Neuman:Thanks Steve. Steve Chan:I will double-check before sending. Emily Barabas 2:Everyone can zoom and scroll as needed to view the document Jeff Neuman:I was involved in the response to the objections against Hot health Jeff Neuman:Dot health Terri Agnew:@Jeff your audio cut out Terri Agnew:@Jeff, we are no longer hearing you, please let me know if assistance is needed for a dial out Terri Agnew:@Jeff, audio is back Kevin M Kreuser (Go Daddy):I never lost him Kevin M Kreuser (Go Daddy)::) Karen Day:lost you again :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):gone again Jeff Neuman:I will call in] Roger Carney:I can still hear Jeff Julie Hedlund:I am getting an error -- says reconnecting to the audio bridge. I think the audio bridge is cutting in and out. Isabel Rutherfurd:Same here Terri Agnew:I am contacting tech support for assitance Julie Hedlund:Okay, now it says audio bridge connected (again). Karen Day:Sorry guy, I just got dropped. Will dial back asap Phil Buckingham:karen , i can get you feedback from IG Group re .broker for next call . Mary Wong:I think I just heard an odd conversation between two people unconnected with this call! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Just dropped the dial out to me :-( Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Ohhh dear Greg Shatan:Just got kicked off the phone. Emily Barabas 2:same Julie Hedlund:Got kicked off the phone bridge. Phil Buckingham:shall we all recoonect into adobe Terri Agnew:trying to reconnect Greg Shatan:Everyone will hear music until the host joins the meeting.... Greg Shatan:I only got 3 chords. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):sane back on bridge Greg Shatan:and one was an upstrum. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ear yoou Karen Terri Agnew:telephone connection dropped again, rejoining Greg Shatan:Gone again Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bumped off again trying gain Jeff Neuman:I guess no one wants to hear my story :( Julie Hedlund:Joining the call again. Greg Shatan:Dropped right after 'crazy accusation" A cliff-hanger!! avri doria:these new servers seem to be problematic. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):back I think Terri Agnew:reconnected audio, please join again Karen Day:I'm in an endless loop of "please press 1" Jeff Neuman:Perhaps I will just write it out :) Julie Hedlund:Gee Jeff, was it something you said ;-) Jeff Neuman:probably Steve Chan:@Karen, when that's happened to me, I cancel the request and try again. It's resolved for me in the past. Greg Shatan:This is running on a massively parallel network of Samsung Note 7s and Blackberries, powered by a Yugo. Terri Agnew:Please rejoin, we are connected back Isabel Rutherfurd:Karen is coming in and out for me Crescent Ezekwu:Same here Mary Wong:Seems to be a problem with AC audio only. Terri Agnew:@Isabel, can you join on the telephone? Please let me know if directions are needed how the AC can dial out to you Mary Wong:I'm getting crossed lines again with a different conversation - sounds like an online training module. Isabel Rutherfurd:Thanks, I am dialed in now and hear fine avri doria:but at least i could hear that clearly. everything else was breaking up here in s=South Africa. Terri Agnew:Apologies everyone for the technical difficulties today. We are looking into the cause Terri Agnew:@Mary, I have reported this as well Kevin M Kreuser (Go Daddy):I'm not getting consistent sound. Dropping off. Emily Barabas:yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):fair way forward Jeff Steve Chan:Here are the grounds for LPI in section 3.5.3 of the AGB: Steve Chan:• Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action; Steve Chan:• Incitement to or promotion of discrimination based upon race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or national origin, or other similar types of discrimination that violate generally accepted legal norms recognized under principles of international law; Julie Hedlund:Greg Shatan has his hand up. Steve Chan:• Incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children; or Steve Chan:• A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):human nature it seem Greg Jeff Neuman:got disconnected again Terri Agnew:dropped, connecting again Greg Shatan:I am pressing 1 dammit! Julie Hedlund:Yep, dropped again -- back. Terri Agnew:rejoined Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):dropped agin retrying Greg Shatan:Back Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):back **SIGH** Steve Chan:The call seems to drop every time Jeff speaks :) Karen Day:+1 Steve :) Jeff Neuman:I thikn the problem was the vague reference to "International Law" that was the problem Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):worth discussing KKaren Jeff Neuman:A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law. Steve Chan:AGB Module 3: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Jeff Neuman:In the objection to dot health, they did reference a vague notion of a violation of International law....but obviously it was too far fetched and they lost Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Perhaps a better checklist is essential to o with an objection? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):go Mary Wong:I believe that list of treaties was added as a result of the work of the Rec 6 Working Group on this objection proces, and I think it may be a non-exhaustive list. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Kurt Pritz:Looking down this list, I see only one where the objector prevailed: (ie., kept the string out) .hospital. Is that correct? Jeff Neuman:@kurt - yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I believe we could still work with a nn exhaustive list though Jeff Neuman:If I remember correctly, the objection costs around $250,000 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):None exahstive list Kurt Pritz:I am tempted to say we should consider not having this type of objection, but there are valid, but remote, reasons for having it. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):recognise that an 'other' choice from such a list has greater risk/ scruteny Mary Wong:There's a difference between the principle/basis for filing an objection and what is actually required to be proven in every case. Isabel Rutherfurd:I think it makes sense to put together as there seem to be overlapping issues Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I prefer as a Unique entity for the IO Jeff Neuman:Should address after we do commnity Jeff Neuman:right Isabel Rutherfurd:I don't mind discussing separately, there just may be some overlap Mary Wong:For instance, it's not possible to really state, exhaustively, what the applicable principles of public international law are. However, it MAY be possible to specify that an objector must state the actual principle (treaty, customary law, cases) that they are invoking with some specificity and documentation. Jeff Neuman:We should take thenotes from today and apply it towards the IO discussion Steve Chan:I believe IO was limited to filing on only two grounds - may make sense to consider community first, as Jeff suggested. Terri Agnew:The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 25 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Tough call with the Tech issues but we hve progressed THANKS Karen and all... Talk agin soon... Bye for now Jeff Neuman:Thanks Karen!!! Terri Agnew:Thank you everyone for your patience today Julie Hedlund:Thanks all for hanging in there!

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 11 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 11, 2016

Oct. 11, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 11 October. 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. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 11 October 1. Update from Community · Jeff Neuman: regarding Board letter, WG responded that it did not have consensus, other SGs/Cs also responded, GNSO Council is drafting a response to the Board. · Steve Chan (staff): The current draft will be circulated to the full WG list 2. WT Crossover issues and CCT issues lists (request membership input) · No additional input received. 5. Objections -- Morality and Public Order / Limited Public Interest – begin deep dive. Action Item: WG members should start developing a list to tighten the quick look process in 3.5.3, AGB Module 3: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/objection-procedures-04jun12-e…. Discussion Notes: · Jeff Neuman: Worked on a response to .health when at Neustar. Challenged on different grounds. Prevailed on limited public interest and community grounds. Quite expensive. Independent objector not accountable to anyone and made crazy accusations. Independent objector was trying to make the criteria in the guidebook to fit his biases. · Karen Day: Questioning whether or not the historical documents are available somewhere? If we can't look at those, how can we proceed to evaluate it -- if we have to rely solely on decisions. · Steve Chan (staff): I am not sure. Perhaps other staff may know. · Karen Day: Jeff and Avri -- beyond particular members who were involved in these cases, what are your suggestions for how we would evaluate these matters? Is our next step to go out and contact people involved? · Steve Chan (staff): There are a few things that the Work Track could look at. There is the recommendation and if it is satisfactory. In addition, look at the application and process for the objection. Also, the outcome of the objection. Could determine if the recommendation was sound and the process of the objection, as well as the Independent Objector. · Karen Day: When for many of these cases such as mutual funds and retirement, we don't even have decisions on those to know if the guidance was met or the procedures worked as they were supposed to. Looking for input as to what to use for criteria. · Jeff Neuman: One thing we could do is to send out a list of questions to the applicants whose strings were challenged and to the Independent Objector. These weren't the type of strings we expected to be challenged under public interest/morality and public order. We should ask the community, applicants, and objectors how these felt about these items. · Karen Day: I tend to agree with that when you look at the strings and you look at who the objectors were. · Greg Shatan: I think we need to be a lot more clear about what the intentions were. I think there is a natural tendency to look for any advantage as a potential tool to do so. It seems human nature applied. We may need to look at penalties or a filter. The Independent Objector was suboptimal in my opinion. · Jeff Neuman: I do think the financial penalty was pretty harsh if you lose, which is why a lot were withdrawn. I think ICANN started a process to handle exclusive generics and after that the applications were withdrawn as these companies had no desire for a generic term. Which is the one where the objection prevailed? It was .hospital. Not sure if that is still being appeal. In every other case the independent objector lost. I think there was a built in disincentive to file these to go through to the end except for the Independent Objector since his fees were paid for by ICANN. · Karen Day: In regard to what Greg raised, in the AGB it was stated that in 3.2.2.3, which talks about due to the inclusive standing base the quick look procedure designed to eliminate frivolous objections. Could the quick look be strengthened. Go back to the original intent, where we have listed the specific international standards that would prevent strings like .murder. Then if the Independent Objector's objection is not tied to one of these it gets kicked out before anyone spends any money. · Rudy Mendoza: Sounds like a good idea. · Greg Shatan: I think that is heading in the right track. · Jeff Neuman: I think the problem was the vague reference to "International Law". A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law. · Karen Day: 3.5.3 -- a list. See the actual objection as written -- have it state that it is based on...see: AGB Module 3: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/objection-procedures-04jun12-e…. Don't know if that was the procedure that was taken. · Jeff Neuman: In the objection to dot health, they did reference a vague notion of a violation of International law....but obviously it was too far-fetched and they lost. · Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Perhaps a better checklist is essential to go with an objection. · Mary Wong: I believe that list of treaties was added as a result of the work of the Rec 6 Working Group on this objection process, and I think it may be a non-exhaustive list. · Karen Day: Suggest we could use our list to start working on a list to tighten the quick look process. If we tighten it that would only allow for those remote, valid reasons for objections. Put these together? Move forward with look specifically the objections but not the Independent Objector until after we've dealt with the four types of objections. · Mary Wong: For instance, it's not possible to really state, exhaustively, what the applicable principles of public international law are. However, it MAY be possible to specify that an objector must state the actual principle (treaty, customary law, cases) that they are invoking with some specificity and documentation.

1 0

WT3 -October 11th - 20:00 - Agenda & Materials
by Karen Day Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

Hello everyone, Below is our proposed agenda for our next call on Oct 11th. As you can see we are going to begin our deep dive into the first category of objections - Limited Public Interest. I am attaching a filtered view of the objections spreadsheet with the details of the LPI cases from the 2012 applications. There were 9 different TLDs opposed by 5 different objectors. In only the .HOSPITAL case did the objector prevail. Please familiarize yourself with the cases, if you aren't already, and let's start posting issues to the list this week to kick-start our discussions. Members who were involved in these cases (of any of the types of objections) in the 2012 round will be important contributors to this discussion. If you weren't involved, but know a member of the larger PDP team that was, please encourage them to join us for these discussions. 1. Welcome / Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Update from Community (if any) 4. WT Crossover issues and CCT issues lists (request membership input) 5. Objections –Morality and Public Order / Limited Public Interest – begin deep dive. 5.1. Members relevant experience in last round? 5.2 What issues were exposed by these types of objections? 5.3. Were there reconsideration requests or lawsuits? 5.4. Did the cases turn out according to the AGB? Did the AGB get it right? 5.5. Independent Objector – Issues? How did the IO function and did it meet expectation? 5.6. Costs - Issues? Changes proposed? Or fair as is? 6. Action Items / Next Meeting 7. AOB Have a great rest of the week and, assuming Matthew doesn't show up on our doorstep in NC this weekend, I'll look forward to talking with you on Tuesday. Best, Karen _______________________________________________________________ Karen L. Day, ACP NCCP Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ gTLDinfo(a)sas.com 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas; www.nic.jmp; www.nic.analytics

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 27 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 27, 2016

Sept. 27, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 September. 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. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 September See the referenced documents on wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490779. 1. Proposed order of work Discussion Notes: · Start out with specific objections: a. Morality & Public Order; b. Legal Rights of Others; c. Confusingly Similar; and d. Community. · Then move to: a. applicant's Freedom of Expression; b. String similarity; and c. Accountability. · Agreed to adopt the above as the work order. 2. Timeline of the work Action Item: Karen Day and Jian Zhang will circulate a timeline to the list. Discussion Notes: · Karen Day: o Time needed for each issue would require an overlap in order to aim for end of April 2017. o Might spread ourselves thin to tackle more than one at the same time. May need to extend the duration of the calls. · Avri Doria: Support the view that we don't want to further split the group and working on parallel tracks. Think about starting one now, not as a separate track, but as another item to look at while other work (such as staff research) is ongoing. · Phil Buckingham: Need to look at overlaps with other work tracks and running topics/issues in parallel. · Karen Day: The April 28 date in the timeline, is that firm or is it a soft target? · Avri Doria: I think it is a soft target as a first projection. · Jeff Neuman: I am not comfortable calling it a soft target this far out. · Karen Day: Should we be dealing with geo names at the same time as WT2 is dealing with the reserved names list? · Phil Buckingham: That would make sense to us. · Karen Day: I will move forward this week in getting a timeline together to circulate for people to comment on the list. 3. Other business prior to starting the work Discussion Notes: a. Response to GNSO Council re: Board Letter: Update on the letter to the GNSO Council in response to the Board query on starting subsequent rounds sooner. · Jeff Neuman: The letter was sent on 25 September. The Council will discuss during its meeting on 29 September. The PDP WG will discuss in Hyderabad. b. Outreach to SOs/ACs for input into the Work Track 3 work area. Come to consensus on whether to do that now to get feedback earlier in the process? · Steve Chan: We should consider coordinating inquiries with all the work tracks. Hinders response rate if there are multiple inquiries. · Jeff Neuman: Prefer having specific questions to send out. Phil Buckingham agrees. · Avri Doria: Feel strong that we don't need to get this out now. All Sub Teams should be coming up with material questions, which we won't know until we've had discussions on the work items. 4. Objections – Review of Question, Mapping & Statistics Action Item: Staff will find the Rec 6 Group final report and see if there is anything that needs further discussion. Discussion Notes: a. Principle A -- New gTLDs must be introduced in an orderly, timely, and predictable way. · Jian Zhang: Is this broad enough to cover all discussions? Can we map different principles into different questions? · Objections: What principles can be applied? o Jeff Neuman: The way that the objections were implemented did they meet the criteria of the principles. If not what changes need to be made to meet that objective? Example: Morality and Public Order -- Leave this for the objection process in first round. How to carry out the objection process -- went through extensive discussion. o Phil Buckingham: Overriding is to enhance consumer choice, consumer trust and competition , innovation , but overriding stability security on the DNS. o Avri Doria: Still a reasonable principle, but may need to be reviewed based on other work ICANN is doing on these issues, such as the work in Accountability Work Stream 2 on the framework on human rights. o Jeff Neuman: Perhaps staff can come back to us on how Morality and Public Order was used in the last round and what the result was. When it was used, how it was used, and what was the result. Link to objection stats. o Avri Doria: Look at the Rec 6 group formed during the AGB timeframe talking through these issues. b. Legal right of others: · Karen Day: Since it was unsuccessful in the first round does that affect how it could be addressed in the next round? · Paul McGrady: This principle was not incorporated adequately in the AGB. Mismatch for the Paris Principle. Now we know it is defective at the fundamental level. Need to address this at the next round. · Jeff Neuman: Agree in part, but I think it was fairly effective in scary someone away from applying for something that was someone else's brand. Where it failed in some cases -- Ping, a trademark in golf didn't prevail because of the infringement analysis. Does need some fixes. · Karen Day: Look at where people think the improvements could be in the AGB: 3.2.2.2 Legal Rights Objection, 3.2.2.3 Limited Public Interest Objection · Jeff Neuman: One thing we can discuss is question 18 asked of all applicants -- an unscored part of the application and not carried forward into the registry agreement, "What is the purpose of your TLD?" · Paul McGrady: What is the effect of questioning; what is a second-level infringement of a top-level Domain Name -- how to monitor and enforce? Should applicants be bound by responses to Question 18? Raised a lot of thorny issues -- Pandora's box. · Jian: Who is the rights holder?

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC.
by Terri Agnew Sept. 27, 2016

Sept. 27, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. 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#nov> ** 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 27 September 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held onTuesday, 27 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Terri Agnew: wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/vBWsAw Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): The certificate issue was what I noted as well Terri Agnew: thanks Cheryl Jeff Neuman: There are some phone numbers on the Participant list. It would help our reccords if you cuold state which phone numbers are yours :) Terri Agnew: Please send me a private chat and I can also adjust the name on line regarding phone numbers. Julie Hedlund: @All: The document that is up is unsynced so you can move it yourself. Phil Buckingham: Hi i 'm in . No problems this end Jeff Neuman: I think this order makes sense Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Fine with the order Phil Buckingham: no there is a problem getting into adobe Phil Buckingham: think we / you need to look at overlaps with other work tracks and running topics/ issues in parallel Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense to me Avri Phil Buckingham: that was our WT2 question . We are shooting / plannning on that date Phil Buckingham: yep that would make sense to us Steve Chan 2: Sunday Jeff Neuman: I prefer having specific questions to send out Phil Buckingham: tricky one . would be inclined to wait and accumulate questions Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes WT 4 also needs to ask AC/SO CT's input as well ... Best to coordinate Jeff Neuman: But lets document any questions as we go along Steve Chan 2: I think it might be problematic if the request for input were to be 4x as long as CC1 (to account for all of the WTs) avri: optimally i think sending out qustiosn from all at one time is optimal; avri: well that was overly redundanly said Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): But for WT4 we need that feedback early in our program avri: (referring to my my remark in case there is doubt) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): :-) avri: if someone needs to go before others are ready, then so be it. lets talk in our coordination meeting Phil Buckingham: I guess the overiding is to enhance consumer choice, consumer trust and competition , innovation , but overriding stability security on the DNS Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Agree Phil Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point to watch Avri yes Phil Buckingham: What a question ! Jeff Neuman: Perhaps staff can come back to us on how Morality and Public Order was used in the last round and what the result was Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Avri correct a few ALAC in it as well Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): :-) Steve Chan 2: We'll work on tracking it down Paul McGrady: I'm having trouble seeing this full chart. Is it added to the Wiki? avri: i might be able to find it as well Paul McGrady: Thanks! Julie Hedlund: @Paul: Yes it is on the wiki. I'll put in the link. Julie Hedlund: Here it is: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490779/SubProWT3_ObjStat…. Julie Hedlund: @Karen: Yes. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Jeff Nathaniel Edwards: Exception where Dish Network applied for .direct (DirecTV) Phil Buckingham: ie caravan as an example generic or brand . Prevailed as a .brand Paul McGrady: So long as we are going to try to improve it, I will leave Jeff in his optimism. Jeff Neuman: Thanks :) Phil Buckingham: ++++++1 Jefff Phil Buckingham: Jeff - sorry Phil Buckingham: Q18 what is material especially re business model / plan ( five years after application ! + 1 paul - thorny issues Jeff Neuman: I like Pandora Boxes avri: The Rec 6 CWG final report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/report-rec6-cwg-21sep10-en.pdf avri: the CWG charter: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/new-gtld-final-recommendations-6… Greg Shatan: UDHR is not a legal right. avri: also this on Rec 6: https://community.icann.org/display/ArW/Rec+6+CWG-Morality+and+Public+Order Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks Karen, Thanks everyone... Good call ... Talk again soon... Paul McGrady: Agree! great call Karen. Thank you! Terri Agnew: The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): those links go to the wiki as well I assume avri: thanks Karen, good call. congrat on your first Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Bye avri: bye Phil Buckingham: great job Karen Steve Chan 2: @CLO, yes, we'll move the links there

1 0