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

ICANN62: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Nathalie Peregrine June 6, 2018

June 6, 2018

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings’ team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN62 Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> Step 1 – Create a profile and your personalized ICANN62 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. 1. Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. 2. Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. * For Outlook calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/81449-moving-your-schedu…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> * For Google calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/1313-moving-your-schedul…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> and on the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ>) will provide audio streaming only Adobe Connect room microphones will not be enabled. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN62” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Panama to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://FB60497E-61D8-4FE9-BF9C-EB238191E416/gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

FW: [Gnso-next-gen-rds-lead] FW: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft
by Terri Agnew April 2, 2018

April 2, 2018

FYI From: Brian Winterfeldt <Brian(a)Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Brian@Winterfeldt.law> > Date: Monday, April 2, 2018 at 15:07 To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> " <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> > Cc: "internet(a)winterfeldt.law <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> " <internet(a)winterfeldt.law <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> > Subject: RE: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft Dear ICANN Community Leadership Colleagues: I write to follow up on my prior communication below to provide you with a formal invitation from the IPC and the BC to participate in a community-wide discussion regarding the proposed accreditation and access model for non-public WHOIS data, which was first circulated to the community during ICANN 61. The discussion will take place via ICANN-supported remote participation and/or audio bridge this Friday April 6, 2018 from 1400-1600 UTC. Please find the formal invitation attached with the pertinent participation details. Please distribute the invitation to your respective stakeholders and encourage broad distribution to encourage as much participation as possible in the discussion. Of course, please continue to channel written comments on the accreditation model proposal to <mailto:3amcomments@gmail.com> 3amcomments(a)gmail.com, with a copy to <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law. Thank you very much for your assistance and engagement with respect to this ongoing effort. Best regards, Brian _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> [winterfeldt.law] Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> brian(a)winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422 From: Brian Winterfeldt Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:24 PM To: <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org Cc: <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law Subject: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft Importance: High Dear ICANN Community Leadership Colleagues: As a follow-up to my statement on behalf of the IPC during Public Forum II at ICANN 61 in Puerto Rico with Steve DelBianco (from the BC), I am writing to again request your stakeholders' input and collaboration on the proposed Accreditation Model for access to non-public WHOIS data (Version 1.3). Our sincere hope is that this model will be implemented alongside the ICANN-developed Proposed Interim Model for GDPR Compliance. The Accreditation Model can be found here: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ipconstituency.org_ assets_docs_WHOIS-2520Access-2520Accreditation-2520Process-25201.3-255b1-255 d.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhp AMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ &s=ZVAEQxooXzT86rLVPfHTxmzU0WSDnjHfiAcifwTNcmk&e=> http://www.ipconstituency.org/assets/docs/WHOIS%20Access%20Accreditation%20P rocess%201.3[1].pdf[ipconstituency.org]. We welcome any questions or feedback on the proposed Accreditation Model, put forward as a strawman to facilitate broader community-wide efforts to develop an accreditation system proposal. We had hoped to convene a community-wide call swiftly after ICANN 61, but the absence of Adobe Connect has made facilitating community discussion and input difficult. However, with the stop-gap solutions being put into place, we hope to convene a call to discuss Accreditation Model development within the next week or so. Developing an Accreditation Model for access to non-public WHOIS data is a critical yet-to-be-developed element of the interim GDPR compliance model, and as Goran noted in his letter to DPAs, the community has achieved consensus that something must be finalized and implemented to assure the appropriate functioning of a gated/tiered/layered access WHOIS system. Again, we hope that the Accreditation Model proposal we are sharing can act as a starting point for the community to make quick progress in this respect. Please send any input on this matter to <mailto:3amcomments@gmail.com> 3amcomments(a)gmail.com as soon as possible, with a copy to <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law. This will help us make sure all the input provided is received and appropriately captured. Again, we hope to convene a community call to facilitate continued discussion on this issue next week, so we would love to receive your feedback ideally before the community session! Thank you for your input and timely engagement in this vital aspect of our ongoing work around GDPR and WHOIS! Best regards, Brian _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> [winterfeldt.law] Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> brian(a)winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne March 26, 2018

March 26, 2018

I think Greg Shatan is correct that this report is in fact only a Discussion Draft and not a true Initial Report. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D3C4F6.A6302B90] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 5:55 AM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Working Group Status and Next Steps Importance: High That works great even better …it should help greatly but we proceed cautiously. We do not need another battle in front of the door. On Mar 26, 2018, at 16:42, Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: Though I understand points raised by Greg, we could also use the opportunity to make an open survey with open issues to the community to not postponed too much those decisions. Another alternative could be finalizing points that demands no relevant changes, for instance: I do believe that related to “TLDs=city names” we did not have problems with the Application Book as it is. So why not open sliced Applications Books for each area we have no more questions?. To do so we need to make it public as a different reports and get feedback from the community. At least we would show some real progress and may be contribute to the ICANN’s budget. My 2c Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k(a)gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 at 04:12 To: "<Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, "Christopher. Wilkinson" <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Working Group Status and Next Steps makes logical sense….. Kris On Mar 26, 2018, at 10:53, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Sensible thoughts Regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Samstag, 24. März 2018 05:33 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... Just my 2 cents, Greg On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission first. The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular region, and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the Objection. Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to the commencement of any substantive proceedings. It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years regarding this arena. It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without getting the geo names issues resolved first. Maybe no one wants another Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the varying interests are far apart? I would favor a new Objection process to resolve this. At that point, the community may be able to accept some of the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide). I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the Objection, its application fee will be refunded. Just to be clear, the process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the same. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image001.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM To: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange; Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>;gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Thanks Christopher. I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 Kris Seeburn seeburn.k(a)gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> • www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" <image001.gif> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg Kris Seeburn seeburn.k(a)gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> * www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" [cid:image003.gif@01D3C4F6.A6032820] ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Rubens Kuhl March 25, 2018

March 25, 2018

Christopher, The work track 1-4 co-chairs have been noticing the possible inter-relationships throughout the process, and those have been addressed. Even for WT5, the overlap consisting of additional reserved names and some names requiring letters of support/non-objection was also always envisioned... something like a geo objection was not, but that is something that can be harmonised and integrated with the objection process, if's that what WT5 ends up suggesting. That can be even done by WT5 by taking what has already been proposed, like number of panelists and fees bearing, and then defining standing and principles specifically to that process. Even the possibility of adding more contractual requirements, if decided by WT5, can be dealt by with Geo PICs, something that was also foreseen... so I may be optimistic here, but I couldn't think of anything WT5 could come up with that wouldn't be easily integrated into the SubPro output.That doesn't prevent people's imagination to go beyond and actually find something that would be harder to harmonise... but considering the low likelihood, we can deal with it, if it happens, but only if it happens, instead of planning for something that likely won't happen. Rubens > On 25 Mar 2018, at 14:29, lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu wrote: > > Good afternoon: > > I have considerable empathy with the concerns expressed by Greg here below > I suggest that the current plan underestimates the inter-relationships between the Work Tracks, notably but not exclusively with WT5. > > Regards > > CW > > >> On 24 Mar 2018, at 05:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? >> >> An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. >> >> Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) >> >> Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... >> >> Just my 2 cents, >> >> Greg >> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: >> It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission first. The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular region, and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the Objection. Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to the commencement of any substantive proceedings. >> >> >> >> It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years regarding this arena. It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without getting the geo names issues resolved first. Maybe no one wants another Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the varying interests are far apart? I would favor a new Objection process to resolve this. At that point, the community may be able to accept some of the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide). >> >> >> >> I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the Objection, its application fee will be refunded. Just to be clear, the process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the same. >> >> >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese >> >> Of Counsel >> >> 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office >> >> 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax >> >> AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >> _____________________________ >> >> <image002.png> >> >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP >> >> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 >> >> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> >> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> >> >> >> >> >> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman >> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM >> To: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange; Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> >> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps >> >> >> >> Thanks Christopher. >> >> >> >> I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. >> >> >> >> To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. >> >> >> >> If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. >> >> >> >> In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> >> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA >> >> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 >> >> Mclean, VA 22102, United States >> >> E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> >> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> >> @Jintlaw >> >> >> >> From: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> >> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps >> >> >> >> Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: >> >> >> >> Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. >> >> >> >> In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. >> >> >> >> Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Christopher Wilkinson >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, >> >> >> >> You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. >> >> >> >> Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. >> >> >> >> ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. >> >> >> >> This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. >> >> >> >> As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year >> >> >> >> This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. >> >> >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr >> >> Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> >> >> >> >> >> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4>

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Jeff Neuman March 24, 2018

March 24, 2018

Thanks Christopher. I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

3 2

Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Jeff Neuman March 23, 2018

March 23, 2018

Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs

2 1

PLEASE READ - NEW SESSION INFORMATION ICANN61
by Terri Agnew March 14, 2018

March 14, 2018

Dear all, Due to security difficulties, (see Goran's blog <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo g_issues-2Dwith-2Dadobe-2Dconnect-2Dat-2Dicann61&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwl l3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTB s0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=fxijpUJu6LmmroHN9tH8OL-ro_yRzrp5RcsF-DsRnHY&s=_RqTDbLxF ZWrmTMt09Hldqs9KQbB7-Kg-pZFjJw0ink&e=> here[icann.org]) the Adobe Connect room facilities will no longer be available to ICANN61 participants. In order to minimize disruption, we have the following steps we encourage you to follow: 1. TO JOIN THE AUDIO * Audio streaming will be available for all open, public meetings. Links can be find on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/> https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * The audio bridge is available for those who would like to ask questions or comment over the telephone. Dial in details for open GNSO sessions can be found here: <https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B> https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B 2. TO ACCESS THE PRESENTATIONS * All presentations and documents which were to be shown in the AC room will be uploaded to the corresponding page on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/> https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * Presentations and documents will also be circulated via email on demand 3. ASKING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTING IN WRITTEN FORMAT * These will be handed via live management of email comments and questions by the Remote Participation Manager. Please see list of meeting room email addresses here: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350> https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350 We apologize for the inconvenience caused. We encourage participants who have not already done so to download the ICANN61 mobile app by searching for "ICANN61" in your app stores. Please do not hesitate to email us at <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org if you need a dial out specifying which meeting you would like to join and your preferred contact number. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our i <applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses /gnso> nteractive courses and visiting the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn so.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgM FAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUh becsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EH toX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=> GNSO Newcomer pages

1 0

AC Recording, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 28, 2018

Feb. 28, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording and Mp3 are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track3-27feb18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1r3gvmib4e/ 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/DwWfB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 3 - 27 February 2018
by Emily Barabas Feb. 27, 2018

Feb. 27, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. 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 recording. The slides, recording, and chat transcript for this meeting will be available at https://community.icann.org/x/DwWfB. Kind regards, Emily ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Action Items: Action Item 1: Cancel WT3 meeting tentatively scheduled for 6 March 2018. Notes: 1. Welcome & Introductions 2. SOI Updates - no updates 3. Plenary Update - The last plenary call took place at 3:00 UTC today. The topic was Types of TLDs. 4. String Similarity and String Confusion - Slide 4 - review of recommendation 2 and points of general agreement - From the slide: Going forward allowing plurals and singulars in the same language to move forward is not desirable; Terms need to be intended as plurals and singulars. Thus the TLDs .new and .news would not be considered a plural or singular of the same string; Elimination of the SWORD Algorithm. Chat excerpt: Gg Levine (NABP): Agree strongly with plurals/sigular issue. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Support the points of general agreement Donna Austin, Neustar: Support the points of general agreement as well. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): happy for points of General Agreement to be agreed to. - Slide 5 - Review of proposal for string confusion objection Chat excerpt: Rubens Kuhl: The only thing missing is standing. - Comment: we need to provide for an exception for a prior agreement between the parties. We don't want to put people in the position where they have to decide between filing an objection against one applicant and violating a prior agreement with another applicant in the same contention set. - Question: This potentially implicates the Independent Objector. There shouldn't be anything in private applicants' agreements that would prevent the IO from taking action, correct? Chat excerpt: Trang Nguyen: Regarding the string similarity review, ICANN org will provide input on the points of general agreement during the initial report public comment process. Rubens Kuhl: 2012 AGB had no standing for IO to file SCOs. I would like that standing to be added. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): IO doesn't have standing for SCO. Rubens Kuhl: (If IO still exists, of course) Rubens Kuhl: Kristina - Current registries, current applicants and IO would have standing. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): So, to be clear, we're talking about automatic consolidation, right? - WT leadership confirmed that we are talking about automatic consolidation. - What would the group like to see in terms of standing on this objection? Chat excerpt: Rubens Kuhl: Standing needs to be defined. I have a suggestion, others might prefer different standings, but we need to pick one. Rubens Kuhl: Option 1: 2012 AGB (Registries and Applicants) Rubens Kuhl: Option 2: Registries + Applicants + Independent Objector Rubens Kuhl: Option 3: Anyone Rubens Kuhl: My vote: option 2, to add IO. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to relax standing (which would be IO and anyone), we need to require an early dismissal mechanism so applicants don't have to spend $ defending ridiculous objections. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I see advantage in an early dismissal process regardless,Nye's @Kristina Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Rubens' earlier point is important - can we be reminded what we agreed w/r/t IO? (No point in saying we're giving him standing for SCO if we're eliminating it) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Option 2 looks fine. Agree there needs to be IO reform - and more than one IO so conflicts of interest can be avoided. - One perspective - the IO should have standing on the string confusion objection. - Slide 6 - Outstanding questions from previous discussions: Is consolidation of objections inherently unfair in anyway? How to proceed if the objector is an existing TLD operator? Are special considerations/guidelines needed? - Question - why was this question raised on slide 6 - "how to proceed if the objector is an existing TLD operator?" - The issue of verified TLDs in a highly regulated sector has come up in previous conversations. If there is an application for a string that is a synonym/exact translation of a highly regulated string in the same sector and that new string is not regulated, one perspective is that there could be a public safety issue. In this view, if the additional string is allowed, it should have the same restrictions. Chat excerpt: Steve Chan: For the last point about appeals on the previous page, is that specific in any way to the string confusion objections? Or is that the appeal mechanism that has been discussed for all objections grounds and evaluation elements? Rubens Kuhl: I don't see any difference for the 2nd bullet from 2012; if existing TLD, application fails. Like .COM and .ECOM. Rubens Kuhl: Restricting in the same sector would be anti-competitive. Rubens Kuhl: Anything in that sector should only have to carry similar PICs. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): important point Jamie the for raising that Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): might be hard to mandate though Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with GG re regulated strings and eligibility Rubens Kuhl: SCOs in 2012 were actually not expensive. So as long as ICANN keeps it in that range, people will likely won't get "denial of money" attacks. avri doria: Rubens, not all applicants are quite as well set for money. Rubens Kuhl: Avri, I was in the receiving end of one such SCO... and except for the ones in Applicant Support level, I assure you it wouldn't be a problem. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): There's another reason to avoid automatic consolidation - one of the applicants may have trademark rights in the mark that the string matches - required consolidation would likely weaken that applicant's ability to prevail in an SCO Rubens Kuhl: But that could be particular to that dispute resolution provider... if it was carried by ICC, then it could be a million instead of 5 thousand. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Is ICC the provider for string confusion panels? Rubens Kuhl: Consolidate by default, allow for exception to be request by applicant, perhaps ? Jamie Baxter | dotgay: The problem with letting the provider make a final decision on consolidation is that the loss of income for them will always be an influencer Rubens Kuhl: Anne, not in 2012. For SubPro, who knows ? - In response the the first question, one perspective is that consolidation should happen when possible and should be encouraged. In the view of one WT member, there should be additional guidance about where and how to consolidate, so that costs for applicants are not unnecessarily high. - Concern raised about consolidation of objections - failure of weakness of one applicant's response will have an impact on the other applicants in the contention set. - One perspective - the consolidation should be more focused on the financial aspect than it is on only giving one answer. In some cases in the 2012 round, the same answer was given on multiple objections but they were all paid for independently. - Comment: the objectors should be able to provide a rationale for why the objections should be consolidated. - Comment: Unless we hear how existing TLD operators should be treated differently, there is no merit in keeping that question for further consideration. Chat excerpt: Steve Chan: Would the opposite make sense perhaps? Where an objector can specifically request that their objection not be consolidated? Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Steve .. i believe the objector should have the option to make a case for consolidation. the final say on consolidation however cannot be left exclusively in the hands of the provider because money has proven to be a nasty inflencer Steve Chan: @Jamie, I was thinking perhaps in addition to your point? Essentially, the objector would have some say whether or not consolidation for their objection takes place. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Steve .. i see that as being fair as well. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Steve .. what cannot happen however is that the provider declines consolidation because of a single concern from an applicant that financial info may be shared with other applicants in the consolidation when financials had nothing to do with the objection. for the provider to decline consolidation and then assign the same panelist to all cases is a slap in the face and a clear attempt to bill for as much money as possible. 5. Upcoming Meetings - Upcoming call tentatively scheduled for 6 March at 15:00 UTC. The WT would go over material for the Initial Report and prepare for the face-to-face session at ICANN61. - WT members expressed that they may not be able to attend this meeting prior to travel for ICANN61. This meeting will be cancelled. - WG face-to-face session - 10 March 12:00 local time - this session will include material for Work Track 3. - Question - how will the face-to-face meeting be organized? Will this be a good setting to discuss the draft document? - Suggestion - circulate the draft document as early as possible prior to ICANN61. - The leadership team is working on developing draft content and this document will be shared as soon as possible. - For the session in ICANN61 - each Work Track will have a segment of time to cover WT topics. This may be a good opportunity to review draft recommendations and outstanding questions at a high level. 6. AOB - None.

1 0

WT3 Mtg Draft Agenda - 27 February @ 20:00 UTC: String Similarity & String Confusion
by Robin Gross Feb. 26, 2018

Feb. 26, 2018

All, In preparation for our WT3 call tomorrow, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 @ 20:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed discussion agenda. I hope you will join the discussion. Thank you. Best, Robin Gross Meeting Discussion Agenda: 1. Welcome & Introductions 2. SOI Updates 3. Plenary Update 4. String Similarity and String Confusion 5. Upcoming Meetings 6. AOB

1 0

Legal Rights Objection - Strawman for WT3
by Karen Day Feb. 20, 2018

Feb. 20, 2018

Dear Paul On our WT3 call this past week we again reviewed the strawman modifications to the Legal Rights Objection<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-02-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> sections of the AGB which you had presented to the group for our consideration. Since you were not able to join us on the call, the members wanted to ask if you could please provide to the us, via the email list, a written explanation for the overall reasoning for making changes to the LRO, as well as rationale for each of your red lines. As you will see from the notes and chat transcript, in almost every instance members wanted to know if there had been specific occurrences in the 2012 round which prompted your request for that particular change. If so, they would like to know the details of what those incidents were. The members felt that having a good understanding of the foundation for your recommendations was essential to the group being able to continue to refine our thoughts and positions on the LRO. If I can be of any assistance or if you have any questions back while preparing your responses, please don’t hesitate to let me know. Thanks, Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

6 12

AC Recording, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 13 February 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Feb. 13, 2018

Feb. 13, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Adobe Connect chat and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 13 February 2018 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p7vkrpdju62/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=26cec20a4b50bc4b…> https://participate.icann.org/p7vkrpdju62/ 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/CwWfB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Notes and Action Items Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 13 February 2018
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 13, 2018

Feb. 13, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 13 February 2018. 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 slides referenced on the call are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 13 February 2018 Action Item: In preparation for the next call, Working Group members should read through the slides on String Similarity (attached, beginning page 7) and send any thoughts to the list. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: No Updates. 2. Plenary Update: -- Working Group meeting 12 February. -- Discussed the issue of whether to do rounds, first come, first served, or a hybrid. -- Realized for the Initial Report we will present the status of our discussions along with different options for public input, citing pros and cons for each option. -- On track for doing an Initial Report in April; Work Track leaders are producing documents so it is important for Working Group members to comment on them as the links to the documents are shared. 3. Applicant Freedom of Expression – conclusion of last meeting’s discussion: Slide 4: -- General agreement that there we be no way to ensure a perfect implementation. -- Evidence of Failure of Policy Implementation in 2012 Round is difficult to provide -- complex & mixed with other issues such as community and geo names. -- As with Accountability Mechanisms, final outcome of CCWG-Accountability likely to impact this topic. Discussion: -- Second bullet point under prior discussions: the language about "other pressure to restrict the use of words" is partisan, not neutral. Could say, "government and other concerns regarding words of interest to various constituencies within ICANN". -- What we are doing is balancing interests. -- Working Group members will have the opportunity to refine the writing. -- On the last bullet at the bottom: What outcomes in the CCWG-Accountability would impact this topic? It was a note that if anything came out of Work Stream 1 or 2 we might need to take note, but it wasn't anything specific. Sounds like this shouldn't be here -- delete? -- Here is the language from the Final Issue Report: It should also be noted that the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) seeks to integrate human rights impact analyses within its mission, which should provide guidance to this PDP-WG in its deliberations. -- Should recognize that there are different views on this. -- Support the inclusion of "geo names" in the second bullet under "Take Away from Last Call." -- Any use of human rights impact analyses as a mandatory part of a PDP needs to be decided by the GNSO Council; can't be imposed by the CCWG, which doesn't have the authority to change how PDP policy is done. This is an ambiguous statement and if it wasn't discussed on the last call it should be deleted. -- Chartering organizations of the CCWG-Accountability have the opportunity to adopt the CCWG recommendations or not. -- We are still in the mid-point in this -- where we are going is the report from this Work Track will go to the plenary/PDP WG, and then incorporated into the Initial Report, which will be sent out for public comment. >From the chat: Tijani BEN JEMAA: I agree with Anne Gg Levine: Agree with Anne; language is slanted. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): For the record (and to avoid any doubt), I support the inclusion of "geo names" in the second bullet under "Take Away from Last Call." Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Alan - I am in favor of specifically referring to freedom of expression. agree with you but i think others do as well. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): this cross reference still needs to here in the section as a placeeholder 4. Accountability Mechanisms – review/refine progress to date: Slide 6: Open Issues from Prior Discussion & Input -- Should the process make a distinction between Accountability Mechanisms relating to substantive and procedural issues? -- Who is an appropriate final arbiter -- Subject Matter Experts? ICANN Board? -- Do we have agreement that panelists/IO should be subject to conflict of interest policies handled prior to intitiaion of hte substantive matters. -- Is there a need for a post decision appeal mechanism specific to New gTLD process? Discussion: -- Need a post decision appeal mechanism. Don't believe the current accountability mechanism allow for a substantive review. -- Need subject matter experts to do any appeals. -- Can't rely on one level of decision making. -- Idea 1: Starting panels of no less than 3 members. Idea 2: Substantive review is only available if a dissenting opinion existed in the original decision. And the existence of a dissenting opinion would be the trigger to allow a substantive review (appeal), but that wouldn't be automatic, it would have to be invoked by a party. -- Need to be re-thought how community evaluations take place. -- Anyone object to some kind of conflict of policy for the panelists/IO? [no objections recorded.] -- Who should be the final arbiter? Should be people who can address the problem, which may be Subject Matter Experts or the Board. Should be empowered to look at the whole picture. -- Does it always have to be the same arbiter? -- There needs to be a mechanism that shortens the accountability process. -- Is this in reference to the post decision appeal mechanism (final arbiter)? Funnels into the need for a post decision appeal mechanism. Another commonality is a common arbiter of these decisions. -- We may need to have a visio-type diagram as to where appeals could come in. -- Do we agree that we need to make a distinction between mechanism for substantive issues and procedural issues? It is clear that on substantive issues that you will need subject matter experts, but not clear for procedural issues. Could have different rules for how you select the arbiters. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Greg - how does new IRP process affect this question? Greg Shatan: I don’t think it affects it much, for the reasons Jeff is articulating. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Okay thank you. Rubens Kuhl: Idea 1: No panels of less than 3 members. Idea 2: Substantive review is only available if a dissenting opinion existed in the original decision. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): there seems to be no downside to a post decision appeal process... Alan Greenberg: @Cheryl, the downside is that it might be used very heavily, but if we design the original decision process better, we may be ableto control that. Jeff Neuman: Even Reconsideration requires that an action (or inaction) contradicts ICANN's Mission, Commitments, Core Values and/or established ICANN policies..... avri doria: It does seem the case, speaking personally, that the bylaws cover adherence to policies, but not necessarily to implementations. Question: after this substnative review mechanism i am assume the bylaws mechansims would still be called on. so this is an extra review in the process. Jeff Neuman: So to me that leaves too much wiggle room for the BAMC to deny reconsideration requests even where an evaluator gets something wrong Jeff Neuman: @Avri - True, but all reconsiderations were denied because nothing empowered the Board to review what an outside panel did Jeff Neuman: When push comes to shove, I believe the same would happen even under these new bylaws Rubens Kuhl: Not in a position to speak today. Rubens Kuhl: And the existence of a dissenting opinion would be the trigger to allow a substantive review (appeal), but that wouldn't be automatic, it would have to be invoked by a party. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Rubens - very interest6ing ideas! Well worth exploring. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Rubens - very interest6ing ideas! Well worth exploring. avri doria: New IRP has not been tested yet, btw. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): What about sticking with one panelist but allowing appeal to panel of 3? Rubens Kuhl: Standing panels would fit FCFS, so depending on the discussion in the full WG, we might have to tune objection processes a little. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Rubens - how do you conduct string confusion objection in FCFS? Rubens Kuhl: @Anne, that would allow every decision to be appealed, generating a likely heavy load on Org and parties. avri doria: one problem i have seen with panels, is that most issue have at least 2 sides to the issue, so whatever the decsion it is will be further appealed. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Wholeheartedly support Jeff Neuman: The other reason for an Appeal is tied to the work that Work Track 2 is doing on the Applicant Terms and Conditions. If ICANN intends to require applicants to sign Ts and Cs in which it agrees not to take ICANN to Court, then there must be a substantive review through an appeals mechanism Rubens Kuhl: String confusion had both existing TLDs and applicants as parties. String confusion objection with existing TLDs would still be a possible objection. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Okay Rubens but would this not also be true any time there is a dissent opinion? Which could be limtied to "I dissent"? Rubens Kuhl: If there was a dissenting opinion, there is at least a possible cause. Rubens Kuhl: I think no decisions, whether in favor or dissenting, should lack reasoning. Every decision, in any direction, should provide reasoning. Robin Gross: When the ICANN board believes its fiduciary duty is at issue in the case, they must have the last say. But on issues that don't invoke that duty, it could be other decision makers. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Rubens -yes of course as to pre-existing TLDs. What about applications for .mediator and .mediators in new application process FCFS? Does the first one filed win even if filed a couple of days before? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Personally, I think it's challenging to make a meaningful decision about an appeal mechanism without getting into the details (threshold, standard of review, interplay with other accountability mechanisms, DRP, panelist qualifications, etc.). avri doria: at the end of most days isn't it the IRP -> Board -> "EC" -> courts

1 0

WT3 - Meeting Agenda - Tuesday, 13FEB18 15:00 UTC
by Karen Day Feb. 12, 2018

Feb. 12, 2018

Dear Members of Work Track 3, Our next meeting is due to take place this coming Tuesday, February 13th at 15:00 UTC. Our agenda for this week will be as follows: 1. Welcome & Introductions 2. SOI Updates 3. Plenary Update 4. Applicant Freedom of Expression - conclusion of last meeting's discussion. 5. Accountability Mechanisms - review/refine progress to date 6. String Similarity - review/refine progress to date - including a "final" look back at String Confusion. 7. Upcoming Meetings I am attaching to this email the slides we will be using as the starting point for our discussions for your review. Also, for those who are unable to join us, please do submit any input you have on these topics via the list. Until Tuesday, Karen

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 30 January 2018 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 30, 2018

Jan. 30, 2018

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, 30 January 2018 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track3-30jan18-en.mp3 The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** 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/aB1yB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle -------------------------------

1 0

Notes and Action Items Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 30 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 30, 2018

Jan. 30, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 30 January 2018. 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 slides referenced on the call are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 30 January 2018 1. Statements of Interest Updates: No updates. 2. Plenary Co-chair Update: -- This weeks' SubPro PDP WG call was canceled. -- Tentatively rescheduled to 06 February at 0300 UTC. -- Held Leadership Meeting between RPM PDP WG and SubPro PDP WG to coordinate the timelines. Meet more regularly. -- For next SubPro continue discussion of test cases. 3. Coalesce Objections, Continued: a. Limited Public Interest: Slide 4: -- Cross-reference to human rights and freedom of expression -- framework from Accountability Work Stream 2 Cross-Community Working Group Sub Team on Human Rights. Make sure we aren't in conflict with that work--harmonization and effects that may need to be realized. What is in scope for ICANN and what is out of scope. Consider doing a cross-reference document. >From the chat: Trang Nguyen: As part of the WS1 work, the following language was put into the ICANN Bylaws, under section viii of the Core Values: "Subject to the limitations set forth in Section 27.2, within the scope of its Mission and other Core Values, respecting internationally recognized human rights as required by applicable law. This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission, or beyond obligations found in applicable law. This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations, or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties." Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): The By-Law says that no Objection will be filed based on the Human Rights Commitment until it is adopted by the Board. I can't remember the exact language but please see revised ByLaws. Trang Nguyen: The work of WS2 is to develop a framework of interpretation for the Human Rights clause in the Core Values. Link to the draft Framework published for public comment is available at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/foi-hr-2017-05-05-en. b. Community Objections: Slide 6: -- Need to come up with a definition for how community is defined. Or, do we want to ask how communities want to be recognized? -- How to address the issue of standing -- not determined until the objection is in full swing; seems that objections should be weeded out earlier. Allow applicant to respond to the objection and bring to light that it is potentially unwarranted. -- Need to define what is a community and have more objective criteria. -- Issue of cost in this type of objection is an ongoing concern. >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): We should consider making the requirement Jamie suggests applicable to ALL objections. If it makes sense to apply to CO, it should also make sense to apply to the other 3. To be clear, not advocating on the merits, but the scope. c. Independent Objector: Slide 8: -- Question whether the term "standing panel" is the right phrase. Panel implies a group to whom things are brought. -- Need coordination with Work Stream 2 with respect to the Independent Objector? -- There are still portions of the world that we have an obligation to look out for. It was the fact that the IO was engaged full time as the rest of the world wasn't. There is a question of resources and awareness. >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can't come off mute due to background noise, but we absolutely need a conflicts of interest mechanism. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Having multiple IOs could potentially address the conflict of interest issue. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): W/r/t IO, the applicant should have an opportunity to have the conflict of interest issue addressed before having to submit a substantive response. Susan Payne: I think the idea of the standing panel was to address conflicts, ie there are alternatives if one IO is conflicted Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Perhaps there's an initial process (sort of like a quick look, but needs to be substantive) that could be adopted. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Do we know if the IO filed and won any objections that couldn't have been won on any other ground? That seems to be the question we need to answer before deciding if we still need an IO. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Won by any other person. Sorry. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Anne the focus in WS1/2 on Irp has also set some new benchmark or expectations her as well 4. Applicant Freedom of Expression: Slide 10: -- No implementation guidance in 2012 AGB. -- Important to have more guidance. -- Not going to have perfect recommendations on this. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Robin - could you talk about how this was mishandled in the 2012 round? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I was just about to ask the same question @Anne Susan Payne: what if any problems have been identified on this Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed was there an issue Susan Payne: I'd be really keen to understand some real examples because this all sounds very theoretical Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly @Susan Susan Payne: @Jamie - but no-one has blocked the term "GAY" have they? I realise that there have been issues with the community sttaus but no-one has banned the term Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @ Susan .. no one has blocked it, but one government did express opposision in the comment period. BTW .. .GAY has not been approved yet either

1 0

Discussion Agenda: WT3 30 Jan. (20:00 UTC)
by Robin Gross Jan. 29, 2018

Jan. 29, 2018

Please see the below discussion agenda for this week’s WorkTeam 3 call. I hope many of you will join in the discussion tomorrow. Thank you, Robin WT3 Agenda - 30 January 2018 — 20:00 UTC 1. Welcome and Review of Agenda 2. Statements of Interest Updates 3. Plenary Co-chair Update 4. Coalesce Objections, Continued a. Limited Public Interest b. Community Objections c. Independent Objector 5. Applicant Freedom of Expression 6. AOB - Next meeting

1 0

Notes and Action Items Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 09 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 9, 2018

Jan. 9, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 09 January 2018. 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 documents referenced on the call are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 09 January 2018 Action Items: The WG will convey to Paul McGrady for consideration the questions concerning the Legal Rights Objection Strawman noted below. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: No updates. 2. Sub-Pro Plenary Update: -- Looked at our Predictability Framework and homework. -- Looked at categories/classifications. Looking for suggestions for actual cases to run through the Framework. -- Reminded everyone of the 3 Work Track calls this week. >From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): minor correction for meeting record, it's a WT 4 call on later this week on the 11 Jan at 1500UTC... WT5 is at 2000UTC on the 17tg (WT1 meets at the same time on the 16th 24hrs earlier) 3. Legal Rights Objections: Slide 4: Highlight from Prior Discussions -- WT considered statistics related to this objection ground. -- Few concerns identified with the policy language and the AGB language. -- Some issues raised regarding the scope of the objection, particularly relating to basis of infringement, which requires proving uses (difficult to do for a pending application). -- WT discussed a strawman proposal redlining section 3.2.2.2. Proposed changing "infringed" to "abused", which some WT members consider a significant change. Questions raised about the problem the proposal wa seeking to solve. No consensus reached. Slide 5: Legal Rights Strawman See: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-02-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Section 3.2.2.2 Changed "A rightsholder" to "Any rightsholder" Question: what is the rationale for this change? Changed "infringed" to "abused" Question: What took place in the 2012 process that might have prompted this suggested change in terminology? Discussion: -- Keep as "infringed". -- Could be wrongful conduct that is not called infringement. Also, dilution of a trademark is an actionable thing. -- Flag that the discussion in the GNSO when the policy recommendation was made was very focused on infringement. I think we will need to be prepared to explain why we decided to go with a different term, regardless of what that term is. -- Suggested "violated" because what if it falls near infringement and is having a similar effect. Several terms could be put into a bucket called "violated". Could use a list of terms, “infringed, diluted, misappropriated or otherwise violated” to add clarity. -- Difficult to prove infringement without the string being delegated. Is it worth discussing the purpose for making a switch to different terminology. -- If you go to the legal definition of infringement you have to perform a likelihood of confusion test, which may prove to be impossible to meet. So if this is an objection process before anything exists you have to extrapolate to what the uses will be. We aren't using "infringement" to mean what it really means. Not necessarily difficult to prove, but it is what you have to do to prove it. >From the chat: Jon Nevett: i prefer keeping it as infringed Greg Shatan: I would suggest “violated”. Kurt Pritz: This objection was always intended to be a narrow inquiry - focused on the string itself. It is difficult to extrapolate from a string name to infringement or abuse or misappropriated without some additional action (which occurs typically after the string is delegated). With such a narrow inquiry, I prefer the legal term infringement - which seems to have the clearest meaning. Jon Nevett: there is a body of law on infringement Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Staff, would it be possible for you to post a link to Paul's paper putting forward the strawman and rationale? That would be extremely helpful. Greg Shatan: dilution and misappropriation still go to the string itself. Greg Shatan: Dilution and misappropriation also have clear legal meanings. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree wtih Greg that dilution and misappropriation go to the string itself Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I'd be interested in hearing an explanation as for why abuse, dilution, violation, etc don't raise the same issue as infringement. Jon Nevett: were there objections rejected in the 2012 round that Paul and others think should be decided differently in this round? That might help frame why we need changes in the first place. Kurt Pritz: Infringement is difficult to prove and rightfully so - at this stage of the application process. We can't deny an application for what an applicant might do. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jon - agree those examples would be helpful. He also seems to be suggesting later that some objections were filed solely for the purpose of triggering a private auction and getting paid off. Does anyone know of any examples of this? Kurt Pritz: What is the type of string that the inclusion of "abuse" might disqualify that infringe might not? I am concerned it might be some type of public forum TLD. Jon Nevett: i think Paul is suggesting that the application was filed to go to private resolution not the objection Section 3.5.2 Introductory paragraph: Changing text to "or was filed for the purpose of triggering a private auction proceeding designed to obtain a payment from the objector" Question: Are there any examples of this from the 2012 round? >From the chat: Jon Nevett: i think Paul is suggesting that the application was filed to go to private resolution not the objection Kurt Pritz: I am concerned that this redline about triggering auctions might lead to multiple IRPs Michael Flemming: I agree with Paul on Nevett: how do you prove that an application was filed to go to private resolution Kurt Pritz: @Jon - it is very difficult - but it would provide a tool for use by objector's to slow the process 1. Change to "or a translation or transliteration of" Discussion: No objections to this change. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I would support the change that adds "translation or transliterations" of Gg Levine (NABP) 2: Change is appropriate. 3. Change to "including but not limited [to] niche market fame" instead of "of the applicant or of a third party" Question: What is the rationale for this change? Discussion: -- Objection/don't understand the change. -- Put a marker down on this one; the niche fame incorporates the dilution standard, the other parts effectively strike a competing legal rights defense by the applicant. -- Think the concept of "niche market fame" is already included, so this could be seen as clarifying. >From the chat: Jon Nevett: I object Jon Nevett: I don't understand it at this point Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can we put a marker down on that one? The niche fame incorporaes the dilution standard, the other parts effectively strike a fair use defense by the applicant Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Sorry. Mistyped. Not fair use. Competing legal rights. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): The issue is the definition of the "relevant sector". Hard to tie down. for example, are we talking about household goods or industrial goods? paul describes the possibility of a niche market (a narrow, not a broad one where a name or trademark is known to those participants in the market.) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): for example, under German law, I am told you only have to show the mark is well known in its own market and there is a percentage test used. This is a difficult area since trademark law is not uniform worldwide. 4a. “the applicant...conducted a trademark search for trademarks corresponding to the applied-for string" Question: What is the rationale for this change? Discussion: --The underlying issue of what percentage of words in the dictionary are trademarked isn't relevant; not sure we need to have a trademark search. -- Unclear what the impact of doing a trademark search would be. -- It may be that evidence of a trademark search that comes up clear could help demonstrate that the applicant had no intent to violate another's rights. This is an optional consideration, right? -- Doesn't the inquiry into whether a trademark search was conducted tend to discourage such searches by applicants? -- If the element of the analysis relates to the element of proof of "intent", then evidence re the trademark search is quite relevant to that determination. -- What do you do with the information from a worldwide trademark search? -- History of Applicant's trademark search, if any, is probative on the question of "intent". It seems that "applicant's intent" is relevant. Since it's relevant, the evidence of trademark search results would definitely be relevant (but not necessarily relevant if Applicant failed to conduct a trademark search since that doesn't prove any sort of intent.) -- Example: there is an objection because the string is a trademark. The panel looks into whether there has been a trademark search. If there has been, that is evidence of infringement. >From the chat: Jon Nevett:what's the relevance of the trademark search? Majority of dictionary terms are trademarks somewhere, no? Michael Flemming:Just because legal rights objections can be loosely done if an applicant applied for the string as a trademark in the wake of applying for it. Kurt Pritz:In this case, conducting a trademark search is evidence of infringement, abuse, etc. Correct? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):In its current form, the trademark search requirement seems overly burdensome. Trademark search in what jurisdictions? What if the string is a common dictionary word such that a trademark search could yield thousands of results? I defended one LRO for which a search of the USPTO database would yield almost 1000 registrations or applications containing the TLD string term. Michael Flemming:applying for it as a tld * Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):It may be that evidence of a trademark search that comes up clear could help demonstrate that the applicant had no intent to violate another's rights. This is an optional consideration, right? Jon Nevett:Agree with Kristina Kurt Pritz:To build on my last comment - doesn't the inquiry into whether a trademark search was conducted tend to discourage such searches by applicants? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):If the element of the analysis relates to the element of proof of "intent", then evidence re the trademark search is quite relevant to that determination. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):in very many classes of use as we amusing, indeed... worth looking at clarification Kurt Pritz:Susan is making my point better than I did. Ex. there is an objection because the string is a trademark. The panel looks into whether there has been a trademark search,. If there has been, that is evidence of infringment. Michael Flemming:agree with Kristina Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I do think history of Applicant's trademark search, if any, is probative on the question of "intent". It seems that "applicant's intent" is relevant. Since it's relevant, the evidence of trademark search results would definitely be relevant (but not necessarily relevant if Applicant failed to conduct a trademark search since that doesn't prove any sort of intent.) Kurt Pritz:Well, it might be games but it is just evidence to be considered 4d. "whether or not the applicant has engaged in past "private auctions" designed to raise funds from competing applications; or" Question: Have we seen any evidence of this? Discussion: -- Object to using participation in auctions as evidence of abuse. -- One issue with 4d. is that it assumes that an applicant participates (or participated) in a private auction solely to "raise funds from competing applications" and that is a false assumption. >From the chat: Kurt Pritz: I also object to using participation in auctions as evidence of abuse. 5. "In the event that the string does not correspond to a famous trademark owned by the objector" Question: What is the rationale for this change? >From the chat: Jon Nevett: disagree with suggested change to 5 6. is consistent with strictly corresponds to such acquisition or use the applicant’s marks or other intellectual property rights. Failure of the applicant to include registration and use restrictions prohibiting registration and use of the string in conjunction with the goods and services covered by the Objector’s trademarks shall be conclusive evidence that applicant does not have defenses under this paragraph. 8. Failure of the applicant to include registration and use restrictions prohibiting registration and use of the string in conjunction with the goods and services covered by the Objector’s trademarks shall be conclusive evidence that applicant’s intended use of the gTLD will create a likelihood of confusion with the objector’smark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the gTLD. Question: What is the rationale for these changes? Discussion: 8 goes with 6 with the conclusive evidence concept. >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):It's still early here in WA, but #6 would seem to result in the conclusion that an applicant that applied for a generic term to use it as its dictionary meaning would then have to either (a) impose restrictions or (b) be found to not have any defenses. That seems to be a catch-22 to me. 7. [Deleted: this can be gamed with mere corporate filings – the issue is trademarks, not company names.] Question: What is the rationale for this change? Discussion: -- Doesn't this section refer to a TLD that is not an exact match of a trademark but similar enough? Apologies, very late and trying to read small print on my phone so I may have misinterpreted 7. -- Problematic because there are some trademark rights that are protected by statute rather than there be a requirement that they be registered. >From the chat: Michael Flemming: Doesn't this section refer to a tld that is not an exact match of a trademark but similar enough? Apologies, very late and trying to read small print on my phone so I may have misinterpreted 7. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Some countries afford corporate names trademark-like protection

1 0

AC Recording, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 09 January 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Jan. 9, 2018

Jan. 9, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Adobe Connect chat and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 09 January 2018 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p3rrggxv6aj/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=625a918c0c8c32ec…> https://participate.icann.org/p3rrggxv6aj/ 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YB1yB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Agenda for WT3 - 09JAN2018 1500 UTC
by Karen Day Jan. 8, 2018

Jan. 8, 2018

Dear WT3 Members, I hope the new year has gotten off to a good start for you all. We have our next meeting on Tuesday January 9th at 1500 UTC and we continuing our 3rd pass over the topic of Objections. This week we will look specially at Legal Rights Objections and String Confusion Objections. As you will recall we have proposals for modifications to the policy and implementation of both types on the table and with some good discussion on Tuesday I hope that we can come close to polishing up any rough edges remaining with them. I am attaching copies of both for you here in word and pdf formats. I would also encourage you to refer back to our wiki page on this topic to the background materials and prior discussions linked there. https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.4.3+Objections Subject to your approval, our agenda will be as follows: 1. Welcome & Review/Revise Agenda 2. SOI Updates 3. Sub-Pro Plenary Update 4. Legal Rights Objections 5. String Confusion Objections 6. Review of Next Steps/Action Items 7. AOB & Next Meeting Thanks, Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

1 0

FW: Letter on behalf of FIP
by Karen Day Dec. 19, 2017

Dec. 19, 2017

Dear Work Track 3 Members, Please see the attached letter which we have received this morning for your consideration into our work. Best regards, Karen From: Rachel van Kesteren [mailto:Rachel@fip.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 7:03 AM To: Karen Day <Karen.Day(a)sas.com>; robin(a)ipjustice.org Cc: CEO@fip <ceo(a)fip.org>; President <president(a)fip.org>; Carola van der Hoeff <Carola(a)fip.org>; Thomas Menighan <tmenighan(a)aphanet.org> Subject: Letter on behalf of FIP EXTERNAL Dear Ms Day and Ms Gross, Please find attached a letter on behalf of Ms Ema Paulino, Interim CEO. Kind regards, Rachel [cid:image001.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0]<http://www.fip.org/> [cid:image002.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalPharmaceuticalFederation/> [cid:image003.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/fip> [cid:image004.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0]<https://twitter.com/FIPCongress> [cid:image005.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0]<https://www.youtube.com/user/IAmAPharmacistVideos> Rachel van Kesteren | Executive Secretary International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) Andries Bickerweg 5 | 2517 JP | The Hague | The Netherlands Tel: +31 70 302 1971 | Fax: +31 70 302 1999 Email:Rachel@fip.org<mailto:Rachel@fip.org> Website<http://www.fip.org> | Pharmacy Event Calendar<http://www.fip.org/events> | Publications<http://www.fip.org/publications> [cid:image006.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0] Website<https://www.fip.org/glasgow2018/> | Programme<https://www.fip.org/glasgow2018/programme/> | Press & Media<https://www.fip.org/glasgow2018/press-and-media/> | Glasgow<https://www.fip.org/glasgow2018/housing/> Join us on 2 September - 6 September 2018, Glasgow [cid:image007.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0] Website | Programme | Press & Media | Geneva Join us on 19 May - 20 May 2018, Geneva World Health Professions Regulation Conference 2018 The International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) is the global federation of 140 national organisations of pharmacists and pharmaceutical scientists dedicated to improving the access to and value of appropriate medicine use, and contributing to changes in science, practice and health policies worldwide. FIP represents over four million pharmacists and pharmaceutical scientists worldwide and endeavors to advance the role of the pharmacist through such partnerships as our official NGO status with the World Health Organization (WHO).

1 0

Report on CPE Review Released
by Karen Day Dec. 14, 2017

Dec. 14, 2017

Dear fellow members of Work Track 3, Please draw your attention to the newly released, long awaited, reports (there are 3) on the review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process which were issued by ICANN late yesterday. We will need to take these into account in our deliberations on our initial report. The announcement can be found here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-12-13-en and the full reports are available here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe#process-review As we will not be meeting together again for some time due to the holidays, I would encourage you to start sharing your thoughts, questions and concerns on our email list as soon as you begin working your way through the reports while they are fresh in your mind. With best wishes of the seasons, Karen

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 3 - 12 December 2017
by Emily Barabas Dec. 12, 2017

Dec. 12, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. 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. You can find the chat transcript and call recording here: https://community.icann.org/x/RQxyB. Kind regards, Emily Notes/Action Items: 1. Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI - no updates 3. Plenary Update - Call yesterday (Monday) focused on TLD types. WG members received "homework" regarding proposed additional TLD types - Additional homework: propose use case scenarios to apply to the Predictability Framework, one of the other overarching issues. 4. Review of Work Plan for WT3 through March 2018 - The plan is to present sections of the report from this WT to the Plenary on March 9. 5. Conclude Review of CC2 on “Community” Applications - 3.3.4 - Were the rights of communities infringed by the New gTLD Program? - RySG, BRG, and Afilias did not believe that the rights of communities were infringed. - Freedom of association and freedom of speech are referenced in this question. There has been some discussion that community applications should serve the public interest, but we should also consider that freedom of association is in the public interest. ICANN should not be making judgements about content. Chat excerpt: Jim Prendergast: Does anyone have any idea on when the Review of CPE will be completed? I would think that should inform this work. Alan Greenberg (ALAC): I asked Manal about the status of the GAC paper on Community applications. She said that the paper had been discussed but not approved - yet. BUt she noted that her recollection is that the paper is mostly factual not opinion. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Jim .. there has still been no further announcement or publishing of the FTI findings since scope 1 & 2 have been delived to ICANN. Not sure what the delay is or what the planned timing is of this being released. I concur that it is most important for ICANN to get this out for further discussion by this group and others. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): thanks Alan Jim Prendergast: @jamie - its takign forever. Been well over a year since the board asked for it Jon Nevett: i agree with Anne -- one person's terrorists is another person's freedom fighter Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Jim ... problem noted and we are just as confused and concerned Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): well noted Jim, perhaps we can ask staff to follow up on the credit status.... Jon Nevett: .pot could it go to medical marijuana growers in California? Or are they drug dealers? Jamie Baxter | dotgay: CPE cost is also linked to predictability for applicants Anne Aikman-Scalese: great example Jon - does it depend on the governing law of the community's jurisdiction? Colorado, CA and others okay - 3.3.5 - Are there other aspects of the New gTLD Program related to communities that should be considered in a more holistic fashion? - vTLD Consortium and NABP supported communities having registration policies requiring verification that registrants are members of the community. - RySG and Afilias addressed potential implications of the model for subsequent procedures. - We may have skipped over discussion during the last call regarding costs. The actual cost ended up being double the estimated cost. If there is information published in the AGB regarding estimated costs, this information needs to be more accurate. if the information in the AGB ends up being far from actual costs, ICANN should chip in to cover the costs. - If community applications are going to be given priority or receive other incentives, it is important to be able to review and have certain assurances about the business or management model going forward. You don't want ICANN to do granular content oversight, but if a registry is getting priority, some assurances are common sense as there are risks of gaming. There should be a way to confirm the community is legitimate and that the community registry will run differently than a generic registry. - There have been concerns about gaming with community applications. A structure with some level of verification would attract those who are seeking to represent a bona fide community. - Staff clarification on system for the 2012 round -- Registration requirements that applicants put into their application were included in Spec 12 of the agreement, regardless of whether CPE applies. If an application was presented as a community application and there was no contention and therefore no CPE, the claim to being a community application was taken at face value. - Support expressed for having evaluation criteria for all community applicants, not just those that are in contention. - In the last round, if there was no contention, the application was not evaluated under CPE, but there were also no special privileges to be gained by the designation. If we decide for the next round that the rules will be different for communities and extra benefits are provided for these TLDs, then there could be additional requirements. But if the rules stay the same, it is unnecessary to add requirements. Chat excerpt: Jon Nevett: Spec 12 requirements are in the contract Jon Nevett: community applicants are now going through a process to see how to change their Spec 12 requirements if they want to tweak them Jeff Neuman: @Jon is correct. There is no process yet for changing Spec 12. But there needs to be Jim Prendergast: Shoudl also note that those community applicants who were not in contention and didnt have to go through CPE are still bound by the promises made in Q20 of application. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Jim .. that is also my understanding Steve Chan: @Jim, thanks, that's essentially what I was trying to convey in my comment 6. Review of CC2 on “Objections” - 3.1.1 - INTA, Nominet, RySG, BRG, and Afilias believe that the existing recommendation do not need to be revised. - RySg, BRG, and Afilias recommended clarifying "a significant portion of the community" in Recommendation 20. - ALAC suggested changing recommendation 2. - The concern regarding language of recommendation 20 is important and needs to be looked at more closely. There is a potential to misunderstand what a "significant portion" means. - Agree that there is some clarification needed. Where there is some type of organization related to a community, the organization will have officers or directors that are authorized to act. If there is a determination made by that organization and authority is conferred upon them, do they at that point in time represent a significant portion of the community? For a community that is not established in a corporate form, there may be a legitimate basis for representing a significant part of a community where the applicant is stepping into a void, and there is evidence that the community would flock to the TLD once established. Panelists likely need more guidance on this issue. - How do you count a community that is invisible? Can you rely on organizations that are visible? Or do you require the community to make itself visible? It needs to be more predictable. Applicants can interpret the text differently as it is currently written. Chat excerpt: Jon Nevett: how you define the community is another issue -- depends on the string that is applied for -- does the American Bar Association apply for .ABA as a community or .LAW as a community? Gg Levine (NABP): @Jon: I would think they could apply for either name as a community Jon Nevett: Right, but the review might be different as to level of support, etc. 3.1.2 - Jannik Skou, BC, RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested string confusion needs to be improved. - Jannik Skou and ALAC suggested that Legal Rights Objections need to be improved. - RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested that Community Objections need to be improved. - BC suggested developing a process to appeal decisions. - RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested specific procedural improvements to the objections process. - Where the AGB is vague, there should be more flexibility on the evaluation side. Otherwise the AGB needs to be clear. -The panel should be able to remediate a decision. This is important for predictability. The panelists should not take loose interpretations and then apply them rigidly without communicating this to others. Chat excerpt: Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Alan .. +1 Jon Nevett: Alan +1 Phil Buckingham: Alan + 1 Greg Shatan: Alan +1, +1 -One possible change: there could be an intervening step in the process in the objections process for parties to work out issues. - The panelists would have to allow the application to be changed in the case of mediation. - One way that we allowed for changes in applications in the 2012 round was PICs. We are talking about community applications serving the public interest. Could the change in the applications as a result of mediation be reflected in PICs? - PICs were only used “on the fly” in the last round because they were introduced late in the process. In subsequent procedures this may not be the case, as they will already be an established mechanism. - A big issue for the entire application process is whether and how applications can be changed after they are submitted. This should be addressed directly. If the goal is to be flexible and maximize the number of successful applications, there needs to be an opportunity to change applications. The other side of the issue is gaming. The topic of whether and how applications can be changed should be considered carefully by the Working Group. Chat excerpt: Susan Payne: +1 Greg Donna Austin, Neustar: @Greg, would that include new letters of support for an application that come in after the closing date for applications? Greg Shatan: @Donna, my gut reaction is yes. - 3.1.3 - The RySG, BRG, and Afilias had concerns with the standing requirements for Recommendation 20. - When we talk about standing, it's important to establish standing before the objection moves forward. Otherwise community applicants must defend against objections that do not have standing. - 3.1.4 -BC, RySG, BRG, and Afilias pointed to inconsistencies. - If all examples of inconsistencies are examples of singular/plural issues and we are addressing that issue with a specific rule, then that concern about inconsistency is addressed - INTA provided additional suggestions on this topic -3.1.5 - dotgay provided evidence of gaming. - dotgay, RySG, and Afilias made suggestions to reduce gaming. - There is evidence that some parties worked to derail community applications. Recommendations in CC2 feedback should be considered carefully to prevent similar actions from occurring in subsequent procedures. Chat excerpt: Donna Austin, Neustar: what's the status of ICANN's review of CPE? isn't that looking at inconsistencies? Jim Prendergast: @donna - no one knows - been over a year. Jim Prendergast: Jamie probably has the best read as he is directly impacted Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jim, what was the SLA for finishing? Jamie Baxter | dotgay: it would be great if staff could help in providing an update on the status of the CPE investigation and the FTI findings that ICANN has been holding onto for several weeks now. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: for the record it has been 1 year and 4 months since the Board directed the CEO to launch the CPE investigation - Proposal from the registries on string similarity got traction on previous calls. The document will be addressed in the new year on upcoming calls. Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

AC Recording, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 12 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Dec. 12, 2017

Dec. 12, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Adobe Connect chat and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 12 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6fto3ikgxh/ 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/RQxyB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Agenda & Materials for WT3 Mtg on 12 December @ 15:00 UTC
by Robin Gross Dec. 12, 2017

Dec. 12, 2017

All, In preparation for our WT3 call tomorrow, Tuesday, 12 December 2017 @ 15:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed discussion agenda. We will conclude discussion of CC2 on community and also get into CC2 on objections. The related documents attached attached to this email. I hope you will join the discussion. Thank you. Best, Robin Discussion Agenda 1. Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI 3. Plenary Update 5. Review of Work Plan for WT3 Through March 2018 (attached) 6. Conclude Review of CC2 on “Community” Applications (below & attached) 7. Review of CC2 on “Objections” (below & attached) 8. AOB 5. Conclude Review of “communities” in CC2 3.3.4 - Were the rights of communities (e.g., freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and principle of non-discrimination) infringed by the New gTLD Program? Please provide specific examples.  3.3.5 - Besides CPE, are there other aspects of the New gTLD Program related to communities that should be considered in a more holistic fashion? For instance, in the 2012 round, the claim to support a community is largely only relevant when resolving string contention. Do you think community applications should be structured and/or evaluated differently than other applications? 6. Review of CC2 on “Objections” 3.1.1 - Do you think that the policy recommendations (Recommendations 2, 3, 6, and 20) require any modifications? If so, what would you suggest? 3.1.2 - Do you believe that those recommendations (which led to the establishment of the String Confusion, Legal Rights, Limited Public Interest, and Community Objections grounds) were implemented effectively and in the spirit of the original policy recommendations? If no, please provide examples. 3.1.3 - Do you believe there were any issues with standing requirements as defined in the Applicant 3.1.4 - Do you believe there is evidence of decisions made by objection dispute panels that were inconsistent with other similar objections, the original policy recommendations, and/or the AGB? Please explain. 3.1.5 - Are you aware of any instances where any party or parties attempted to ‘game’ the Objection procedures in the 2012 round? If so, please provide examples and any evidence you may have available. 3.1.6 - Do you believe that the use of an Independent Objector (IO) is warranted in future application processes? If not, then why? If yes, then would you propose any restrictions or modifications be placed on the IO in future rounds? 3.1.7 - Do you believe that parties to disputes should be able to choose between 1 and 3 member panels and should the costs of objections reflect that choice? 3.1.8. - Is clearer guidance needed in regards to consolidation of objections? Please explain. 3.1.9 - Many community members have highlighted the high costs of objections. Do you believe that the costs of objections created a negative impact on their usage? If so, do you have suggestions for improving this issue? Are there issues beyond cost that might impact access, by various parties, to objections? 3.1.10 - Do you feel that GAC Early Warnings were helpful in identifying potential concerns with applications? Do you have suggestions on how to mitigate concerns identified in GAC Early Warnings? 3.1.11 - What improvements and clarifications should be made to GAC Advice procedures? What mitigation mechanisms are needed to respond to GAC Advice? How can timelines be made more precise?

3 2