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

**Attached Mp3**, AC Recording, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p89efwas11e/ 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/rZlEB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 November 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 15:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Karen Day:Morning, Michelle. I'm going to let my headset charge up for another 5 min before I dial in. Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there Karen, good morning to you as well, sounds good! Jamie Baxter | dotgay:sure Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):fair enough Robin Gross:sounds good, Karen Jon Nevett:sounds good Samantha Demetriou:Fine by me :) Emily Barabas:Slides are unsynced Steve Chan:The three drafting teams can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… the bottom of each of the respective pages, you' fndl the current working document for each topic Jim Prendergast:link doesnt work Jim Prendergast:at least for me Steve Chan:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.o… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I apologize - i have not had time to read Mark's summary yet. Steve Chan:@Jim, rhere was a period at the end of the URL - I guess it got integrated into the link? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Are you linking to Mark's summary? I can't make ttha link work. Jim Prendergast:that worked Steve Chan:@Anne, you can find the Mark Carvell summary on the Wiki page here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Steve Chan:FYI, we are on slide 5 Donna Austin, Neustar:is that 75% figure accurate? Michael Flemming:Does the paper attempt to define the public interest? Apologies as I have not yet been able to read it yet either? Michael Flemming:.* Donna Austin, Neustar:What's the status of the CPE Review? Emily Barabas:@Donna, a summary document of community application is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Donna .. we've been trying to get info on the CPE review, but all we know at this point is that Scope 1 results were delivered to ICANN several weeks ago and that Scope 2 findings should have been delivered at this point. Jon Nevett:Did the GAC approve the paper or is it a committee of interested GAC members? Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Jamie Steve Chan:According to Emily's link, 5 Prevailed CPE and 21 Did not Prevail. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: THanks Steve for the link. I have the same QUESTION as Jon Nevett re this summary - Is this paper approved by GAC? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks Jamie Steve Chan:@Jon, Anne, I'm not sure actually. What I do know is that they consider the paper factual in nature (e.g., statistics and a collection of GAC Advice) and will, or already have, posted on the GAC site. Trang Nguyen:There were 84 applications that were designated as community applications. Of these 51 have been delegated. Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks for the data Trang Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):no reply that I am aware of Trang Nguyen:84 community applications. 51 delegated. 16 withdrawn. 4 in progress. 11 on-hold. 1 not approved. 1 will not proceed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):it is a piece of GAC work Emily Barabas:note, the above referenced spreadsheet only covers CPE results, which explains the discrepancy Jon Nevett:so let's not call it GAC Advice in our deck Alan Greenberg:I believe that it was approved by the GAC but will ask. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Mark holds the pen Jamie Baxter | dotgay:Of the community designated applications, only 5 actually passed CPE Jon Nevett:That has a formal meaning Donna Austin, Neustar:GAC input Jamie Baxter | dotgay:The pieces noted as GAC advise were actual elements of GAC advise duirng prior ICANN meetings. Jon Nevett:Combined with other input Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jon it is a review and status of GAC Advice on the topic, it is meant to be of assistance to our work Robin Gross:Unless we have confirmation that this is truly GAC Advice, we should consider this as GAC input (which discusses Advise). Susan Payne:Apologies if this has already been explained - is the first part of Mark's paper a summary of the Council of Europe report or something else? Alan Greenberg:As far as I know, GAC "ADVICE" only has specific meaning when directed at the Board. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):correct Alan Robin Gross:That is also my understanding, Alan. Robin Gross:So let's not muddy the water by calling this GAC Advice, if it isn't that specific thing. Robin Gross:I didn't hear any argument for changing the title of the document. Karen Day:@Robin Jon asked that I not call it advice in our deck Karen Day:that is what got the conversation going Susan Payne:@Alan, I think we need to be clear that it is advice. It has been referred to as Mark Carvell's document - has it actually been adopted by the full GAC and submitted as advice (some of it is not a summary of past advice). I don't know the answer to that, it seems unclear and we need clarification Jon Nevett:Getting to the substance. Am I reading this right? So under this input if some users of Banks had gotten together and applied for .BANK as a community applicant, they would have gotten .BANK over the current registry operator of .BANK as they are a collection of commercial entities? Alan Greenberg:I have asked the GAC Chair whether this document was formally approved by the GAC. Donna Austin, Neustar:If this has been attached to a communique then we should consider it advice, but what we probably should understand is how does that impact how we consider that advice. It doesn't necessarily mean that we have to accept it, but we should provide explanation as to why we did not accept it. Robin Gross:Completely agree, Donna Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Is there any reason why we couldn't as a Work Team write to Mark with clarifying questions (e.g., status of doc within GAC, answer to Jon's question, etc.)? I realize the fact that he's rotating out as UK GAC rep may complicate logistics, but it should be possible to have reasonable questions answered. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I will reach out to Mark and the GAC via the secretary to clarify some of your questions Alan Greenberg:@Jon, the operator of .bank DID designate that their application was a community application. Jon Nevett:@alan I was talking about two competing .BANK applicants Jon Nevett:two competing .BANK community applicants Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):and discussion on what constitutes Community as well as if there are class differences on how any preferences are given needs discussion and development Alan Greenberg:If there had been a 2nd application that was not withdrawn, then the community application would have taken precedence *IF* it had passed the CPE. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes exactly Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:so, if the CPE stays, an additional point might be in the offing for a non-commercial community? Robin Gross:That was my understanding as well, Jeff. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Jeff .. I have the same understanding Jon Nevett:Jeff, that is the scenario I am talking about -- two competing community applicants -- do we give preference to one over the other in the evaluation process because one is commercial and one isn't Emily Barabas:Full text of responses is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Emily Barabas:The CC2 Themes document is available at the bottom of this wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Emily Barabas:We are now at the top of page 2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jamie greater predictability Jamie Baxter | dotgay:missed the call last night, but will listed to the recording today. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:I am not sure an Ian Mplementation Team would have authority over an Evaluation Panel? Does that seem obvious to others? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):all good Jeff Neuman:Things that go to a "Standing Panel" would have general applicability, and would not be geared towards individual applications. But as Karen says, if there are questions of general applicability, that could be a topic for a standing panel Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to drop. Thanks all. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:If you go that direction, you make the Standing IRT the appeals Board for the determination in Community Priority Evaluation. Not really appropriate. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):top of the hour but we waited for more to join a Few minutes extension seems reasonable Karen Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):good point Alan Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:Guidelines should be published before next round. Jon Nevett:Agree with Jamie here -- goes to predictability Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):we have opportunity to look at and hopefully redress that now Jamie Donna Austin, Neustar:need to drop. Thanks Karen Jamie Baxter | dotgay:big lesson here .. community applicate processes cannot be an afterthought Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:Thank you Karen, Cheryl et al. Have a good day - and Cheryl hope you can get back to sleep! Robin Gross:+1 to using our mailing list to advance this discussion in the next two weeks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thank you all lots covered today (more to do of course) Thanks everyone. Thanks Karen, bye for now ðŸ‘‹ Robin Gross:Thanks Karen and all, bye! Emily Barabas:I believe the next call is actually 20:00 on the 12th Karen Day:thanks! Michael Flemming:thx

1 0

AC Recording, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p89efwas11e/ 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/rZlEB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 November 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 15:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Karen Day:Morning, Michelle. I'm going to let my headset charge up for another 5 min before I dial in. Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there Karen, good morning to you as well, sounds good! Jamie Baxter | dotgay:sure Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):fair enough Robin Gross:sounds good, Karen Jon Nevett:sounds good Samantha Demetriou:Fine by me :) Emily Barabas:Slides are unsynced Steve Chan:The three drafting teams can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… the bottom of each of the respective pages, you' fndl the current working document for each topic Jim Prendergast:link doesnt work Jim Prendergast:at least for me Steve Chan:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.o… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I apologize - i have not had time to read Mark's summary yet. Steve Chan:@Jim, rhere was a period at the end of the URL - I guess it got integrated into the link? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Are you linking to Mark's summary? I can't make ttha link work. Jim Prendergast:that worked Steve Chan:@Anne, you can find the Mark Carvell summary on the Wiki page here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Steve Chan:FYI, we are on slide 5 Donna Austin, Neustar:is that 75% figure accurate? Michael Flemming:Does the paper attempt to define the public interest? Apologies as I have not yet been able to read it yet either? Michael Flemming:.* Donna Austin, Neustar:What's the status of the CPE Review? Emily Barabas:@Donna, a summary document of community application is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Donna .. we've been trying to get info on the CPE review, but all we know at this point is that Scope 1 results were delivered to ICANN several weeks ago and that Scope 2 findings should have been delivered at this point. Jon Nevett:Did the GAC approve the paper or is it a committee of interested GAC members? Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Jamie Steve Chan:According to Emily's link, 5 Prevailed CPE and 21 Did not Prevail. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: THanks Steve for the link. I have the same QUESTION as Jon Nevett re this summary - Is this paper approved by GAC? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks Jamie Steve Chan:@Jon, Anne, I'm not sure actually. What I do know is that they consider the paper factual in nature (e.g., statistics and a collection of GAC Advice) and will, or already have, posted on the GAC site. Trang Nguyen:There were 84 applications that were designated as community applications. Of these 51 have been delegated. Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks for the data Trang Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):no reply that I am aware of Trang Nguyen:84 community applications. 51 delegated. 16 withdrawn. 4 in progress. 11 on-hold. 1 not approved. 1 will not proceed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):it is a piece of GAC work Emily Barabas:note, the above referenced spreadsheet only covers CPE results, which explains the discrepancy Jon Nevett:so let's not call it GAC Advice in our deck Alan Greenberg:I believe that it was approved by the GAC but will ask. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Mark holds the pen Jamie Baxter | dotgay:Of the community designated applications, only 5 actually passed CPE Jon Nevett:That has a formal meaning Donna Austin, Neustar:GAC input Jamie Baxter | dotgay:The pieces noted as GAC advise were actual elements of GAC advise duirng prior ICANN meetings. Jon Nevett:Combined with other input Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jon it is a review and status of GAC Advice on the topic, it is meant to be of assistance to our work Robin Gross:Unless we have confirmation that this is truly GAC Advice, we should consider this as GAC input (which discusses Advise). Susan Payne:Apologies if this has already been explained - is the first part of Mark's paper a summary of the Council of Europe report or something else? Alan Greenberg:As far as I know, GAC "ADVICE" only has specific meaning when directed at the Board. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):correct Alan Robin Gross:That is also my understanding, Alan. Robin Gross:So let's not muddy the water by calling this GAC Advice, if it isn't that specific thing. Robin Gross:I didn't hear any argument for changing the title of the document. Karen Day:@Robin Jon asked that I not call it advice in our deck Karen Day:that is what got the conversation going Susan Payne:@Alan, I think we need to be clear that it is advice. It has been referred to as Mark Carvell's document - has it actually been adopted by the full GAC and submitted as advice (some of it is not a summary of past advice). I don't know the answer to that, it seems unclear and we need clarification Jon Nevett:Getting to the substance. Am I reading this right? So under this input if some users of Banks had gotten together and applied for .BANK as a community applicant, they would have gotten .BANK over the current registry operator of .BANK as they are a collection of commercial entities? Alan Greenberg:I have asked the GAC Chair whether this document was formally approved by the GAC. Donna Austin, Neustar:If this has been attached to a communique then we should consider it advice, but what we probably should understand is how does that impact how we consider that advice. It doesn't necessarily mean that we have to accept it, but we should provide explanation as to why we did not accept it. Robin Gross:Completely agree, Donna Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Is there any reason why we couldn't as a Work Team write to Mark with clarifying questions (e.g., status of doc within GAC, answer to Jon's question, etc.)? I realize the fact that he's rotating out as UK GAC rep may complicate logistics, but it should be possible to have reasonable questions answered. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I will reach out to Mark and the GAC via the secretary to clarify some of your questions Alan Greenberg:@Jon, the operator of .bank DID designate that their application was a community application. Jon Nevett:@alan I was talking about two competing .BANK applicants Jon Nevett:two competing .BANK community applicants Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):and discussion on what constitutes Community as well as if there are class differences on how any preferences are given needs discussion and development Alan Greenberg:If there had been a 2nd application that was not withdrawn, then the community application would have taken precedence *IF* it had passed the CPE. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes exactly Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:so, if the CPE stays, an additional point might be in the offing for a non-commercial community? Robin Gross:That was my understanding as well, Jeff. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Jeff .. I have the same understanding Jon Nevett:Jeff, that is the scenario I am talking about -- two competing community applicants -- do we give preference to one over the other in the evaluation process because one is commercial and one isn't Emily Barabas:Full text of responses is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Emily Barabas:The CC2 Themes document is available at the bottom of this wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Emily Barabas:We are now at the top of page 2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jamie greater predictability Jamie Baxter | dotgay:missed the call last night, but will listed to the recording today. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:I am not sure an Ian Mplementation Team would have authority over an Evaluation Panel? Does that seem obvious to others? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):all good Jeff Neuman:Things that go to a "Standing Panel" would have general applicability, and would not be geared towards individual applications. But as Karen says, if there are questions of general applicability, that could be a topic for a standing panel Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to drop. Thanks all. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:If you go that direction, you make the Standing IRT the appeals Board for the determination in Community Priority Evaluation. Not really appropriate. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):top of the hour but we waited for more to join a Few minutes extension seems reasonable Karen Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):good point Alan Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:Guidelines should be published before next round. Jon Nevett:Agree with Jamie here -- goes to predictability Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):we have opportunity to look at and hopefully redress that now Jamie Donna Austin, Neustar:need to drop. Thanks Karen Jamie Baxter | dotgay:big lesson here .. community applicate processes cannot be an afterthought Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:Thank you Karen, Cheryl et al. Have a good day - and Cheryl hope you can get back to sleep! Robin Gross:+1 to using our mailing list to advance this discussion in the next two weeks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thank you all lots covered today (more to do of course) Thanks everyone. Thanks Karen, bye for now ðŸ‘‹ Robin Gross:Thanks Karen and all, bye! Emily Barabas:I believe the next call is actually 20:00 on the 12th Karen Day:thanks! Michael Flemming:thx

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 28 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 28 November. 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: 28 November 2017 Action Items: The Working Group will provide questions for Cheryl Langdon-Orr to bring to the GAC. Question from 28 November call: Could a commercially-based community application ever be considered a community application? But, note that unless the GAC has given advice on this question they may not be able to answer the question. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: None. 2. Plenary Update: -- Met on 28 November. -- Discussed the drafting team activities -- predictability framework. -- Made good progress in getting the plenary members to indicate that there was value in further exploring the idea of a standing committee as an implementation method. -- More work to be done. WG members should look at the Google Doc: Predictability Framework https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8… 2. Continuing our discussions on Community Based Applications and Community Priority Evaluations -- paper prepared by Mark Carvell, UK GAC representative, concerning GAC advice to date on Community Based Applications: Slide 4: GAC Views & Advice Relating to Community Applications -- Lack of clarity relates to lack of a clear definition of what is a "community". -- Support communities and community prioritization, but we have work to do to define communites. Slide 5: Issues of Public Interest Concern Identified by the GAC -- Concern about community-based applicants going up against "wholly commercially-based applicants". -- High bar for community-based applicants against commercially-based applicants. -- Costly delays from Reconsideration Requests, Cooperative Engagement Process, and Independent Review Process Panel. Discussion: -- 75% could encompass other rejections than CPE that failed for other reasons. Such as applicants that weren't in contention. -- Is this GAC Advice? This is a compilation and status of GAC Advice on community applications -- linked to the relevant formal GAC Advice. -- Summary is observations of those interested in this topic. Can we have a frank discussion about community interests losing out to commercial interests? -- In the summary the internet users seem to be left behind in the process, or the community members standing behind that application. -- Consensus is that we should retitle the slide deck and call it GAC input relating to community applications. -- If the GAC calls this advice then it is advice. -- In Mark's document he calls out the advice given to the Board through the Communiques -- you can see the long list of reiterations around the equal treatment of applications and a number of elements. Slide 6: Previous GAC statements and advice in support of community-based applications on public interest grounds. -- Due preference given to applications with demonstrable community support. -- Consistent application of criteria when assessing community applications. -- Community evaluation processes will be improved in light of experiences of some community applicants in the recent round. -- Council of Europe on community applications will be considered by the WG. -- Question for the GAC: Could a commercially-based community application ever be considered a community application? But, note that unless the GAC has given advice on this question they may not be able to answer the question. >From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: is that 75% figure accurate? Michael Flemming: Does the paper attempt to define the public interest? Apologies as I have not yet been able to read it yet either? Michael Flemming: .* Donna Austin, Neustar: What's the status of the CPE Review? Emily Barabas: @Donna, a summary document of community application is available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735963/Community%20Appli… amie Baxter | dotgay: @Donna .. we've been trying to get info on the CPE review, but all we know at this point is that Scope 1 results were delivered to ICANN several weeks ago and that Scope 2 findings should have been delivered at this point. Jon Nevett: Did the GAC approve the paper or is it a committee of interested GAC members? Donna Austin, Neustar: Thanks Jamie Steve Chan: According to Emily's link, 5 Prevailed CPE and 21 Did not Prevail. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Thanks Steve for the link. I have the same QUESTION as Jon Nevett re this summary - Is this paper approved by GAC? Steve Chan: @Jon, Anne, I'm not sure actually. What I do know is that they consider the paper factual in nature (e.g., statistics and a collection of GAC Advice) and will, or already have, posted on the GAC site. Trang Nguyen: There were 84 applications that were designated as community applications. Of these 51 have been delegated. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): thanks for the data Trang Trang Nguyen: 84 community applications. 51 delegated. 16 withdrawn. 4 in progress. 11 on-hold. 1 not approved. 1 will not proceed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): it is a piece of GAC work Emily Barabas: note, the above referenced spreadsheet only covers CPE results, which explains the discrepancy >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Is there any reason why we couldn't as a Work Team write to Mark with clarifying questions (e.g., status of doc within GAC, answer to Jon's question, etc.)? I realize the fact that he's rotating out as UK GAC rep may complicate logistics, but it should be possible to have reasonable questions answered. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I will reach out to Mark and the GAC via the secretary to clarify some of your questions 3. Continuing our discussions on Community Based Applications and Community Priority Evaluations from CC2 comments: Full text of responses is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… 3.3.1 Do you believe that the implementation and delivery of CPE were consistent with the policy recommendations and implementation guidance provided by the GNSO? If no, do you have suggested improvements to either the policy/implementation guidance or implementation? -- ALAC support adopted preferential pricing and considering Community applications for preferential pricing. -- RYSG and Afilias suggested a Community priority approach that is not "all or nothing". -- NCSG recommended improving transparency. -- Jannik Skous suggested eliinating the community application type. 3.3.2 There is a general sentiment amongst many in the community that the CPE process did not provide consistency and predictability in the 2012 round. Do you believe this was the case and, if so, do you have examples or evidence of these issues? -- dotgay LLC, Afilias, RySG, and ALAC provided examples of issues with consistency and predictability. -- dotgay LLC, Afilias, and RySG provided suggestions for improving consistency and predictability. 3.3.3 Do you believe there is a need for community priority, or a similar mechanism, in subsequent procedures? Do you believe that it can be designed in such a fashion as to produce results that are predictable, consistent, and acceptable to all parties to CPE? -- ALAC responded that CPE is still reasonable if properly implemented. -- dotgay LLC suggested including review and evaluation of Public Interest Commitments in the CPE or another phase of the Program, and if deemed important for the community, then they should be required for any operator of the gTLD. -- vTLD Consortium, NABP recommended providing clarity on the public interest values Community TLDs are intended to serve. -- Afilias and RySG provided suggestions to reduce the possibility of gaming. -- Jim Prendergast responded that it is premature to make recommendations on this topic until the investigation undertaken by the ICANN CEO is complete. Discussion: -- Keep coming back to the definition of communities. The AGB provided guidelines on who was eligible, but there there were new guidelines in the CPE process. Drove a type of community application over others. -- Guidebook was very clear, but that shifted as CPE guidelines were published after applications were submitted. -- Overarching issue with predictability in the process -- proposal for an implementation team for subsequent rounds that would ensure that policy is implemented in the way it was written. -- Not sure that the predictability framework proposal would go to the issue of whether you are a community application or not. -- Where it could align is where you set up an evaluation panel and they start to set up their rules and they start adding words on how they are going to evaluate who fits the definition of community -- that sounds like implementation. -- Could go either way, depending on the words we put around it. If we want it covered we should explicitly say so. -- There was really no reason to wait for the CPE to publish their guidelines after applications were submitted. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Things that go to a "Standing Panel" would have general applicability, and would not be geared towards individual applications. But as Karen says, if there are questions of general applicability, that could be a topic for a standing panel Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2: If you go that direction, you make the Standing IRT the appeals Board for the determination in Community Priority Evaluation. Not really appropriate. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2: Guidelines should be published before next round. Jon Nevett: Agree with Jamie here -- goes to predictability Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): we have opportunity to look at and hopefully redress that now Jamie

1 0

Paper from UK on Community Based Applications & agenda for November 28, 2017
by Karen Day Nov. 22, 2017

Nov. 22, 2017

Dear WT 3 members, Our next regularly scheduled meeting will be on Tuesday, November 28th at 15:00 UTC and in accordance with our schedule (a copy is attached for your files) we will be continuing our discussions on Community Based Applications and Community Priority Evaluations. Also attached for your review prior to the meeting is a paper prepared by Mark Carvell, UK GAC representative, concerning GAC advice to date on Community Based Applications. With regard to our work plan, after some questions arose during the WT2 call yesterday and further discussion on our PDP Leadership call this morning, I wanted to lay out for you the way we envision conquering this rather aggressive schedule: We will discuss our topics during the calls in and between the columns labeled 'Begin Deliberation' and 'Coalesce Opinions'. Your co-leads have taken (with grateful help from staff) a goal to have circulated at least a rough written topic summary prior to the 'Coalesce Opinions' call. At the 'Call for Objections' meeting and an period of approximately 5-10 days after, we will take up objections to the summaries of positions/options as presented. As soon as practicable after each 'Call for Objections' period we will circulate a draft of what we are proposing to send up to the plenary for their consideration. During these times when drafts are circulated it will be incumbent on us all to participate by expressing our opinions via the email list or in the Google Docs as we won't have the luxury of time and waiting until the next call. The 'Refine Report' meeting on March 6th will then be, hopefully, just that - last minute refinements to the report that we will send up to the plenary at the end of the week. I will leave you then, with wishes for a safe and happy Thanksgiving for those in the US and an enjoyable weekend for those in other part of the world. Best regards, Karen

1 0

AC Recording, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 14 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 14, 2017

Nov. 14, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 14 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1jnhe8jmgk/ 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/qZlEB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 November 2017 Michelle DeSmyter: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 14 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Hi all Gg Levine (NABP):I will switch to audio only in 25 minutes. Tijani BEN JEMAA:Hi everyone Aslam G Mohamed:Hi everyone. Tijani BEN JEMAA:my first call Karen Day:Hi all, a gentle reminder to please mute if you are not speaking Jeff Neuman:i defer to Cheryl Jeff Neuman:Having mic issues Jeff Neuman:nope Aslam G Mohamed 2:there is an echo Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):ah that's a technical issue not a defer then Jeff ðŸ˜Š Jeff Neuman:its both Jeff Neuman:Yes we will have to be proactive and aggressive Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):That comes more naturally to some of us than others. ;-) Alan Greenberg:;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):perhaps reaching out to the wider community Jeff Neuman:@Kristina - I resemble that remark Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):offer briefing and webinars watch., Krishna Seeburn - Kris:+1 jamie and alan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jamie Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):important to try that again Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i guess the word is outreach Jeff Neuman:We have been trying, but it would help if you all know of people that are no longer participating that you can direct us to Karen Day:@Jamie we tried to socialize CC@ questions to Community applicanants but as Robin notes many are reluctant to speak until the review is complete Karen Day:sorry CC2 questions Jamie Baxter | dotgay:i think that the CPE website lists all those who went through the process and their contact info should still be listed on the Applicant website. Jeff Neuman:@Jamie - True, but we are reluctant to use that website to reach out to those in an unsolicited manner. Thus, if anyone knows them and can facilitate the communication, the better Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I'm happy to reach out to those I may have met along the way. Who should I ask them to reach back to? Jeff Neuman:If we were to have categories of communities, would we have different criteria? Krishna Seeburn - Kris:perhaps we can get a list of previous people and talk to them Gg Levine (NABP):How would the priveleges differ by category? Robin Gross:Gg, that would be for us to decide. Donna Austin, Neustar:What's the distinction between a community category and other categories? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yet to be determined I guess Donna Kurt Pritz 2:I think Anne's comments demonstrates the unworkability of this group trying to determine a priori how to accommodate the purposes of yet-to-be borne TLDs. Rather than create categories before the round, it’d be better to create a process for forgiving contractual conditions depending on the purpose of the application (and not the identity of the applicant). Emily Barabas:@Jaime, I just sent you a private message about points of contact regarding feedback on CPE. Thanks! Donna Austin, Neustar:agree with Kurt's comment Jeff Neuman:@Kurt - I dont believe we are talking about contractual forgiveness, but rather forgiveness of rigid criteria in the application process Jeff Neuman:and for that, we cannot adopt a wait and see approach Jeff Neuman:But perhaps there needs to be a closer association between the string and the community Kurt Pritz 2:@ Jeff: As an example, Aren't brands forgiven from the Code of Conduct contractual condition? Haven't we spoken about reduced registry fees for brands or not-for-profits? Jeff Neuman:I think Jon Nevett made a good comment during one of the sessions which stuck with me Jeff Neuman:Its not that we are trying to make it difficult for communities....but perhaps the string should be closer related to the community Kurt Pritz 2:The American Bowlers Association might object to the American Bar Association getting .ABA - it is very difficult to fix Jeff Neuman:Kurt, we can always think of those examples, but both could apply for those TLDs as communities and then work through contention Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Jeff ... it sounds good in theory, but in practice it got completely twisted in practice. When the world knows and refers to the "gay community" in every aspect of reality as the "gay community", but that community cannot secure .GAY in CPE then serious questions are raised. Donna Austin, Neustar:Isn't that what CPE was designed for? Jon Nevett:I think that the registries recommended that a community that meets a certain level of criteria, it gets some benefit (e.g. some multiplier at auction) and if they meet a higher level, they get the TLD outright. Jon Nevett:this way Navajo nation gets .navajo outright, but ABA doesn't necessarily get .law, but maybe gets some benefit Jeff Neuman:We have that option Jeff Neuman:Lets be precise Jeff Neuman:Can someone get the 2008 Final report which was passed by the GNSO Steve Chan:@Jeff, here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu… Jeff Neuman:Right....the GNSO did not define which communities it was targeting Donna Austin, Neustar:Only in terms of going through CPE Jamie Baxter | dotgay:that is correct Robyn ken stubbs:definitions are still vague here. especiall if you have groups of "groups" Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):We (GNSO Council at the time) intentionally interpreted community broadly. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):IG P: "community should be interpreted broadly and will include, for example, an economic sector, a cultural community, or a linguistic community. It may be a closely related community which believes it is impacted." Jeff Neuman:The GNSO defined a community only for purposes of filing objections Jeff Neuman:but not in terms of what would qualify as a community for purposes of priority Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Time to dust off the AGB redlines. Jeff Neuman:To clarify, the GAC did not support the recommendations of the report. Infact, I think I asked them to be specific identify which recommendations of the report they supported and which they did not Tom Dale:Jeff, that is correct. What GAC agreed was that the recommendations should go to the PDP as an input/resource. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Council of Europe refers to this definition: "Anky groups of individuals or any legal entities brought together in order to collectively act, express, promote, pursue or defend a filed of common interests". Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair) 2:Co-Chair hat off I prefer the variable approach over the "one size fits all" one.... ken stubbs:key here is the definition of what constitutes a "community" under the terms of the guidebook (incredibly political here) Donna Austin, Neustar:a variable approach gets tricky when you have two applicants from different community sectors applying for the same string ken stubbs:+1 donna ken stubbs:example = INTA a.https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__inta.gob.ar_&d=DwIFa… b. inta.org Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Problems with evaluators could be why we have problems. In other words, it may be the panel process, not the definition of Community. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I agree with Robin that a lack of direction was a problem Jon Nevett:I agree with Robin -- we need to have a clear definition Jeff Neuman:Rather than thinking of it as a "variable approach" could we think of it as a sliding scale Donna Austin, Neustar:i think the implementation of CPE and some of the difficult to understand decisions was what created the problems. Paul McGrady:Thanks Robin. Well run! ken stubbs:adios folks ! Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair) 2:thanks Robin, thanks everyone.. bye ðŸ‘‹ for now Karen Day:Thanks, All. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Donna re CPE evalution Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Donna re CPE evalution'

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 14 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 14, 2017

Nov. 14, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 14 November. 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: 14 November 2017 1. Updates to SOI: None. 2. Plenary Update: -- Had a meeting on 13 November -- first since ICANN60. -- Work Track 5 will kick off on 15 November at 20:00 UTC. Opening for volunteers runs to 20 November. -- Reviewed the very aggressive time line working back from the Final Report. 3. Proposed Work Plan for WT3 Through March 2018 -- Still in deliberations. -- Coalese opinions (Dec-Feb) -- Call for objections (Jan-Feb) -- Refine report (Mar) -- Present to plenary (Mar) Discussion: -- Question: How to bring in people from the community who might not be participating now so that their opinions can be heard now, rather than later? -- Reach out to the community applicant who had dropped out of the process, or who were not successful, to understand what their challenges were. Did get some feedback from some, but not much. >From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): perhaps reaching out to the wider community Jeff Neuman: @Kristina - I resemble that remark Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): offer briefing and webinars watch., Krishna Seeburn - Kris: +1 jamie and alan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): yes Jamie Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): important to try that again Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i guess the word is outreach Jeff Neuman: We have been trying, but it would help if you all know of people that are no longer participating that you can direct us to Karen Day: @Jamie we tried to socialize CC@ questions to Community applicants but as Robin notes many are reluctant to speak until the review is complete Karen Day: sorry CC2 questions Jamie Baxter | dotgay: i think that the CPE website lists all those who went through the process and their contact info should still be listed on the Applicant website. Jeff Neuman: @Jamie - True, but we are reluctant to use that website to reach out to those in an unsolicited manner. Thus, if anyone knows them and can facilitate the communication, the better Jamie Baxter | dotgay: I'm happy to reach out to those I may have met along the way. Who should I ask them to reach back to? 4. Continued Discussion of “Community” Applications -- Categories of Communities: -- There are people with strong feelings and somehow we need to investigate them. -- Maybe we should put out a strawperson document with suggested categories. -- Concern if the category just relates to the nature of the applicant. More to the purpose of the TLD. -- Based on the AGB when communities applied it seemed more welcoming to all types of communities, but then it seemed to get skewed with how do we deal with an industry approach on communities. Should explore this a little more. -- Ask the purpose of the TLD and decide if that is enough to be placed in a category. -- Who gets to decide who is a member of a community? -- What Thomas/GAC is getting at when the GAC was discussing the concept of communities they were discussing it in terms of cultural communities, but in the last round we seemed to have more industry-based communities. Perhaps certain requirements should be more stringent for those that are seeking a community that is socio-economic, cultural, geographic. We should discuss if more stringent requirements would produce a desirable result. -- Don't think we can treat all communities the same way. -- Example: solar energy -- could seek a solar energy industry TLD as a community application -- seems that it has to be a case-by-case basis, but how to do that without getting into content-based analysis. -- We are not trying to make it difficult for communities to apply. We want to encourage communities -- but it doesn't mean that they could apply for a generic string and then get favorable treatment. What happened in the last round communities came together and applied for the most generic strings. -- Maybe the way to fix it is to discourage community applicants from over-reaching and applying for such a large piece of real estate that they would fence it off for other legitimate uses. -- This is not dissimilar to the discussion on applicant support -- distinguishing between the haves and the have nots. The applicants that don't have the resources to compete in an auction situation we must find a way to support them in the criteria for applicant support. -- May want to have a recommendation that underprivileged applications should have applicant support if they meet the criteria. -- It is not only about helping those that may not have the resources it is also about ensuring that parties that the public believe should have a TLD should get that resource. -- We should try to swing the pendulum back to the original principle that there should be a preference for communities. -- The policy is that communities should be interpreted broadly -- cultural, economic, or linguistic -- would we change that? -- Could define it more clearly? -- We may well end up changing the exact words in the policy. What do we mean by "community"? Could also be used like "family". If that is what we are talking about then we need to craft words that allow them to succeed. -- If is an international group representing interests wouldn't that get priority over an individual applicant? That is the understanding. -- Could look at the definition of communities in the Council of Europe report given the GAC's support of that report. -- The GAC hasn't support the report, but has acknowledged it and discussed it. Asked the GAC if they could let us know which recommendations they support and which they don't. There were some radical proposals. -- Mark Carvell is working on a draft GAC paper on community applications. -- It may be more appropriate for ICANN to look at if you have a good purpose in relation to applicant support, as distinguish from evaluating for community TLDs. So, no content judgment on community applications. -- We cannot put on the same level a community of business as linguistic, cultural, etc. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: If we were to have categories of communities, would we have different criteria? Krishna Seeburn - Kris: perhaps we can get a list of previous people and talk to them Gg Levine (NABP): How would the privileges differ by category? Robin Gross: Gg, that would be for us to decide. Donna Austin, Neustar: What's the distinction between a community category and other categories? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): yet to be determined I guess Donna Kurt Pritz 2: I think Anne's comments demonstrates the unworkability of this group trying to determine a priori how to accommodate the purposes of yet-to-be borne TLDs. Rather than create categories before the round, it’d be better to create a process for forgiving contractual conditions depending on the purpose of the application (and not the identity of the applicant). Donna Austin, Neustar: agree with Kurt's comment Jeff Neuman: @Kurt - I dont believe we are talking about contractual forgiveness, but rather forgiveness of rigid criteria in the application process Jeff Neuman: and for that, we cannot adopt a wait and see approach Jeff Neuman: But perhaps there needs to be a closer association between the string and the community Kurt Pritz 2: @ Jeff: As an example, Aren't brands forgiven from the Code of Conduct contractual condition? Haven't we spoken about reduced registry fees for brands or not-for-profits? Jeff Neuman: I think Jon Nevett made a good comment during one of the sessions which stuck with me Jeff Neuman: Its not that we are trying to make it difficult for communities....but perhaps the string should be closer related to the community Kurt Pritz 2: The American Bowlers Association might object to the American Bar Association getting .ABA - it is very difficult to fix Jeff Neuman: Kurt, we can always think of those examples, but both could apply for those TLDs as communities and then work through contention Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Jeff ... it sounds good in theory, but in practice it got completely twisted in practice. When the world knows and refers to the "gay community" in every aspect of reality as the "gay community", but that community cannot secure .GAY in CPE then serious questions are raised. Donna Austin, Neustar: Isn't that what CPE was designed for? Jon Nevett: I think that the registries recommended that a community that meets a certain level of criteria, it gets some benefit (e.g. some multiplier at auction) and if they meet a higher level, they get the TLD outright. Jon Nevett: this way Navajo nation gets .navajo outright, but ABA doesn't necessarily get .law, but maybe gets some benefit Jeff Neuman: We have that option Jeff Neuman: Can someone get the 2008 Final report which was passed by the GNSO Steve Chan: @Jeff, here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm Jeff Neuman: Right....the GNSO did not define which communities it was targeting Donna Austin, Neustar: Only in terms of going through CPE Jamie Baxter | dotgay: that is correct Robyn ken stubbs: definitions are still vague here. especiall if you have groups of "groups" Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): We (GNSO Council at the time) intentionally interpreted community broadly. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): IG P: "community should be interpreted broadly and will include, for example, an economic sector, a cultural community, or a linguistic community. It may be a closely related community which believes it is impacted." Jeff Neuman: The GNSO defined a community only for purposes of filing objections Jeff Neuman: but not in terms of what would qualify as a community for purposes of priority Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Time to dust off the AGB redlines. Jeff Neuman: To clarify, the GAC did not support the recommendations of the report. In fact, I think I asked them to be specific identify which recommendations of the report they supported and which they did not Tom Dale: Jeff, that is correct. What GAC agreed was that the recommendations should go to the PDP as an input/resource. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Council of Europe refers to this definition: "Any groups of individuals or any legal entities brought together in order to collectively act, express, promote, pursue or defend a filed of common interests". Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair) 2: Co-Chair hat off I prefer the variable approach over the "one size fits all" one.... ken stubbs: key here is the definition of what constitutes a "community" under the terms of the guidebook (incredibly political here) Donna Austin, Neustar: a variable approach gets tricky when you have two applicants from different community sectors applying for the same string ken stubbs: +1 donna ken stubbs: example = INTA a.https://inta.gob.ar/ b. inta.org Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Problems with evaluators could be why we have problems. In other words, it may be the panel process, not the definition of Community. Jon Nevett: I agree with Robin -- we need to have a clear definition Jeff Neuman: Rather than thinking of it as a "variable approach" could we think of it as a sliding scale Donna Austin, Neustar: i think the implementation of CPE and some of the difficult to understand decisions was what created the problems.

1 0

Agenda and Materials for WT3 call on 14 November @ 20:00 UTC on COMMUNITY APPLICATIONS
by Robin Gross Nov. 13, 2017

Nov. 13, 2017

All, In preparation for our WT3 call tomorrow, Tuesday, 14 November 2017 @ 20:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed discussion agenda. We will continue and build on our discussion from ICANN #60 on the topic of Community Applications. 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. Proposed Work Plan for WT3 Through March 2018 6. Continued Discussion of “Community” Applications (details below) A. Categories of Communities? B. Review of Community Comment 2 (CC2) on “Communities” Section 3.3 7. AOB ----- Detailed Substantive Discussion Agenda 6. Follow-up on Discussion at ICANN #60 on “Communities" A. Categories of Communities? Where to set boundaries and which privileges to grant to different categories of communities? (see attached transcript from ICANN#60 with GAC) B. Review of Community Comment 2 (CC2) on “Communities" (see “Themes" document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… ) Section 3.3 - Community Applications and Community Priority Applications (CPE) Treatment of GAC Advice CPE - Transparency and Appeals Mechanisms 3.3.1 - As indicated in the Implementation Guidance of the 2007 Final Report, the claim by an applicant to support a community was intended to be taken on trust unless the applied-for TLD is in contention with one or more TLDs or is the respondent in an objection. As a result, the claim to support a community was only evaluated in Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) and Community Objections. Do you believe that the implementation and delivery of CPE were consistent with the policy recommendations and implementation guidance provided by the GNSO? If no, do you have suggested improvements to either the policy/implementation guidance or implementation? 3.3.2 There is a general sentiment amongst many in the community that the CPE process did not provide consistency and predictability in the 2012 round. Do you believe this was the case and if so, do you have examples or evidence of these issues?  3.3.3 - CPE was the one instance in the New gTLD Program where there was an element of a comparative evaluation and as such, there were inherently winners and losers created. Do you believe there is a need for community priority, or a similar mechanism, in subsequent procedures? Do you believe that it can be designed in such a fashion as to produce results that are predictable, consistent, and acceptable to all parties to CPE? The GNSO policy recommendations left the issue of a method for resolving contention for community claimed names to Board and the implementation. Do you believe that a priority evaluation is the right way to handle name contention with community applicants? Should different options be explored? If so which options should be explored and why? 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?

1 0

Recordings, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p2cpvmdrcuf/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e7a3e0ad59e75812…> https://participate.icann.org/p2cpvmdrcuf/ 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/soJEB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 17 October 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=PTS1TXB48pNGly0h5S9xkaCCf4B6nrYeIg8Joa6Mn80&s=z6kgiLXmOsMlhSuNJk8EiefutzLt7vc5Tcg4HzLHZnM&e= karen Day:hi all karen Day:dialing in Robin Gross:I've got shotgun Gg Levine (NABP):Where can the community strawbunny be found? Steve Chan:@Gg, you can find the strawbunny on the Wiki here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=PTS1TXB48pNGly0h5S9xkaCCf4B6nrYeIg8Joa6Mn80&s=MdyU2TMHDQ7rNI3poloRPErIYxpLsLuoQRyz8OHA-MI&e= Gg Levine (NABP):Thanks! Greg Shatan:@Robin, are you exercising your Second Amendment rights? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: I am only on adobe and not connected. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: What are equivalents to First Amendment rights in other jurisdictions? Would be interested to study those statutes to see if there is any balancing language that is similar to U.S. case law. Robin Gross:Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is Free Expression (not a statute, but laws get implemented with that in mind) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Robin. Have been aware of Article 19 for some time. Was just interested in implementing laws that you described. I Phil Buckingham:Agreed Karen . Do we have a clearly defination of "reserved names " that we need to use across all work tracks? Terri Agnew:everyone can turn slides themselves Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: It seems the "balancing" described by both Greg and Robin is a fruitful area for exploration as to Top Level Domains Jim Prendergast:sorry - but Im listening in from the middle of a conference so no ability to talk. Comment speaks for itself Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: Introducing an appeals process will significantly delay decisions and could be used as a tactic for delay even when decision is actually justified. I actually hope the ICANN process is more efficient and more swift than judicial systems - can we keep it that way without sacrificing rights or not? COMMENT Greg Shatan:I think we need to focus on a relatively lightweight process. Delay is not as big an issue as “getting it wrong.” Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Jeff Greg Shatan:Appeals generally do not have further discovery. They can be relatively swift. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: if we address inconsistencies in the processes, we likely won't need the appeals process. Maybe if the appeals process is based on a standard like "abuse of discretion" or "clear error" as noted in the Google comment - but this needs to be a swift process - not go on for years. COMMENT Robin Gross:Having an appeals mechanism tailored exclusively on tld decisions would make sense given it is so different from the other org management type of issues that go into the regual accountability mechanisms. Phil Buckingham:I agree Jamie . Evaluators need to be evaluated themselves Robin Gross:regual = regular Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think Jeff's approach is reasonable if we want to adopt appeals process. It should not be a "new trial" of all facts. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Anne ... just like the other accountability mechanisms, i think there would need to be a focus to the request for appeal. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jamie - could you elaborate on "focus to the request for appeal" Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Anne .. my thinking is that you would need to state your reason for appeal, just like you currently do with reconsideration requests, etc. For example it could be that key evidence/research supplied by applicant contradicts the research relied on by the evaluator (despite ever having to provide the research). this is in part the reason why the current CPE investigation is underway. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: re addressing inconsistencies that would reduce need for appeal - Panelist training seems very appropriate. Also, panelists have to be encouraged to request additional briefing on information they lack, rather than making assumptions about evidence they don't have. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):no -se comment in chat Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Anne avri doria:thanks. it was great working with you . Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):second to Karen's comments Robin Gross:thanks, Karen, and all, bye! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):bye all avri doria:bye Phil Buckingham:thanks Karen

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 17 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 17 October. 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 document referenced on the call is attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 17 October 2017 1. SOIs: None 2. Pre-F2F Meeting Updates: -- Two sessions in Abu Dhabi. Saturday, 28 Oct 12:15-15:00. Each Work Track will have 30 minutes to discuss issues. -- Second session is 01 November from 08:30 to 12:00 devoted to Work Track 5 on Geographic Names. All 4 co-leaders are selected. Had first meeting of the co-chairs yesterday to begin discussion of a draft Terms of Reference. Will be sending out a Call for Volunteers for the Work Track participants. -- Topic for Work Track 3 on Saturday: Community Based Applications and Priority Evaluations. See: https://community.icann.org/x/Wz2AAw 3. CC2 Responses: a. Applicant Freedom of Expression: 3.2.1 - Noting that the 2007 Final Report on new gTLDs tried to balance the rights of applicants (e.g. Principle G) and rights holders (Recommendation 3), do you believe that the program was successful in doing so? If not, do you have examples of where either an applicant's freedom of expression or a person or entity's legal rights were infringed? -- Afilias & RySG: were not able to reach agreement on a response to this question. -- NCSG: Goal of balancing the rights of applicants and rights holders settled by the Final Report on new gTLDs much continue with special attention to whether the GAC's Advice, Community processes or the reserved names have impacted this goal in any way... [see full quote]. -- No one cited specific examples as requested in the question. Discussion: -- The issue of balance is still a work in progress. Not sure that one should focus on the GAC safeguards. Could be concerns if there was an expansion of reserved names except for technical reasons. The whole issue of freedom of expression is more complicated. -- Differ with the above interpretation. See lots of examples of people from companies who want to be able to use words on the Internet in whatever context. Companies do have freedom of expression rights to words. Concerned about excluding freedom of expression from the top level. -- Would agree that not allowing a top-level name due to sensitivities or because a government doesn't like it are appropriate reasons to take a domain off the table. These attempts to use power rather than legal rights are troubling. Rights get balanced against other rights so there is some care. We do need to distinguish between exercise of rights and exercise of power. -- Maybe we should think about how to balance these legitimate interests that does incorporate freedom of expression rights. Principle G was put in right at the end of the first round. Didn't include implementation guidelines. -- Closed generics and geographic names also are related to the issue. May need to look in the plenary to incorporate applicant freedom of expression and protection throughout the whole of the gTLD program -- tracking the dependencies. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: What are equivalents to First Amendment rights in other jurisdictions? Would be interested to study those statutes to see if there is any balancing language that is similar to U.S. case law. Robin Gross: Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is Free Expression (not a statute, but laws get implemented with that in mind) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thanks Robin. Have been aware of Article 19 for some time. Was just interested in implementing laws that you described. I Phil Buckingham: Agreed Karen . Do we have a clearly defination of "reserved names " that we need to use across all work tracks? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: It seems the "balancing" described by both Greg and Robin is a fruitful area for exploration as to Top Level Domains b. Accountability Mechanisms: 3.5.1 – Do you believe that the existing accountability mechanisms (Request for Reconsideration, Independent Review Process, and the Ombudsman) are adequate avenues to address issues encountered in the New gTLD Program? -- General Comments from GAC, John Poole, and NCSG. -- Specific responses received from Jim Prendergast, BRG, RySG, Afilias and ALAC. Discussion: -- With regard to the BRG, RySG, and Afilias comments we have discussed the appeals process -- should we narrow our focus to just the application process and appeals related thereto? -- More generally on concerns about what went wrong -- these were all big topics of conversation in the CCWG-Accountability. Think we have made a lot of reforms to the accountability mechanism. They are new so we don't know if they are working well or not. -- Concur with the suggestion that appeals mechanism should be put in place. Consider how an appeal mechanism would work when there are third-party evaluations involved. What is happening now is finally after many years there is a look back to the third-party evaluators to some of the things that were promised. Maybe an appeals mechanism makes more sense at the front of hte process. An appeals mechanism could have cut through many of the issues early on. -- Tend to agree that it would be a good idea to have a more direct appeal process where there were evaluators or panelists involved. Not something to a one-size-fits-all approach. Need to focus on this for the next level. Appeals process enables conflicts between decisions to be resolved. -- You have to look at this in context of what Work Track 2 just looked at -- the waiving of the right to hold ICANN accountable if violates the terms of the AGB. If we do not have an appeals process there will be no ability to have any of the decisions substantively reviewed, only for violation of the mission, commitment, Bylaws, etc. Don't think we can NOT have an appeals process. Doesn't have to be like a judicial proceeding. Has to be some way to challenge ICANN's or a third-party action. -- Seems unclear as to whether third-party action is a responsibility of the staff or Board. Are the evaluators the responsibility of the Board or the staff because they hired them? That loop needs to be closed. -- Not sure that if we address inconsistencies in the processes that we won't need an appeals process, but the process does need to be swift. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Introducing an appeals process will significantly delay decisions and could be used as a tactic for delay even when decision is actually justified. I actually hope the ICANN process is more efficient and more swift than judicial systems - can we keep it that way without sacrificing rights or not? COMMENT Greg Shatan: I think we need to focus on a relatively lightweight process. Delay is not as big an issue as “getting it wrong.” Greg Shatan: Appeals generally do not have further discovery. They can be relatively swift. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: if we address inconsistencies in the processes, we likely won't need the appeals process. Maybe if the appeals process is based on a standard like "abuse of discretion" or "clear error" as noted in the Google comment - but this needs to be a swift process - not go on for years. COMMENT Robin Gross: Having an appeals mechanism tailored exclusively on tld decisions would make sense given it is so different from the other org management type of issues that go into the regular accountability mechanisms. Phil Buckingham: I agree Jamie . Evaluators need to be evaluated themselves Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think Jeff's approach is reasonable if we want to adopt appeals process. It should not be a "new trial" of all facts. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Anne ... just like the other accountability mechanisms, i think there would need to be a focus to the request for appeal. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jamie - could you elaborate on "focus to the request for appeal" Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Anne .. my thinking is that you would need to state your reason for appeal, just like you currently do with reconsideration requests, etc. For example it could be that key evidence/research supplied by applicant contradicts the research relied on by the evaluator (despite ever having to provide the research). this is in part the reason why the current CPE investigation is underway. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: re addressing inconsistencies that would reduce need for appeal - Panelist training seems very appropriate. Also, panelists have to be encouraged to request additional briefing on information they lack, rather than making assumptions about evidence they don't have. COMMENT Jamie Baxter | dotgay: +1 Anne 3.5.2 – Should there be appeal mechanisms, specific to the New gTLD Program, introduced into the program? If yes, for what areas of the program (e.g., evaluations, objections, CPE)? Do you have suggestions for high-level requirements (e.g., if the appeal should be limited to procedural and/or substantive issues, who conducts the review, who is the final arbiter, safeguards against abuse, etc.). -- Comments from INTA, Google, BRG, Afilias, and RySG. Discussion: -- The delayed appeals was an interesting concept, but not sure how people would not be accused of gaming the system. Some hybrid approach might make the most sense. 4. AOB: -- Since Avri Doria has stepped down as a Co-Chair we want to thank her for her time and effort to help the Work Track Co-Chairs, Karen and Robin. She has been invaluable to this Work Track. >From the chat: avri doria: thanks. it was great working with you.

1 0

Agenda - Subsequent Procedures WT 3 - Meeting October 17, 2017 @ 1500 UTC
by Karen Day Oct. 16, 2017

Oct. 16, 2017

Dear WT 3 Members: Following on our conversation Tuesday, we have clarified with staff and the PDP leadership team that the 30 minutes WTs 1 & 3 will have with the GAC on Sunday in Abu Dhabi are not to present to the GAC, but rather to ask questions of the GAC to try to draw out more detailed input from them on the issues covered in our CC2 questions and their prior GAC Advice. Therefore, our face to face PDP WG session on Saturday will not be preparation for the GAC meeting. It will instead be the PDP membership’s time to discuss the input on communities received from CC2 responses and to look again at our strawbunny proposal defining what a community is. With that being the case, we will proceed as planned with our next topics of Applicant Freedom of Expression and Accountability Mechanisms on our call this coming Tuesday, October 17th at 15:00. And, although we only have 3 questions to cover, there is some significant input to review, so I would encourage you to read through the CC2 responses in full prior to the call. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… AGENDA: 1: Welcome 2. Updated SOIs 3. Pre-F2F meeting updates 4. Applicant Freedom of Expression: 3.2.1 Noting that the 2007 Final Report on new gTLDs tried to balance the rights of applicants (e.g., Principle G) and rights holders (Recommendation 3), do you believe that the program was successful in doing so? If not, do you have examples of where either an applicant’s freedom of expression or a person or entity’s legal rights were infringed? 5. Accountability Mechanisms: 3.5.1 – Do you believe that the existing accountability mechanisms (Request for Reconsideration, Independent Review Process, and the Ombudsman) are adequate avenues to address issues encountered in the New gTLD Program? 3.5.2 – Should there be appeal mechanisms, specific to the New gTLD Program, introduced into the program? If yes, for what areas of the program (e.g., evaluations, objections, CPE)? Do you have suggestions for high-level requirements (e.g., if the appeal should be limited to procedural and/or substantive issues, who conducts the review, who is the final arbiter, safeguards against abuse, etc.). 6. AOB Until Tuesday, 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]

3 4

Agenda and Materials for WT3 call on 10 October @ 20:00 UTC on STRING SIMILARITY
by Robin Gross Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 2017

All, In preparation for our next call on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 @ 20:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed agenda. We will continue our discussion from last week on the topic of string similarity. I hope you are able to join the discussion. Thank you. Best, Robin Discussion Agenda 1. Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI 3. Plenary Update 5. Should we add another meeting before ICANN#60? For week of 17 Oct.? 6. CC2 — String Similarity — Q 3.4.4 - 3.4.6 7. AOB CC2 Questions on String Similarity Themes document attached. Full responses are available for review at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp…> 3.4.4 - Do you believe that there should be some sort of mechanism to allow for a change of applied-for TLD when it is determined to be in contention with one or more other strings? If so, do you have suggestions on a workable mechanism?  3.4.5 - Do you feel that the contention resolution mechanisms from the 2012 round (i.e., CPE and last- resort auctions) met the needs of the community in a sufficient manner? Please explain. 3.4.6 – Do you believe that private auctions (i.e., NOT the auctions of last resort provided by ICANN) resulted in any harm? Could they lead to speculative applications seeking to participate in a private auction in future application processes? Should they be allowed or otherwise restricted in the future? 3.4 — General Feedback from GAC on string similarity

3 2

Recordings, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 10, 2017

Oct. 10, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4e3e3mssdk/<https://participate.icann.org/p4e3e3mssdk/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ba32205baa7d5c6f…> 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/roJEB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 October 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… jeff neuman:FYI - for the next 15 mins or so I will not be on adobe, but will be listening on the phone Karen Day:Hi all Julie Bisland:thanks Jeff, I've noted this on Adobe Julie Bisland:Avri, we can't hear you Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bad audio Julie Bisland:Still nothing Avri Julie Bisland:she's trying again to get audio Karen Day:As well as accountability mechinisms no? avri doria:after 3 tries back, avri doria:i think Jim Prendergast:is there a specific day you are looking at? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Maybe those are good topics for Face to Face Anne Aikman-Scalese:THanks Karen Jim Prendergast:see i t in notes Anne Aikman-Scalese:Be there or be square avri doria:24th people are travelling Julie Bisland:Donna, no audio Jim Prendergast:so the plenary on 10/23 will be cancelled? Donna Austin, Neustar:ok, thanks Karen Anne Aikman-Scalese:I think Donna has a pretty good idea about reversing the order here and preparing on GAC topics. Steve Chan:Note, the meeting with the GAC is only 30 minutes. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:makes sense Julie Bisland:Anne: no audio Cheryl Langdon-Orr:audio? Steve Chan:After the 30 minute GAC meeting with WT1 and WT3, the GAC will be talking amongst themselves, though it's an open session for anyone to attend. Donna Austin, Neustar:Given Jeff's examples, I think opening this up will create more problems then its worth. Phil Buckingham:That would be a great idea , Anne Jim Prendergast:if as Jeff said it can be gamed too easily - I think we need to be very very cautious. Roger Carney:@jeff @Jim, talking that one step further, I am not sure the benefits outwiegh the risks/costs Jim Prendergast:they way round 1 went - I would have loved to applied for a bunch of contended tlds. Would have made huge $$$ in private auctions. jeff neuman:@Jim - I know, but in the brands situation I can see areas where changing a string should be allowed Donna Austin, Neustar:@Roger, I don't think any benefit would outweigh the risk/cost. jeff neuman:Lets say a string is found to be "geographic" when no one thought it would be and the GAC objected. I think rather than the Board refusing to delegate anything, perhaps an alternative could be selected Roger Carney:@Donna :) Donna Austin, Neustar:@Roger, I meant to say I agree with you. Alan Greenberg:Can I please be unmuted? jeff neuman:I think we should separate String Similarity from String contention jeff neuman:They are 2 different things Anne Aikman-Scalese:Don't think you should be able to opt out of one string contention set into another. It would have to be an option to go to a clear string that was contemplated by your initial application as a fallback. jeff neuman:The first part is String Similarity (a check against existing strings) jeff neuman:if it is judged to be too similar to an existing string, the application dies Phil Buckingham:Anne , I think we could apply that ( a second choice ) to a closed brand , but would be more difficult , in terms of potential gaming for an open TLD jeff neuman:I am talking about at this stage that a string should be allowed to be changed as opposed to at the "Contention phase" Alan Greenberg:I am muted and cannot unmute myself. Jon Nevett:what if more than one party wanted to swtich to the same alternative TLD? Would that create another contention set? Steve Chan:Sorry Alan, just saw your note. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Rules: 1. you have to specify your alternates up front - max 4 total. You cannot opt into another contention set. (3) There should still be a reasonable relationship between the TLD name and the stated Question 18 purpose of the TLD. avri doria:Jon, I think they would need to agree among themselves with a rule of no new contention produced. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jon, I think it would create another contention set. Alan Greenberg:@Jeff, I did understand and I was (I thought) agreeing with you. jeff neuman:@Alan - yes....i was referring to some others jeff neuman:Does anyone agree with my example? I am not sure how that could be gamed jeff neuman:I am not sure people are happy...but not sure what the alternatives are Jamie Baxter | dotgay:the notion .. yes, the implementation .. no Jim Prendergast:arent we still waiting for CPE review by board? Donna Austin, Neustar:yes we are Jim Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Jim .. yes. we are now a year into the CPE investigation with no clear sight on a result avri doria:i think they may provide a form of gaming. avri doria:i mean private auctions - personal view jeff neuman:how do we prevent private auctions? avri doria:hard to prevent Jon Nevett:private auctions is just one form of contention resolution -- policy question is whether we should support private resolution or not. Jim Prendergast:you could allow for other resolutions - forming JVs wa prohibited last round Phil Buckingham:exactly Jeff . so do we make ALL auctions public ? But what happens to the proceeds in that case ? jeff neuman:Are there ideas on how we could stop private contention resolution avri doria:never understood the preventon of partnerships and joint ventures jeff neuman:The only other option for contention resolution is subjective evaluation..... avri doria:as a contention resolution mechansim Jon Nevett:JVs were permitted by the way -- just couldn't replace an applicant with a JV jeff neuman:@Jon - right....hence why you all created so many new entities Jon Nevett:"It is understood that applicants may seek to establish joint ventures in their efforts to resolve string contention" Donna Austin, Neustar:Was there any context to the GAC input? I think the comments are expressly related to IDN ccTLD Policy. What is the EPSRP? Steve Chan: Extended Process Similarity Review Panel, though I can't speak to the substance of the process. jeff neuman:yes Steve Chan:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_res… Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thought so Donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr:there is some supposed confusability with some scripts lettering. yes Jeff jeff neuman:it looked like .br not be jeff neuman:the cyrillic version of Bulgaria two characters Alan Greenberg:Yes, it was .br jeff neuman:I thought it looked more like 6r Emily Barabas:@Donna, the full text of the GAC comment is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attach… jeff neuman:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_e… Emily Barabas:Unfortunately, no additional context is provided in the document related to this comment Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Emily Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed Alan Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Alan, so its a decision relating to confusability that may be relevant/applicable to our discussions. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:good progress.. thanks everyone ð bye for now... avri doria:bye

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 10 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 10, 2017

Oct. 10, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 10 October. 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 document referenced on the call is attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 10 October 2017 1. Updates to SOI: None. 2. Plenary Update: -- Meeting on 09 October. After going through the work tracks had a discussion on work track 5 in terms of the co-leaders. Decision among the co-chairs and work track leaders: Martin Sutton. Took the decision to the GNSO Council. -- Went through the predictability track. Almost ready for a first reading in the full meeting. Time to bring the three issues to a close to produce draft recommendations. -- Planning for Abu Dhabi. -- Check to see if the full PDP WG meeting is still on for 23 October. 3. Meeting before ICANN#60? Move to week of 17 Oct.? -- Move up the meeting from the week of the 24th to the week of the 16th? Move to the same time 1500 UTC on 17 October? -- With all that we have to cover we need to hold another meeting with whomever is available on the 17th. -- Saving for the face-to-face the topic of communities -- evaluation and priority. Have a dedicated session with the GAC at 10:30-11:00 on Sunday, 29 October on community applications and applicant support. Consider using 17 October meeting to prep -- get guidance from PDP WG Leadership. Steve Chan: After the 30 minute GAC meeting with WT1 and WT3, the GAC will be talking amongst themselves, though it's an open session for anyone to attend. -- No meetings the week of the 23rd as people will be traveling. 4. CC2 — String Similarity — Q 3.4.4 - 3.4.6: 3.4.4 -- Do you believe that there should be some sort of mechanism to allow for a change of applied-for TLD when it is determined to be in contention with one or more other strings? -- ALAC, RySG, BRG, and Afilias opposed allowing applicants to change an applied-for TLD on the basis of contention. -- Valideus supported allowing applicants to name an alternative string at the time of application. Discussion: -- If you were going to allow something like that it would have to be done before any of the string swere made public. The rules would have to be pretty tight. Could see more problems than possible positive outcomes. -- In limited circumstance should consider allowing string to be changed to something similar or applied for. Example: If BC was found similar to BBC -- should allow one or both of them to change to something else. Better example if something applied for is similar to an existing string. Would need some tight rules. -- Wonder if it could be done at the time of application -- choices to be listed. If 1 was in contention fall back to 2. Would it work for the applicant name three or four options? -- Offering the ability to change offers massive opportunities for gaming. At best it should be a very limited set -- a preset list. We would have to think about ways to avoid gaming. -- Where brands might have similar looking names, even if they aren't in contention, if both couldn't go forward maybe one of them or both could have a very limited right to change their strings. -- Having a second choice in your application that you can opt to for avoiding string contention is a legitimate reason to have a backup. -- If it is to resolve string contention, but if you are in string contention and your second choice also is in string contention and that was a weaker contention set that could allow gaming. There needs to be guidance. -- In the policy the intention was that if there was contention those in contention should converse and pick other names in order to proceed. But this was not carried over into implementation. -- There was discussion earlier about gaming but all of the examples are where there is a string similarity problem, which would be initiated by ICANN. -- Two different things: 1) string similarity 2) string contention. At the string similarity stage: if a string was confusingly similar to another string already existing then it dies. If it is to another application then it is put into a contention set. If a company wants something different (instead of dying) it should be allowed. -- Example: .born -- under existing rules .born would not be allowed to exist. If that company could have .borne to be not so similar you coudl go ahead with that. Not talking about trying to avoid an auction, or contention. >From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: Given Jeff's examples, I think opening this up will create more problems then its worth. Phil Buckingham: That would be a great idea , Anne Jim Prendergast: if as Jeff said it can be gamed too easily - I think we need to be very very cautious. Roger Carney: @jeff @Jim, talking that one step further, I am not sure the benefits outwiegh the risks/costs Jim Prendergast: they way round 1 went - I would have loved to applied for a bunch of contended tlds. Would have made huge $$$ in private auctions. jeff neuman: @Jim - I know, but in the brands situation I can see areas where changing a string should be allowed Donna Austin, Neustar: @Roger, I don't think any benefit would outweigh the risk/cost. jeff neuman: Lets say a string is found to be "geographic" when no one thought it would be and the GAC objected. I think rather than the Board refusing to delegate anything, perhaps an alternative could be selected Donna Austin, Neustar: @Roger, I meant to say I agree with you. jeff neuman: I think we should separate String Similarity from String contention jeff neuman: They are 2 different things Anne Aikman-Scalese: Don't think you should be able to opt out of one string contention set into another. It would have to be an option to go to a clear string that was contemplated by your initial application as a fallback. jeff neuman: The first part is String Similarity (a check against existing strings) jeff neuman: if it is judged to be too similar to an existing string, the application dies Phil Buckingham: Anne , I think we could apply that ( a second choice ) to a closed brand , but would be more difficult , in terms of potential gaming for an open TLD jeff neuman: I am talking about at this stage that a string should be allowed to be changed as opposed to at the "Contention phase" Jon Nevett: what if more than one party wanted to swtich to the same alternative TLD? Would that create another contention set? Anne Aikman-Scalese: Rules: 1. you have to specify your alternates up front - max 4 total. You cannot opt into another contention set. (3) There should still be a reasonable relationship between the TLD name and the stated Question 18 purpose of the TLD. avri doria: Jon, I think they would need to agree among themselves with a rule of no new contention produced. avri doria: Jon, I think they would need to agree among themselves with a rule of no new contention produced. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jon, I think it would create another contention set. Alan Greenberg: @Jeff, I did understand and I was (I thought) agreeing with you. 3.4.5 - Do you feel that the contention resolution mechanisms from the 2012 round (i.e. CPE and last-resort auctions) meet the needs of the community in a sufficient manner? -- BRG, RySG, Afilias, and ALAC felt that CPE and last resort auctions are generally a reasonable approach. >From the chat: jeff neuman: I am not sure people are happy...but not sure what the alternatives are Jamie Baxter | dotgay: the notion .. yes, the implementation .. no Jim Prendergast: arent we still waiting for CPE review by board? Donna Austin, Neustar: yes we are Jim Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Jim .. yes. we are now a year into the CPE investigation with no clear sight on a result 3.4.6 -- Do you believe that private auctions (i.e., NOT the auctions of last resort provided by ICANN) resulted from any harm? -- Jim Prendergast, RySG, Afilias, and ALAC stated that private auctions resulted in speculative applications. ALAC favored prohibiting private auctions, while RySG and Afilias preferred other narrowly tailored mechanisms to address speculation. Discussion: -- Not sure how we prevent private auctions. Perhaps you can prevent the overt marketing of private auctions. -- May not be in a position to prevent them, but might be ways to disincentivise them. >From the chat: avri doria: i think they may provide a form of gaming. avri doria: i mean private auctions - personal view jeff neuman: how do we prevent private auctions? avri doria: hard to prevent Jon Nevett: private auctions is just one form of contention resolution -- policy question is whether we should support private resolution or not. Jim Prendergast: you could allow for other resolutions - forming JVs wa prohibited last round Phil Buckingham: exactly Jeff . so do we make ALL auctions public ? But what happens to the proceeds in that case ? jeff neuman: Are there ideas on how we could stop private contention resolution avri doria: never understood the preventon of partnerships and joint ventures jeff neuman: The only other option for contention resolution is subjective evaluation..... avri doria: as a contention resolution mechansim Jon Nevett: JVs were permitted by the way -- just couldn't replace an applicant with a JV jeff neuman: @Jon - right....hence why you all created so many new entities Jon Nevett: "It is understood that applicants may seek to establish joint ventures in their efforts to resolve string contention" 3.4 General Feedback: The GAC submitted an excerpt from the GAC Chair to the ccNSO on 28 September 2016: -- What about the discussion of IDNs from Work Track 4 about certain IDN rights going to a registry that has an English version of a word? -- Was there any context with this general feedback? The overall point is that there are certain IDN characters that could look a lot like ASCII characters. -- There was a situation that took a long time to resolve with an IDN ccTLD. -- There has been a recent disagreement between the ccNSO and SSAC and there were discussion about ways to get around it. An agreement has been reached. We may want to look at that. >From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: Was there any context to the GAC input? I think the comments are expressly related to IDN ccTLD Policy. What is the EPSRP? EPSRP? Steve Chan: Extended Process Similarity Review Panel, though I can't speak to the substance of the process: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/epsrp-reports-2014-10-14-en Cheryl Langdon-Orr: there is some supposed confusability with some scripts lettering. yes Jeff jeff neuman: it looked like .br not be jeff neuman: the cyrillic version of Bulgaria two characters Alan Greenberg: Yes, it was .br jeff neuman: I thought it looked more like 6r Emily Barabas: @Donna, the full text of the GAC comment is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attach… jeff neuman: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/epsrp-bulgaria-30sep14-en.pdf Donna Austin, Neustar: thanks Alan, so its a decision relating to confusability that may be relevant/applicable to our discussions.

1 0

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

Sept. 26, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p35fihbcdeu/<https://participate.icann.org/p35fihbcdeu/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=96c8662b94871fcc…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/AhohB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 26 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ staff - the 520 phone number is Anne Aikman-Scalese Julie Bisland:thank you Anne Alan Greenberg:We have. Christopher Wilkinson Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I believe the plenary said they would seek permission from the 3 GNSO Co-Chair nominees for WT5 to disclosse their names. avri doria:for example i did not mention the rrreport the poolicy staff is working on describinf all the issues and state of discussions and which they gave out a url on. avri doria:... report that policy staff ... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ Avri - it would be so great if staff could post the associated pdfs on the Wiki rather than having every member copy and paste the urls in the Summary document that are NOT live links. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Or post the live links on the wiki along with the link to the Summary doc. Alan Greenberg:Better to sort bby pair and not purely alphabetically. avri doria:Thank you Anne, I am sure they will take your comment into account for their later versions and will react appropriately. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you Avri. Michael Flemming (GMO):I support this. It was a nightmare going through filing procedures in such a limited time period. Michael Flemming (GMO):In regards to the first comment. Michael Flemming (GMO):Sorry, thanks for the clarification. Paul McGrady:I'm happy to hold my comments until the chair is ready. :) Michael Flemming (GMO):I wanted to get in the que too Julie Bisland:Paul, no sound at all Julie Bisland:ok, now good Alan Greenberg:My adobe connect speaker just came on and phone mutted of disconnected! Alan Greenberg:Ahh. My phone died. Paul McGrady:So sorry about the audio problems. Ugh. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Paul Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):For example, what happens when we compare .hardrock with .hardrocks? (I don't represent the Hard Rock or any rock bands or any rock climbers.) Roger Carney:+1 Michael, on synonyms Michael Flemming (GMO):Potentially confusing, maybe, but not restrictively. Unless the application itself outlined a plan to operate within the field that shared similarity with its synonym, then I could see that, but other than that it is too widestretched. Paul McGrady:@Alan - that wasn't my comment RE: Drs. Paul McGrady:Ha! Michael Flemming (GMO):Poor Paul Michael Flemming (GMO):Never Paul McGrady:Sword tools worse than useless. Jim Prendergast:https://icannwiki.org/String_Similarity_Panel Jim Prendergast:second section Jim Prendergast:and the link to the tool does not work... live by the Sword.... Alan Greenberg:Thanks Paul. Reminds me about an old joke that involves the line that particular information is "100% accurate and 100% meaningless" Paul McGrady:@Kurt - I promised that my description should be highly editorialized. Paul McGrady:@Kurt - how would the algorythm take into account trademark registrations? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Too bad the tool is o longer live. We could run hypothetical strings against it to help find examples that might lead to a better tool. Paul McGrady:@Kurt - would the new Sword be for only comparing strings for string similarity and not for rights objection? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):But should we incorporate any new tool into the panel decisions? Phil Marano:SWORD results (high or low) were routinely cited by either party in string similarity objections, though deference by Panels was unclear at best. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thinking about "predictability". Michael Flemming (GMO):Question: Does the similarity review panel used in the ccTLD fast track, if applicable to gTLD similarity, allow for an appeals process for being placed in a contention set or being refused based upon similarity with an existing TLD? Kurt Pritz:@ Paul - the algorithm merely compares any two strings and provides a similarity score. Someone would have to draw a line under a certain score. I should write a sad obituary of a good idea that didn't make it (cf. digital archery) Michael Flemming (GMO):Wish Rubens was here Emily Barabas:ALAC response to 3.1.1: "The recommendation on string confusion is one that must be enhanced. Singular and plural versions of related strings proved to be problematic in the first round and must be addressed this time. Such provision should not be limited to just the addition of an S but should be more generalized as suggested in a recent Registry SG document. That being said, as discussed in relation the ccNSO Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) document, for strings that are inherently confusing in their own right, but for which STRONG irrevocable policies mitigating against confusion in full domain names, delegation could be considered." Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):It would also be pretty useless when there is a trademark involved in one string that has secondary meaning to the public - probably need to just scrap it. Michael Flemming (GMO):@Anne is that in regards to the harmonization with the ccTLD fast track harmonization? Michael Flemming (GMO):sorry, used by noun twice Michael Flemming (GMO):my* Michael Flemming (GMO):I would be support of exploring that further Michael Flemming (GMO):Not at the current time avri doria:appeals could apply to that as much as anything, i think. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Another tough question. What about .star compared to .starz? And is that confusing with .etoile? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Not sure what Michael is supporting (or opposing) avri doria:does that mean that japanese see car and cars as different and have no confusion? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):And what do we think about the phonetic equivalent of a plural? e.g. starz? Michael Flemming (GMO):Theoritically, though, the IDN equivalent of English is recognized completely differently. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Gg: If I'm understanding you correctly, wouldn't that mean we would have to do the community evaluation at the beginning (and leaving string similarity and confusion to the end)? Michael Flemming (GMO):I don't want to pick at .shop, but .通販 and .shop are two different words and have different target communtiies. Michael Flemming (GMO):If they are thrown into the same contention set, don't we close ourselves off to allowing for the IDN to go live? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Michael : +1 :-) Gg Levine (NABP):@Kristina: perhaps; that would be one approach. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I can tell you how we got to the result. Amazon was one of the applicants. Paul McGrady:I think we need to talk about both contention sets (2 new applications) and string preclusion (1 new application v an already delegated gTLD, which already delegated gTLD wins). Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):IN Track 4 we are talking about a registry getting the right to the equivalent idn when it is awarded the English word. I dont really understand to what degree that is being proposed but it relates to string similarity and contention sets in my mind because the issue is not JUST foreign languages that use the script we use - it's also idns an idn equivalents. Don't really know how this was treated in 2012 but Work Track 4 is now working on the idn issue. Would appreciate if Rubens or Cheryl could clarify. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye for now... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to drop for another meeting. Michael is correct. Board ordered the hearing of .shop v. online shopping (japanese). Panel strongly argued that upholding the string contention would, in fact, undermine the existence of IDNs, which were one of the stated (and perhaps only widely supported) rationales for the new gTLD program. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to run. Michael Flemming (GMO):Thx, Kristina Paul McGrady:Great call, but I need to go. Have a great day y'all! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think the methodology is fine. You get lots of opinions out on the table and issues get raised. Julie Bisland:Next TRACK 3 call: Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Avri and Karen. Have a good day all. Michael Flemming (GMO):I will be there Michael Flemming (GMO):Great call avri doria:bye

1 0

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

Sept. 26, 2017

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

1 0

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

Sept. 22, 2017

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

1 0

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

Sept. 12, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p8x5f57o8sw/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4c3b942c19b662a3…> https://participate.icann.org/p8x5f57o8sw/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/-RkhB> https://community.icann.org/x/-RkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 September 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=xAzc5LwSIPMmFNMEuP3PR-y_eM6ZMcfPoTwMby0_S_k&s=LrzTk_No_U-xc_JnrLWCVNngmPo09YaUwHmlHstdGck&e= Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi all, Robin Gross:Greetings! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):just stepping away from the screen for a short while Karen Day:hello! Jeff Neuman:no, you covered it Robin Gross:3.1.10 - Do you feel that GAC Early Warnings were helpful in identifying potential concerns with applications? Do you have suggestions on how to mitigate concerns identified in GAC Early Warnings? Robin Gross:“There seemed to be some confusion and uncertainty about the implications and consequences of a GAC EarlyWarning. Several steps could minimize this confusion and uncertainty in the future:change the name to GAC Member Early Warning (or something similar) to communicate clearly that the EarlyWarning has not been issued by the entire GAC, but, instead, by one or more GAC members;(adopt and identify a clear timetable for action by the issuing GAC member(s) to provide certainty toapplicants;(iii) require the issuing GAC member(s) to identify the national law(s) on which the Early Warning is based;(iv) have the issuing GAC member(s) designate the type of action(s) desired from the applicant; and(v) emphasize that the GAC Member Early Warnings have no precedential value.” – RySG, BRG, Afilias Karen Day:yes Jamie Baxter | dotgay:yes Karen Day:we hear you Karen Bernstein:Yes Steve Chan:FYI, the CC2 themes document being displayed can also be viewed on the Objections Wiki page here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=xAzc5LwSIPMmFNMEuP3PR-y_eM6ZMcfPoTwMby0_S_k&s=Mzt2yo295slAc7FNJ0NkS-JsZgKUnncLLAQWoHPlbwg&e= Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I would say no Alan because the GAC advises on Public Policy. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I didn't think it was... but also not an expert here avri doria:i do beleive it was. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):really Available? Jim Prendergast:this might help - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=xAzc5LwSIPMmFNMEuP3PR-y_eM6ZMcfPoTwMby0_S_k&s=ZiUCb7JenXJgSw6SCmNPBFFJKJk3CnP9LjBlU8Y297g&e= Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):argh Avri sorry auto correct strikes again Trang Nguyen:Section 1.1.2.4 of the AGB says "GAC EW typically results from a notice to the GAC by one or more governments that an application might be problematic, e.g., potentially violate national law or raise sensitivities. Jeff Neuman:Concurrent with the 60-day comment period, ICANN’sGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC) may issue aGAC Early Warning notice concerning an application. Thisprovides the applicant with an indication that theapplication is seen as potentially sensitive or problematicby one or more governments.The GAC Early Warning is a notice only. It is not a formalobjection, nor does it directly lead to a process that canresult in rejection of the application. However, a GAC EarlyWarning should be taken seriously as it raises the likelihoodthat the application could be the subject of GAC Adviceon New gTLDs (see subsection 1.1.2.7) or of a formalobjection (see subsection 1.1.2.6) at a later stage in theprocess. Karen Bernstein:AGB 3.1: The process for GAC Advice on New gTLDs is intended toaddress applications that are identified by governments tobe problematic, e.g., that potentially violate national lawor raise sensitivities. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: It would actually be great if we could get further definition from the GAC of the terms "sensitive" and "problematic". COMMENT Jeff Neuman:The AG also states: ". A GAC Early Warning may be issued forany reason" Steve Chan:From that same section (1.1.2.4) A GAC Early Warning typically results from a notice to theGAC by one or more governments that an applicationmight be problematic, e.g., potentially violate national lawor raise sensitivities. A GAC Early Warning may be issued forany reason.1 The GAC may then send that notice to theBoard – constituting the GAC Early Warning. ICANN willnotify applicants of GAC Early Warnings as soon aspracticable after receipt from the GAC. The GAC EarlyWarning notice may include a nominated point of contactfor further information. Jeff Neuman:but has a footnote that states: "While definitive guidance has not been issued, the GAC has indicated that strings that could raise sensitivities include those that"purport to represent or that embody a particular group of people or interests based on historical, cultural, or social components ofidentity, such as nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, belief, culture or particular social origin or group, political opinion, membershipof a national minority, disability, age, and/or a language or linguistic group (non-exhaustive)" and "those strings that refer toparticular sectors, such as those subject to national regulation (such as .bank, .pharmacy) or those that describe or are targeted to apopulation or industry that is vulnerable to online fraud or abuse.”" Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff. This is helpful. Maybe we should take the public comment to mean that if the objection is based on "those subject to national regulation", we ask the GAC to specify the "national regulation" they are citing. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think Greg will clarify that there is already a definition in the ByLaws as to what GAC Advice constitutes a presumption and what vote of the Board is required to overcome it - 60 % vote I think. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I hate to state the obvious, but the Amazon v. ICANN IRP Final Declaration has some useful guidance on these topics. Jeff Neuman:I am talking about something very different Jeff Neuman:I am not talking about a presumption that the advice will be accepted. I am talking about the presumption that a TLD will not move forward. Jeff Neuman:They are NOT the same thing Jeff Neuman:In other words the Board could "accept the GAC advice", but if the advice were contrary to what the rules allowed to reject a TLD, it would not be bound to not delegate the TLD Donna Austin, Neustar: There were 187 applications that received early warnings and 2 applications were withdrawn as a result. Jeff Neuman:@Karen you are right. Some govts were hoping that applicants would withdraw knowing they would not be able to get GAC advice Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Jeff - the issue is actually your description of "contrary to what the rules allowed to reject a TLD". If it is GAC Consensus Advice on an Early Warning, then I think as of now it is "within the rule". Do you want to say that an Early Warning coming from only one country cannot delay a TLD from moving forward? Donna Austin, Neustar:In addition, the Board received advice on specific applications affecting 23 applications, and the Beijing communique contained advice on broad categories tof strings affecting 491 applications. Donna Austin, Neustar:My data comes from page 95 of ICANN's Program Implementation Review Steve Chan:The report Donna is referencing is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=xAzc5LwSIPMmFNMEuP3PR-y_eM6ZMcfPoTwMby0_S_k&s=iZuSUzHdDAhH3jloicqCKPnZNh7As7dTA8BKGiqkowo&e= Greg Shatan:I don't see how the "board" could accept GAC Advice that the GAC can't give. Trang Nguyen:page 96 of the Program Implementation Review Report says: "Indeed, there was some correlation between Early Warnings and Advice, but not all applications that received Advice had received an Early Warning. While only 187 applications received Early Warnings, 517 applications were subject to GAC Advice. Over 300 applications that were subject to GAC Advice did not receive any Early Warning. Based on this data, if the intent of the Early Warning process was to provide applicants with predictability, that intent was achieved in only 38% of cases." Jeff Neuman:By the same taken i dont see the board having to have a 60% threshhold to overcome GAC Advice that should have never been issued or beyond their scope Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think this is a tough nut to crack in relation to GAC Consensus Advice. Should Work Track 5 take the position that objections to Geo Names are not objections based on Public Policy? How would we frame issues as issues that are not based on public policy? Jim Prendergast:just because the GAC would push back dosnt mean we shouldnt go there Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):See paragraphs 100 and following: "We conclude that GAC consensus advice . .. must be based on a well-founded public interest concern and this public interest basis must be ascertained or ascertainable from the entirety of the record before the NGPC. In other words, the reason(s) supporting the GAC consensus advice, and hence the NGPC decision, must be tethered to valid and legitimate public policy considerations." (Para. 103) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Great language but how do you prove that it's not based on public policy and who is the arbiter? Donna Austin, Neustar:I think we should acknowledge that while GAC advice was problematic, the approach of the NGPC in dealing with the GAC advice was also problematic. Jeff Neuman:I am not saying that there could be no exceptions, but there needs to be a predictable proccess to deal with those Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Donna - that is a good angle as to GAC Advice that is not Consensus Advice at least. Jeff Neuman:Is there any GAC Advice that is not Consensus Advice Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Yes. Greg, can you elaborate? Alan Greenberg:Perhaps there needs to be a method for the gac to object to (for instance geographic names), but there needs to be defined process for resolving it and not depend on a somewhat arbitrary board decision. Susan Payne:@Anne - not entirely GAC advice isn't a veto that must be blindly followed bvy the board. It is advice they must take on board. Donna Austin, Neustar:Anne: I believe it was all consensus advice as it was provided in communiques Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ Donna - but maybe that changes after the Accountability work? Couldn't we point out that an Early Warning from only one country is not Consensus Advice and NGPC equivalent should treat that differently? (Maybe that is not possible if the full GAC endorses that Early Warning and it is "tit for tat". Greg Shatan:Early Warning is not advice at all, consensus or otherwise. Donna Austin, Neustar:Anne: I don't believe GAC Early Warnings were considered by the NGPC. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Donna: They did for the .AMAZON TLDs. Can't speak to others. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Kristina, after .amazon was subject to GAC advice or before? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Cheryl that a diplomatic approach is preferable - especially in terms of new EC Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Donna: After. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_gac… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_gac…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=xAzc5LwSIPMmFNMEuP3PR-y_eM6ZMcfPoTwMby0_S_k&s=mIjXJ8U2OIMYBhGMJqw4hov5qZopOfcxM3-uMy7psko&e= Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):ByLaws were revised. They do govern as far as I know. See 12.2 (a) (x) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):especially if Gac has actively contributed now to the development of such guidelines @Donna, and I also doubt that there could be a 'waiving of any right to give Advice ' but a greater predictability and benefits from any ensuin post application processes Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):New by-Law dfines Consensus Advice as "the practice of adopting decision by general agreement in tehe absence of any formal objection ("GAC Consensus Advice") Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that is a good example of a good or potentially beneficial 'new' process @Jeff Jim Prendergast:I like the idea of an applicant having a chance to respond directly to the board about advice issued agains them. adds an element of due process Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Para. 94: "Thus, under the facts of this IRP, the procedural fairness obligation applicable to the GAC, at a minimum, required that the GAC allow a written statement or comment from a potentially adversely affected party, before it decided whether to issue consensus advice objecting to an application. The Board’s obligation was to see that the GAC, as a constituent body of ICANN, had such a procedure and that it followed it." Jeff Neuman:@Anne - would you support the right of an applicant to provide a response to the Board on GAC Advice? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):On our next call, I'll be happy to recite the IRP Panel Final Declaration from memory. (kidding) Jim Prendergast:was the concept of EW as a prerequisite explicity addressed in previous round and if so, why wasnt it implemented? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - absolutely. Board has discretion to override GAC Advice by 60 % vote. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):exactly @Susan Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff, right now I think there is no individual right of reply but why not? Jeff Neuman:@Anne - Because the Board historically has not allowed anyone other than ICANN staff present to the Board Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Indeed - they would normaly just rely on GNSO policy advice. But you asked if it would be theoretically possible. Jeff Neuman:@Anne - I am not even just talking about in cases with Policy Advice. Its also this case with contract amendments, approval of registry servivces, etc. Jeff Neuman:The ICANN Board should always allow parties that may be adversely affect be able to present to the Board Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff, not the case. reconsideration requests have been allowed to speak directly with the Board. Terri Agnew:Next meeting: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Gg Levine (NABP):I agree that applicants should be given the opportunity to respond to GAC advice. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good discussion I'm today's call more to discuss on the topic though... ðŸ‘‹ bye for now... thanks everyone... Jeff Neuman:In a few Reconsideration requests, but not all Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Robin Susan Payne:good call robin Karen Day:thanks all

1 0

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

Sept. 12, 2017

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

1 0

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

Sept. 8, 2017

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

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 29 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 29 August. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The meeting recording and chat transcript are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/DBLfAw[community.icann.org]. The documents referenced on the call are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 29 August 2017 1. Plenary Update: -- Last night the meeting went through the work tracks and reviewed where they were, meetings coming up, and topics covered. -- Status of work track 5. -- Flexibility and predictability framework -- several scenarios were discussed. Asked to continue the discussions online. -- Continue to go through the overarching themes in following meetings. 2. Independent Objector – Unanswered Questions: -- Discussed previously the idea of an appeals mechanism. -- Remind everyone -- we will be reviewing the subject of accountability mechanisms. Will circle back to the independent objector issue. Make sure we have covered an accountability mechanism. Will not take more time on that right now. -- Question: Have we made the decision to keep the IO? Answer: The ask at the last call was to discuss an appeals mechanism for the IO. Will come back to the question of whether there will be an IO. -- Looking for volunteers to help drive this discussion offline. First, with regard to whether there should be an IO: If we look at our notes there was a sense that perhaps the community is mature enough now that we might not need an IO. The community may be able to look out for itself. -- Now in discussions we have been talking about having an IO and how. Graphic from staff on IO and how it might work. -- Proposal: Rather than a single IO there could be an IO standing panel. -- Budget: Staff has done some work to extract the information. -- Get a sense of where we want to go and how we want to tackle this. Do we want to try to reach consensus first on yes/no on IO? Or are we going to talk about issues of fixing it? Discussion: -- The 20-million-dollar figure is an enormous amount of money. Per staff the actual spend was around $2.5 million. Even that amount for two wins is high. -- It is inappropriate to look at it just as bang for the buck. Need to go back to what was the original purpose. Not just for people aware of possible objections. Changes in IRP may make it easier now. In terms of making an objection it was also to cover the concerns of people who may not have been paying attention. While there is a need to do it better -- having one person may not be the best idea, but finding a way to do it is important. Need to find a new way to solve the problem of what about those things that are objectionable to some groups who may not be paying attention. We can make things more predictable by not having objections at all, but not sure we are going for that level of predictability -- need is still there to try not to cause harm. -- Problem with the concept of the IO, not just the cost. The concept there can be this body that stands apart from everyone else and can decide what is in the best interest for the world. IO is not responsible for what happens at ICANN, which is a design flaw. Need to make sure that we build into our processes mechanisms to make sure that those who are included can be included. -- Favor a mechanism for objections based on the global public interest. Sensitive to the fact that money shouldn't be wasted. Shouldn't be just one IO that just files objections to justifies the salary. It is not a good structure. Also not good that the Board should decide if a particular application is in the public interest. That gets into content regulation by the Board. Concern about access and ability to file an objection. It is extremely expensive to file an objection. Suggest a different structure of a standing IO panel, similar to IRT panel. Then if there is a conflict of interest you have to be able to disqualify that person right away. -- We may need to make adjustments -- maybe a panel would fix a few of the problems, maybe not. Need to put substance to the "global public interest". It is an expensive process and there is no way to do it unless we have a process similar to this. Strongly support keeping the process even if we have to fix it. -- It is a false dichotomy that either we have an IO on one hand and the only other choice is to foist this off to the Board. There are other objection mechanisms, some of which could be tweeked to work well. -- We can do it other ways, but money seems to be an issue. For example, we could set up a fund for those who don't have the resources -- but that could be gamed and could cost more money. Need to funnel the funds into a source that we can guide and not make it too open ended. -- Winning 2 out of 17 is not a good record and need to look at why that was the case. -- Why is a panel better? The reason would be that if one person makes that determination and there are no gates on that process then that is problematic. The word "independent" is important. If there is a panel of 7 and 4 vote that there is a global public interest and an objection should be filed then there is a gate. Agree that there is a financial barrier. -- Question: Has there been a review of the IO's performance and how it went? How we got 2 for 17? If there was a system to get 2 for 4 instead of 2 for 17. That would be interesting to explore. -- Some support for a panel; could be an arbitral panel of 3. Or a panel that controls a fund. -- Shouldn't lose sight of how the global public interest is represented. Either look at the flaws with the previous process or take a different tack. -- The problem may also have been with the objection evaluation panels and the criteria they used and not in the IO. >From the chat: Paul McGrady: How much was spent on the I.O. for his two victories in the last round? Mike Rodenbaugh: I recall his budget was more than $20m Steve Chan: Budget was a @24.8 million but actual spend was around $2.5 million Robin Gross: It makes less sense to talk about fixing details if we are going to nix the concept. Steve Chan: Budget was a @24.8 million but actual spend was around $2.5 million Karen Day: my bad all! Only 2. 8 was spent Mike Rodenbaugh: ah, thanks Steve, big difference.... Jim Prendergast: $2.5 million for IO budgte and untold milliosn spent by other applicants who prevailed Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): it cannot be 20 MM Jim Prendergast: and the money spent by applicants denefing themselves against IO objections. I dont think we have that figure and probably impossible to get Greg Shatan: Why was this a good idea in the first place? Jim Prendergast: To Annes point on Board objecting - several of them were conflicted in 2012 and may be in next process so it would only be a subset of the board. I dont think that is desirable Jamie Baxter | dotgay: +1 Anne .. it seems apparent that the Board neither wants to make those decisions, or has the tools to make them when when it comes to having a clear understanding/definition of "public interest" avri doria: Robin, empowering the Board with the Global Public Interet objections is another mechinism for hadling them. But are we sure we want to hand that task to them, and to have the Board judging each application for its GPI? Greg Shatan: I'm trying to recall who thought it was a good idea and why.... Robin Gross: Last time I checked, the board is already there. avri doria: Policy set the goal of handling these issues, AGB decided on how. avri doria: only in exception processing at the end. not in terms of being th first address for such appeals. Mike Rodenbaugh: I don't see how a panel of IOs solves any of the problems we had with just one IO Robin Gross: I tend to agree, Mike, as I see the concept flawed. avri doria: and rember all the IO could so was file an objection. not make the determination. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: +1 Alan Jim Prendergast: agree with Alan on his points about kicking this to the Board Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Because it's not one person determining Global Public Interest - for example, it is a panel of 7 experts and they vote - 4 out of 7 means the Limited Public Interest Objection is filed. Mike Rodenbaugh: my biggest problem with IO was that, even if he decided not to object (after lengthy deliberations with one of my clients), or if he later lost his objection, that did not stop anyone else from objecting on the same basis (incl. governments). So it greatly increased costs to applicants, with no benefit to anyone Robin Gross: The IO process seems to be expanding the types of objections we initalially created by this "in the global public interest" test. That is dangerous. Greg Shatan: In 15 out of 17 cases, the IO's judgment about when a GPI filing was warranted were found to be wrong. If the IO was a baseball pitcher, he'd be cut from the team.... avri doria: (personal) Greg, that is a reason to find a better mechanism, not to eliminate pitchers. Jim Prendergast: what would be the soure of those funds? Jim Prendergast: would it be an application tax like we had for the ICANN legal defense fund? avri doria: (personal) Jim, it is part of the expense of processing applications justly. Robin Gross: Wouldn't a better solution be to build this concern into our own processes, rather than outsource "globlal public interest" to an outside body? "Independent" also means no responsibility or accountability on some level. Paul McGrady: @Anne - but those "real money" events happened to the 15 winners, brought on by a defective I.O. mechanism. Jim Prendergast: @avri - I dont disagree but in other WTs we have people arguing to cut the application feees as low as possible to spur demand but this seems like somehting that would add to the cost. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Paul - I agree. That is why we have to have "gates" that put a check on unlimited "Limited Public Interest" Objections Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Unfortunately I think the qualification for the fund would take forever. avri doria: (personal) the problem may also have been with the objection evaluation panels and the criteria they used and not in the IO Meeting with/questions for the IO: -- Staff is looking into whether the IO can join one of our meetings, but we should formulate questions ahead of time. There are questions that need to be explored before we can come to a consensus. What is the best way to get those questions together? Discussion: -- This review doesn't have to be that hard. Everything was documented on the IO's web site. Start on our own to develop the right questions. See: IO website: https://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/home/home/ -- Make sure the questions are not already answered on the web site or in his final activity report. Helpful to identify the questions and then we can look through the material to see if the questions are answered. Staff will continue to see if we can make him available. Action: Start pulling together a list of basic questions that have been raised during the meetings. Get that to the list so people can add questions they have. >From the chat: Paul McGrady: What could possibly be confidential about the activities of a person who is paid to represent the public interest? avri doria: I agree with Paul on that, there should not be much secrecy needed. avri doria: i think it would be valuable Greg Shatan: Good idea. avri doria: but that is why i suggested it a few meetings back. Paul McGrady: Valusable so long as we all stay really nice. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Yes - always best to understand the challenges Greg Shatan: The site is still up. Mike Rodenbaugh: IO website: https://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/home/home/ Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): There may be a difference as to need for Limited Public Interest Objection as opposed to Community Objection. 3. CC2 – Objections – Q 3.1.7 – 3.1.11 (see attached): 3.1.7 Do you believe that parties to disputes should be able to choose between panels and should the costs of objections reflect that choice? -- RySG, BRG, and Afilias recommended that parties should be able to jointly determine whether to use a 1- or 3-member panel. >From the chat: Mike Rodenbaugh: if both parties agree to 3, then fine; but otherwise 1 must be the default else cost would be at least double for 3 Jamie Baxter | dotgay: +1 Mike Karen Bernstein: +1 Mike Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Mike Robin Gross: me too avri doria: i am personally undeccided Karen Day: Also undecided. 3 people might give a greater outcome but cost could be a factor.

1 0

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p6av0ejzxuy/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=6bd626c2308666a9…> https://participate.icann.org/p6av0ejzxuy/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org] ** 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/MQEhB> https://community.icann.org/x/MQEhB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 29 August 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=RNUDs8z6xPrQ69K6sbfIJzjZcV4Ei81LG19Qy7jDgLU&s=JzsrnKcQSLFYgLWKYngO7a2g85vGwKFG7zQ9o0688tQ&e= Karen Day:Hi all Karen Day:Anne - would you be able to speak today under item 4 to your email from yesterday? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):thanks Karen and terri joining now and yes Karen Day:Thanks, Anne! Greg Shatan:lol Jim Prendergast:tough to hear Robin Gross:very low gain Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Terri - sounds like Avri is in a cave. Need to dial out to her. Terri Agnew:much better Avri - thank you Paul McGrady:How much was spent on the I.O. for his two victories in the last round? Mike Rodenbaugh:I recall his budget was more than $20m Robin Gross:It makes less sense to talk about fixing details if we are going to nix the concept. Jim Prendergast:wow Jim Prendergast:$20 mil Steve Chan:Budget was a @24.8 million but actual spend was around $2.5 million Karen Day:my bad all! Only 2. 8 was spent Mike Rodenbaugh:ah, thanks Steve, big difference.... Karen Day:2.5 - seems I can't type any better than I can remember :( Jim Prendergast:$2.5 million for IO budgte and untold milliosn spent by other applicants who prevailed Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):it cannot be 20 MM Jim Prendergast:and the money spent by applicants denefing themselves against IO objections. I dont think we have that figure and probably impossible to get Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):"not addicted" - LOL Avri! Paul McGrady:+1 Robin. Paul McGrady:@Jim - good point. Greg Shatan:Why was this a good idea in the first place? Jim Prendergast:To Annes point on Board objecting - several of them were conflicted in 2012 and may be in next process so it would only be a subset of the board. I dont think that is desirable Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Anne .. it seems apparent that the Board neither wants to make those decisions, or has the tools to make them when when it comes to having a clear understanding/definition of "public interest" Paul McGrady:@Greg, it might neverave been a good idea, but now that we know that it definetly isn't, it seems irresponsible to keep it. avri doria:Robin, empowering the Board with the Global Public Interet objections is another mechinism for hadling them. But are we sure we want to hand that task to them, and to have the Board judging each application for its GPI? Greg Shatan:I'm trying to recall who thought it was a good idea and why.... Robin Gross:Last time I checked, the board is already there. avri doria:Policy set the goal of handling these issues, AGB decided on how. avri doria:only in exception processing at the end. not in terms of being th first address for such appeals. Mike Rodenbaugh:I don't see how a panel of IOs solves any of the problems we had with just one IO Robin Gross:I tend to agree, Mike, as I see the concept flawed. avri doria:and rember all the IO could so was file an objection. not make the determination. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Alan Jim Prendergast:agree with Alan on his points about kicking this to the Board Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Because it's not one person determining Global Public Interest - for example, it is a panel of 7 experts and they vote - 4 out of 7 means the Limited Public Interest Objection is filed. Mike Rodenbaugh:my biggest problem with IO was that, even if he decided not to object (after lengthy deliberations with one of my clients), or if he later lost his objection, that did not stop anyone else from objecting on the same basis (incl. governments). So it greatly increased costs to applicants, with no benefit to anyone Robin Gross:The IO process seems to be expanding the types of objections we initalially created by this "in the global public interest" test. That is dangerous. Greg Shatan:In 15 out of 17 cases, the IO's judgment about when a GPI filing was warranted were found to be wrong. If the IO was a baseball pitcher, he'd be cut from the team.... avri doria:(personal) Greg, that is a reason to find a better mechanism, not to eliminate pitchers. Jim Prendergast:what would be the soure of those funds? Jim Prendergast:would it be an application tax like we had for the ICANN legal defense fund? avri doria:(personal) Jim, it is part of the expense of processing applications justly. Robin Gross:Wouldn't a better solution be to build this concern into our own processes, rather than outsource "globlal public interest" to an outside body? "Independent" also means no responsibility or accountability on some level. Greg Shatan:My rates are very reasonable. Paul McGrady:@Anne - but those "real money" events happened to the 15 winners, brought on by a defective I.O. mechanism. Jim Prendergast:@avri - I dont disagree but in other WTs we have people arguing to cut the application feees as low as possible to spur demand but this seems like somehting that would add to the cost. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Paul - I agree. That is why we have to have "gates" that put a check on unlimited "Limited Public Interest" Objections Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Unfortunately I think the qualification for the fund would take forever. avri doria:(personal) the problem may also have been with the objection evaluation panels and the criteria they used and not in the IO Paul McGrady:What could possibly be confidential about the activities of a person who is paid to represent the public interest? avri doria:I agree with Paul on that, there should not be much secrecy needed. avri doria:i think it would be valuable Greg Shatan:Good idea. avri doria:but that is why i siggested it a few meetings back. Paul McGrady:Valusable so long as we all stay really nice. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Yes - always best to understand the challenges Greg Shatan:The site is still up. Mike Rodenbaugh:IO website: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobje… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobje…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=RNUDs8z6xPrQ69K6sbfIJzjZcV4Ei81LG19Qy7jDgLU&s=lfUbErHyCVeLE-5XYIW_uiFGB59cNHRuSRiYk17AZG0&e= Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):There may be a difference as to need for Limited Public Interest Objection as opposed to Community Objection. Greg Shatan:Looking at Alain Pellet's bio, he is certainly a distinguished jurist, with significant experience in international law, multiple cases before the ICJ, Chevalier of the Legion d'Honneur, etc. Greg Shatan:But whether this was the right experience is open to review.... Mike Rodenbaugh:if both parties agree to 3, then fine; but otherwise 1 must be the default else cost would be at least double for 3 Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Mike Karen Bernstein:+1 Mike Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Mike Robin Gross:me too avri doria:i am personally undeccided Jim Prendergast:I agree with Mike Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Robin Gross:Thanks Karen and all. Bye! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Karen! Greg Shatan:Bye

1 0

WT3 - Agenda & Materials for Tuesday, August 29th @ 15:00 UTC
by Karen Day Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

Dear All, In preparation for our next call, Tuesday, August 29, 2017 @ 15:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed agenda. 1.Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI 3. Plenary Update 4. Independent Objector – Unanswered Questions 5. CC2 – Objections – Q 3.1.7 – 3.1.11 (see attached) 6. AOB Hope you have all had a good weekend and I look forward to talking to you on Tuesday. Best, 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]

2 1

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Aug. 15, 2017

Aug. 15, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8ppftmix4t/<https://participate.icann.org/p8ppftmix4t/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=92ef84797cbc0a40…> 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/FgEhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 15 August 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Robin Gross:what is the beeping on the line? Julie Bisland:Emily's line, i've muted it Robin Gross:Thank you! Emily Barabas:sorry, my line dropped Julie Bisland:but seems she's having some AC issues Julie Bisland:I apologize for not getting it sooner. :( Robin Gross:No worries. Thanks. Phil Buckingham:Good explanation , Jon. Q Do you think going foward there should be some forewarning that an applicant will apply for CPE ( assuming of course there CPE for a Round 2 ! ) Jamie Baxter | dotgay:the current community objections do not have a component of mitigating harm, so unless that changes the community objection process serves a very important role Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):Sorry to be late - previous meeting in our office ran overtime Phil Buckingham:thanks Jon Emily Barabas:The full report is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobje… Robin Gross:The fourth ground is “A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law.” Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Staff - can you post the LPIO grounds in the chat so we see the 3 that IO recommends be rejected? Emily Barabas:The other three grounds: Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action;• Incitement to or promotion of discrimination based upon race, color, gender,ethnicity, religion or national origin, or other similar types of discrimination thatviolate generally accepted legal norms recognized under principles of internationallaw;• Incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children;or Emily Barabas:From the IO report: "I believe that the first three grounds should be removed from this list since I have notedthat it can mislead people who tend to think that these three grounds are the only reasonswhich could trigger a Limited Public Interest Objection. The fourth ground is very generaland includes in any case the three other grounds. Thus, for the sake of clarity, I am of theposition that only the fourth ground should be retained in a future version of theAGB. " Paul McGrady:Big dollars + low success rate = ???? Emily Barabas:see IO cases and outcomes on pages 27-29 Steve Chan:@Paul, we'll try to get a better understanding of the IO budget and how it was utilized Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I thought I crunched all these numbers in Copenhagen . . . Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Do we have any independent verification that the IO's claim that LPIO grounds 1-3 are, in fact, covered by #4? Paul McGrady:@Steve - thanks. PP. 27-29 only sets forth his very high loss rate, not how many dollars were spent on his many losses Emily Barabas:@Paul, correct. We'll see if we can get more information on the other half of the equation. Paul McGrady:+1 Jon - with such a high loss rate, we need to (at a minimum) change the elements. Jon Nevett:+1 Kristina on last two points Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):@Paul and Jon - we need to have a gatekeeper on LPIO other than just the IO him or herself. Paul McGrady:+1 Kristina. Susan Payne:completely agree Kristina, it shoud be a preliminary determination Jon Nevett:agree as well and I like the Kristina show! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes early identification of any COI. is essential Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jon: Thanks! Jim Prendergast:No harm in asking but I would agree - they wll run from anything that has potential liability. Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):+1 Paul Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):In case you're looking for some light reading, here's my May 2013 letter to ICANN on behalf of Patagonia regarding the IO's conflict of interest. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… Jon Nevett:and who could appeal? Paul McGrady:Would the appeal be limited to the final decision (merits) or also include initial decisions (e.g. standing, IO conflicts)? Phil Buckingham:and the time limits Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):After all the hours spent on Accountability, I can't even imagine that we'd consider depriving applicants of the opportunity to use those mechanisms for IO objections. (Specifically not addressing appeals.) Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):@Kristina - great letter - we need to learn from history on this issue of conflict of interest. This has got tobe FIXED! Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Thanks, Anne! Paul McGrady:Can we put this issue back at the top of our list for the next call. Worthy of more than 4 minutes. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Has the Board taken any action on the IO's report? Specifically referred it to GNSO? Something else? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):+1 Paul Jamie Baxter | dotgay:without an appeals mechanism it seems that the expectation was that every panel or hired evaluators would get every detail correct on first attempt. Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):The issues arose due to too much discretion in the hands of the IO. Structure revisions in decision-making can address these issues so that they don't become issues no matter who has the assignment as IO. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Thanks, all! Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Jon Nevett:Thanks!! Steve Chan:Another outreach mechanism could be to formualte a set of questions that were unanswered by his report Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye ðŸ‘‹ for now.. we are making progress on this... thanks everyone. Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you Robin, staff, and everyone. Phil Buckingham:Great call , Robin

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 15 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 15, 2017

Aug. 15, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 15 August. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The meeting recording and chat transcript are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/DBLfAw[community.icann.org]. The document referenced on the call is attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 15 August 2017 Actions: Independent Objector: 1. Staff will try to get a better understanding of the IO budget and how it was utilized. 2. Decide whether to invite the IO to a meeting. Notes: 1. Plenary Update: -- Full WG met on 07 August and discussed application submission method and predictability framework -- intersection with the framework this WG is working and the interplay with the implementation policy framework. These are topics relating to the drafting team on overarching topics. -- Work Track 5 Geographic Names at the Top Level: outreach to solicit leaders from the GAC, ALAC, ccNSO, and GNSO. Still in the process of gathering volunteers. Question: Is there a deadline by which names should be suggested? Response: Suggested nominees by 18 August, but no nominees received yet. -- Next meeting is 29 August. 2. Follow-up from last time: a. RySG comment on gaming and “two bites at the apple” - CPE & objections? -- Uncertainty concerning the RySG comment. Asked for someone from the RySG could join this call. -- The genesis of the comment was looking at the CPE and objection process. Some instances in the past round varied from the process. Two ways to knock out applicants. Didn't think that the same party would use both CPE and objection. Some examples where some used both processes, which provided inconsistent results. Comments suggests that if you are applicant go through CPE and if not an applicant go through the objection process -- don't use both processes. -- Question: It is unclear as to who has the right to do what if the applicant would have to choose one or the other. Are applicants required to respond to any objections that come in? Response: The thinking is that if you are a community applicant you go through the CPE track and you don't objection. If you aren't a community applicant then you are free to object. -- One thing that is important to go back to is the purpose of these processes. The purpose of the objection phase is to eliminate harm. It is important to note that that didn't always work out. Selecting CPE doesn't mean the community is going to achieve community status. Don't see how you can force the applicant to choose between the two. -- Also had comment that one of the problems with community is that it was an all or nothing endeavor. -- Question: Are the two elements/criteria the same? Response: No, they aren't. -- Question: Do you think going forward there should be some forewarning that an applicant will apply for CPE? Response: Yes, if after the deadline. b. Review of IO’s Final Activity Report of the Independent Objector: The full report is available here: https://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/home/final-activity-report/. The Summary Document is attached. -- On Limited Public Interest -- only the 4th ground should be retained. The fourth ground is “A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law.” -- Question: One of the specific LPIO was a human rights objection to an application. It may have been a subset of the 4th ground. Other 3 Grounds: 1) Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action; 2) Incitement to or promotion of discrimination based upon race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or national origin, or other similar types of discrimination that violate generally accepted legal norms recognized under principles of international law; 3) Incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children; or... >From the IO report: "I believe that the first three grounds should be removed from this list since I have noted that it can mislead people who tend to think that these three grounds are the only reasons which could trigger a Limited Public Interest Objection. The fourth ground is very general and includes in any case the three other grounds. Thus, for the sake of clarity, I am of the position that only the fourth ground should be retained in a future version of the AGB." -- See IO cases and outcomes on pages 27-29 (loss rate). -- Can we determine how much money was spent on the IO? Might need to be a gate keeper. -- Might want to look at .hospital. IO Recommendations (pages 54-56): #4: Giving IO discretionary power in deciding if an application is "highly objectionable"... -- Strongly object to the recommendation, but there should be clearer guidelines as to what does and doesn't constitute a highly objectionable application. #5: IO be explicitly granted access to other objections in "extraordinary circumstances" within a reasonable time. -- The IO took the position that it could be an extraordinary circumstance if another objection was filed against the same string on the same ground -- but object that the IO would have access to other objections or get additional time. #6: Include an Initial Notice Procedure: -- Regular applicants would seem to be left out of the process. -- If there is such a procedure there must be clearly designated criteria for the IO's determination. Don't leave it up to the IO's discretion. -- Example of how much discretion this IO thought he had. #7: How to handle conflicts of interest: -- Applicant would have to go through the whole process before the conflict of interest is delineated. Who decides there is a conflict of interest is very murky. Propose that in the event that an applicant thinks there is a conflict of interest if they could meet criteria that would be showing on its face. For the applicant raising a conflict of interest there should be some reimbursement of application fees up until that point. -- Seems like it is another gate keeping issue. It should be determined very early on. Not sure who determines whether there is a conflict of interest. Need a mechanism for that. -- Wouldn't there also be a possibility that the dispute resolution panel could weigh in on conflicts of interest? -- This is an area that is significantly broken. -- There could be an alternative that would work more like mediators or arbitrators with a group of individuals. #8: Appeals following a determination upon an IO's objection -- reconsideration process is not suitable. -- This is something we should spend time thinking about the possible appeals mechanism and who could appeal. -- The notion of appeals is not limited to the objection by the IO. -- Distinction: A lot of these recommendations from the IO are more broad/general than just related to the IO. -- Elements to the discussion: 1) principle of an IO; 2) rules, framework, implementation are correct; 3) execution of this IO (results for the money). Have the Work Track decide where they want to draw their attention. >From the chat: Emily Barabas: see IO cases and outcomes on pages 27-29 Steve Chan: @Paul, we'll try to get a better understanding of the IO budget and how it was utilized Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I thought I crunched all these numbers in Copenhagen . . . Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Do we have any independent verification that the IO's claim that LPIO grounds 1-3 are, in fact, covered by #4? Paul McGrady: @Steve - thanks. PP. 27-29 only sets forth his very high loss rate, not how many dollars were spent on his many losses Paul McGrady: +1 Jon - with such a high loss rate, we need to (at a minimum) change the elements. Jon Nevett: +1 Kristina on last two points Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC): @Paul and Jon - we need to have a gatekeeper on LPIO other than just the IO him or herself. Paul McGrady: +1 Kristina. Susan Payne: completely agree Kristina, it shoud be a preliminary determination Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes early identification of any COI. is essential Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): In case you're looking for some light reading, here's my May 2013 letter to ICANN on behalf of Patagonia regarding the IO's conflict of interest. https://www.icann.org/resources/correspondence/rosette-to-jeffrey-2013-05-1… Jon Nevett: and who could appeal? Paul McGrady: Would the appeal be limited to the final decision (merits) or also include initial decisions (e.g. standing, IO conflicts)? Phil Buckingham: and the time limits Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): After all the hours spent on Accountability, I can't even imagine that we'd consider depriving applicants of the opportunity to use those mechanisms for IO objections. (Specifically not addressing appeals.) Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC): @Kristina - great letter - we need to learn from history on this issue of conflict of interest. This has got tobe FIXED! Paul McGrady: Can we put this issue back at the top of our list for the next call. Worthy of more than 4 minutes. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Has the Board taken any action on the IO's report? Specifically referred it to GNSO? Something else? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): +1 Paul Jamie Baxter | dotgay: without an appeals mechanism it seems that the expectation was that every panel or hired evaluators would get every detail correct on first attempt. Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC): The issues arose due to too much discretion in the hands of the IO. Structure revisions in decision-making can address these issues so that they don't become issues no matter who has the assignment as IO.

1 0

August 15th 20:00 UTC Discussion Agenda: "Gaming", Independent Objector, and GAC Advice (Objections continued)
by Robin Gross Aug. 14, 2017

Aug. 14, 2017

Dear WT3 Members: Our next WT3 meeting is scheduled for Tuesday August 15th at 20:00 UTC (60 minutes). The meeting’s discussion agenda and specific CC2 questions on which we'll focus are below. Please review the attached Final Activity Report from the Independent Objector in advance of our call and initial responses to the CC2 questions in the attached “themes” document, which we’ll continue going through, starting with 3.1.8. Thank you. Best, Robin Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. Plenary Update 4. Follow-up from last time a. RySG comment on gaming and “two bites at the apple” - CPE & objections? b. Review of IO’s Final Activity Report of the Independent Objector (attached) 5. CC2 Response Reviews on “Objections" Continued - Questions 3.1.8 - 3.1.11 (see below) 6. AOB On agenda item 5, we will continue our review of the CC2 responses and in particular to the following questions: 3.1.8. - Is clearer guidance needed in regards to consolidation of objections? Please explain. 3.1.9 - Many community members have highlighted the high costs of objections. Do you believe that the costs of objections created a negative impact on their usage? If so, do you have suggestions for improving this issue? Are there issues beyond cost that might impact access, by various parties, to objections? 3.1.10 - Do you feel that GAC Early Warnings were helpful in identifying potential concerns with applications? Do you have suggestions on how to mitigate concerns identified in GAC Early Warnings? 3.1.11. - What improvements and clarifications should be made to GAC Advice procedures? What mitigation mechanisms are needed to respond to GAC Advice? How can timelines be made more precise?

1 0