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

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Wednesday, 20 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<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-wt2> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 20 December 2016 Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call onthe 20th December 2016 at 21:00 UTC Nathalie Peregrine:Meeting Page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Paul McGrady:Avri & Cheryl, I hope you enjoyed your 23 free minutes today. I did. :) avri doria:Paul did not know what to do with my time. Paul McGrady:Happy to walk through it. It is meant only to spark discussion - :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):paul Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):/Avri Karen Day:silence will be taken as agreement :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am baby sitting so I was kinda occupied ;-) Gg Levine (NABP):"Universally" seems unrealistic as an alternative to "generally." Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx Alan Kiran Malancharuvil:Robin, can you explain more about why ALAC would have standing? and why icann said no? Karen Day:+1 Gg - i Karen Day:universal isn't realistic so is there anything better than generally? Gg Levine (NABP):Sorry, I don't have a better suggestion than generally. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):access to funding for an objection Karen Day:Gg - Me either so absent anyone coming up with one, looks to me like "generally" is what we'll need to stick with. Greg Shatan:Maybe the intent was to allow ALAC to object only where they had standing. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Good points from Alan here. ALAC is representing the users, even if it is difficult to prove. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that was the rationale for being funded to object Yes Annabeth Karen Day:Jeff posted an opinion to the list, perhaps he can speak to it when he joins the call. Paul McGrady 2:Apologies if this has already been asked, but were there times when ALAC filed an objection on a string that the I.O. didn't object to? Kiran Malancharuvil:I'm okay with standing for alac if the objection process requires alac to justify why this is on behalf of users avri doria:lots of things may not have appeared clear to the panelists all along the way. avri doria:by default however, it will stand as it is. Greg Shatan:Did ALAC analyze the standing issue before filing the objections? Or was it just assumed that there would be standing? Alan Greenberg:disconnected Greg Shatan:Maybe we need a Co-Dependent Objector.... Alan Greenberg:Can I please have a dialout to +1 514 487 9001 Karen Day:@Greg - we're looking at doing deeper research in the objections themselves and if we get it lined up we will definately add this question as one to include. Paul McGrady 2:@Avri- thanks. Good things to think about. Kiran Malancharuvil:how would you ever solve for that? Kiran Malancharuvil:sorry, not on audio Paul McGrady 2:Isn't the WHO an end user? Can't an end user ask the ALAC for help? I guess I don't see the gaming. Kiran Malancharuvil:agree avri doria:i think the notion of gaming and esepcially accusations of gaming are pernitious and should be avoided as much as possible. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree avri doria:judging the intentionality of others is really hard. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:@Avri - agree Greg Shatan:WHO is an IGO and thus aligned more with the GAC, but I suppose we could also call them an end-user. Alan Greenberg:Note that Jeff made it clear he was taking off his chair hat and speaking with relation to one of the applicants. (If I remember correctly). Alan Greenberg:We did not class WHO as an end user, but as a group that alerted us to an end-user issue. Kurt Pritz:(1) I found 23 Limited Public Interest Objections - all seem bona fide except of course, we cannot tell with the Independent Objector or ALAC; (2) Everyone has standing to file a Limited Public Interest Objection, ALAC file one and withdrew it (although I do not know why) so why was ALAC denied standing? Kiran Malancharuvil 2:I honestly don't understand how we can call anything gaming. This is an open process. Organizations have every right to engage in the process Kiran Malancharuvil 2:I think there's a tendency at ICANN to devalue certain voices (corporations, organizations, etc.) and I think that's dangerous. Multi-stakeholder is multi-stakeholder Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:For me, gaming is something very different from what we are talking about now. I must be allowed to make a stakeholdergroup aware of a problem. Paul McGrady 2:@Annebeth - agree. "Gaming" is something sinister. End Users making ALAC aware of a concern is not. Phil Buckingham:+1 Annabeth. Steve Chan:The resources that Robin has and will be referencing are available on the WIki here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Kurt Pritz:Are there any decisions where we thought the panel incorrectly found for the applicant? Kurt Pritz:evidently not working Nathalie Peregrine:@ Kurt, I can dial out to you if you prefer Kurt Pritz:i'll try later Paul McGrady 2:Bad faith can only be inferred from the facts - unless a party admits to it - so we need more inference points. avri doria:i think trying to decide that a decsion of a panel was right or wrong is tough since there are two sides, at least, to each of the cases. we can mre look for places where different panels seemed to decide similar cases in a contradictory manner. Kurt Pirtz:Abuse or infringement is generally demonstrated through use and there is no "use" at the application stage. (As Paul said.) But we should take care not to make a process that is more easily winnable just to balance out the results. There should be real infringement before an application is defined. Paul McGrady 2:I think abuse can be shown without use as can dilution; infringement is based on use though. Kurt Pirtz:Has the delegation of .coach or .express resulted in abuse? Paul McGrady 2:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__purses.coach_&d=DgIFa… leads to PPC ads, so yes. Paul McGrady 2:@Robin, we should be careful with throwing around terms like "generic." Kurt Pirtz:Then the RPM can be used with that specific example for purse.coach but all legitimate uses of a .coach name should not be barred Nathaniel Edwards:Yes, but because a trademark is a dictionary term does not mean that it is not an arbitrary or fanciful trademark entitled to broad protection. GOOGLE had a dictionary meaning before it was a trademark. Greg Shatan:wallets.coach and handbags.coach do the same. Feh. Paul McGrady 2:Dictionary entry does not = generic. Rubens Kuhl:Google did not. Googol did. Alan Greenberg:Rubens is right. Paul McGrady 2:I am happy to walk through my strawman now Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:A trademark can be degenerated, and a generic name can be a trademark, so we must be careful here Rubens Kuhl:What a Googol is: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_… Alan Greenberg:10 ^ 100 Alan Greenberg:Invented by mathematician Edward Kasner's newpgew as a name for a REALLY big number. Alan Greenberg:Have to leave now. Good meeting. Greg Shatan:Looks like all of those (bags.coach, too) are owned by Coach. Apparently registered defensively. Coincidence or business plan? avri doria:Again, indicating intentions is risky. Greg Shatan:After 7 or 8 tries (no football.coach, basketball, baseball, college, etc.) I foudna legitimate use of coach! https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.fitness.coach_&d=D… Greg Shatan:Googol is not Google. But under a trademark infringement analysis, would probably be barred if used on related goods or services. Robin Gross:We are over time, so need to close up now, folks. Greg Shatan:A trademark by definition is not a generic name. And I've never heard the term "degenerated" applied to a trademark; perhaps something's been lost in translation. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):great work Paul good food for thought... I am sorry but I have to leave now for my NEXT ICANN call... Seasons Greetings to you all... Bye for now Greg Shatan:Time for the orchestra to start playing.... Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Very good work, Paul Paul McGrady 2:Sorry for going over all! Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Happy holidays everyone. Karen Day:Thanks everyone for your contributions today! Happy Holidays! Greg Shatan:Happy Holidays! Rubens Kuhl:Happy Holidays!

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Recording,_AC_Chat_&_A ttendance_from_New_gTLD_Subsequent_Procedures_Sub_Team_ _Track_3__String_Contention,_Objections_&_Disp utes_on_Tuesday,_13_December_2016_at_20:00_UTC
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

2 1

Agenda for WT3 Discussion on 20 December 20:00 UTC
by Robin Gross Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

Dear All, Below please find the proposed agenda for our next WT3 meeting which will take place tomorrow, 20 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC. 1. Welcome / Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Update from Full WG - Avri 4. Recap and positioning on Limited Public Interest Objections a. Content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and 3.5.3 b. Needs with regard to future implementation c. ALAC lack of standing d. Does the process invite lobbying from 3rd parties? 5. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3; See Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.4.3+Objections <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.4.3+Objections> a. Review of Objections Statistics with links to results for LRO cases. b. Review of WIPO Final Report on LRO c. Review of INTA Report – The ICANN LRO: Statistics and Takeaways 6. Community Objections - Recommendation 20 a. Process fair to both communities and applicants? b. Process invite gaming of applications? 7. AOB 8. Confirmation of Date/Time of next meeting Thanks, Robin

4 3

Application or String Objection
by Rubens Kuhl Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

Hi. Before our call today, I would like to introduce both a problem statement and a possible solution. Problem: Applicants are not bound to follow the business and operational model described in the application. Possible objectors might use the application to decide whether to object or not, but at a later time what ends up happening might generate concerns that previously known would trigger an objection. Same happens for applicant itself: applicant A might not generate concerns, but later registry A can transition the TLD to registry X that is a cause of concern. Possible solution: Except for LRO, all objections (LPI, Community, String Confusion) would be on the string, not on the application. So if a string can trigger concern depending on how it's handled, that can be addressed by getting PICs as the result of winning the objection. Full extinction of all applications could still be an ask, but that would require a much higher threshold to be granted as remedy. Added benefits: If a string is heavily disputed, that would make less costly for objectors, that would pay 1 fee instead of multiple, and for defendants, that will share the panel/admin fee among all applicants. The objection result could be persistent for further procedures, saving communities from repeatedly defending themselves This would greatly diminish the interest in gaming the process from other applicants to the same string, although the possibility for gaming from applicants to different string addressing the same markets could still occur. Rubens

1 0

Subsequent Procedures WT3 (Objections) Action Items
by Karen Day Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

Dear All, As we discussed during our last call we are going to make concerted effort to conduct some of our business via the list to try to avoid having to either lengthen or make more frequent our calls. To that end, here are this week's list of items that we need your feedback on - hopefully prior to our next scheduled call on 20DEC16. 1. Recap and positioning on Limited Public Interest Objections: Is the content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and 3.5.3 adequate as written or does the language need adjusting for clarification or correction? One issue that was raised on the call was that although the ALAC was given funding by ICANN to submit LPI objections they were denied standing in the case they did file. Does this ambiguity need to be eliminated by granting the ALAC standing or otherwise? A second issue that was raised was with regard to the use of the term "generally" in the definition (3.2.1) of LPI Objections. " The applied for gTLD string is contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognized under principals of international law." Can this be better written to define what is generally accepted without going so far as to require a principal to be "universally" accepted? If you feel that the language of these or other LPI related sections (other than those relating to fees or the IO which we will tackle later) needs clarification please specify for the groups consideration which section needs changing and make a proposal of how you feel it should be changed. Again, silence will be taken that you ascribe to the 'Neuman Rule' that the language isn't broken so we don't need to fix it. 2. Legal Rights Objections - AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G - Recommendation 3; See Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.4.3+Objections Please review the following three documents (all found on the WT3 wiki page linked above to prepare for our discussions on this topic: Objections Statistics with links to results for LRO cases. WIPO Final Report on LRO INTA Report - The ICANN LRO: Statistics and Takeaways As several of you were heavily involved in LROs from the 2012 round, it would be appreciated if you could share your experiences and suggestions for changes with the group via the list. We look forward to hearing from you all soon. Best regards, Karen & Robin

3 3

Community Objection
by Rubens Kuhl Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Although Community Objections is not yet in WT3 schedule although part of the WT3 roadmap, I would like to record a suggestion I made during the Full WG F2F meeting in Hyderabad so when time comes, if I don't have availability to discuss it, the idea is still out there. In the 2012-round, the possible gain to affected communities was to make that application not move forward. This has shown some issues: - Communities, or the IO on their behalf, needed to file against all applicants for that string - Some applicants tried, and sometimes succeeded, leveraging this type of objection against competitors either in the contention set or in the market. - Even for the communities that prevailed, they will need to refile over and over again in subsequent procedures So, the idea that came about was for such objections to have a different winning proposition: PICs. So if the community of Animal rights activists filled an objection on .animal, they would need to say what commitments they want from registries for .animal to have. The panel would evaluate their standing, their cause of action and the PICs they want, deciding if none, some or all of their asks are applicable. If they win, such PICs will become mandatory PICs for such TLD, no matter which applicant wins the contention set. They would also be persistent in that such PICs would still apply after registry transitions, or to new procedures if that contract ends with no transition. Another possible use case would be a professional association from a country while applicant is a professional association from other country. Let's say Card Dealers of America applied to .carddealers ; French association of Card Dealers could file a community objection to have a PIC saying that .carddealers registry can't restrict registration based on being from the US, since there are card dealers in all countries that gambling is allowed. This could have a positive effect in removing this objection type from contention set battles and actually upholding communities best interests regarding usage of a TLD they care for. Rubens

2 1

Community Priority
by Rubens Kuhl Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Although Community Priority is not yet in WT3 schedule although part of the WT3 roadmap, I would like to record a suggestion I made during the Full WG F2F meeting in Hyderabad so when time comes, if I don't have availability to discuss it, the idea is still out there. In the 2012-round, prevailing in CPE achieved killing all other non-CPE members of a contention set. This had some issues: - Brand Applications that tried including Community status as an additional protection against squatting if an LRO fails - Construed, or perceived as such, communities to win highly desirable TLDs - Never ending disputes on criteria, fairness, processes (although some of it might be due to poor execution) So, the idea that came about was for such priority to have a different winning proposition: auction multiplier. So prevailing in Restricted Priority Evaluation would allow an application that is suggesting limiting its market in a way to make it more relevant for both registrants and end-users to not have an unbalanced competition in auction against an application that is suggesting a mass scale operation. Note that restriction relevance would be a factor, so if someone suggests restricting .company to Fortune 500 companies that wouldn't get a multiplier bonus since it would not benefit all companies. That auction multiplier would have a ceiling (5, perhaps ?) and would be based on the ratio between estimated target audience versus unrestricted audience. One difference, though, is that it would not only apply to Community applications (if such type keeps existing in the process); Geographical restrictions would also carry value considering strings that are not mandated to get specific governmental clearances (like country regions). If the restriction brings, at the same time, relevance and market potential reduction, then it could try getting such a multiplier. Of course such multiplier would only apply to ICANN-auction, but it's likely that private auctions would follow the ICANN model for an specific contention set, although not guaranteed. Rubens

1 0

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/45vDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 December 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Jeff Neuman:Thanks! I am on mute now until call starts Jeff Neuman:yes Greg Shatan:I am not walking through Grand Central Terminal, so that Greg Shatan:is an improvement for me.... Gg Levine (NABP):I think we could get more milage out 90 minute calls than weekly calls. Jeff Neuman:Just to emphasize the Council of Europe Report, this was brought up again at the IGF session briefly Jeff Neuman:I believe the GAC is discussing this report and may likely base some advice on that report Robin Gross:nothing to add. thanks Jeff Neuman:same Kurt Pritz:Is a link to the Council of Europe Report readily available? Steve Chan 2:@Kurt, available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Emily Barabas 2:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rm.coe.int_CoERMPubl… Emily Barabas 2:(sorry steve, i was one step behind you) Kurt Pritz:thanks, and, thanks Steve Chan 2:Sorry all, wasn't getting chat in the AC room and had to relaunch. Emily Barabas 2:correct, karen Jeff Neuman:My bad....same time next week :) Its the last calls this week for WT 1 and 2 :) Jon Nevett:Alan, to which ones did ALAC object? Jeff Neuman:There was only one of them Jeff Neuman:.health Kurt Pritz:@ Alan: I think the distinction is that the Independent Objector was automatically granred standing; the ALAC was funded but also had to qualify as having standing as an injured party Jeff Neuman:ok..then I am in favor of abolishing that right. Alan Greenberg:Clearly! Jeff Neuman:The ALAC should have no different objection rights than any other AC (other than the GAC) or SO Alan Greenberg:We had the same rights. Only the funding was different. Alan Greenberg:But in any case, I was simply raising the issue to be discussed. Alan Greenberg:@Kirk, yes that is correct. Alan Greenberg:Oops - bad fingers - Kurt. Jeff Neuman:sorry, can you repeat that point Jeff Neuman:yes Kurt Pritz:Not sure how to introduce this: It was cleared to me that the objection process was used (gamed) by some applicants to delay other applications. It was thought that the loser pays mechanism would prevent much of this gaming but it turned out not to be so. Mike Rodenbaugh:Fees can be dealt with on omnibus basis. Seems no reason why they would be structured differently depending on objection type. Jeff Neuman:Yes, deal with at the end with some general principals applicable to all Jeff Neuman:principles Jeff Neuman:sorry Rubens Kuhl:Kurt, I believe that was a mixture of doing by purpose and doing by not caring whether someone will be impacted, just for the small chance of prevailing. Jon Nevett:Agree with Kurt and Rubens Kurt Pritz:If we agree there was gaming and that there was harm that game from it (I am not sure it is true) then we should try to address gaming, not just but pricing, but by other means. Kurt Pritz:@Jeff having a "right" to object does not mean it is a legitimate use of the process Rubens Kuhl:The dog agrees that we had gaming. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Sorry that I am late - I was delayed in another call Jeff Neuman:: Kurt Pritz:The penalty for losing (say 30,000) is so small compared to the value of the TLD ($x million) that it is a small gamble to file an objection Jeff Neuman:Neuman Rule #2 Rubens Kuhl:Perhaps such penalties belong with competition authorities and courts ? Jeff Neuman:I agree with Paul.....I am not a believer that we have proven it is broken Paul McGrady:+1 - agree that we should ask for factual evidence before fixing it Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes good for CC2 Rubens Kuhl:LRO standing for IGOs/INGOs is something peculiar. Rubens Kuhl:But removing it might cause issues with GAC of where they would go. Rubens Kuhl:It was not used, although could have been used by ECO. Paul McGrady:Just to confirm @Rubens. This is a hot topic right now in GNSOland. Rubens Kuhl:ECO later sent a letter to ICANN questioning that application, but that was too late and out of process. Mike Rodenbaugh:adobe connect is not working for my audio... Mike Rodenbaugh:apparently still no audio. ugh Mike Rodenbaugh:don't worry about it. I'll take it to the email list because it is detailed. Involves my client .GCC. Rubens Kuhl:We can just acknowledge that as an useful quirk and keep it on. It's weird but not too weird. Greg Shatan:That would be helpful. Rubens Kuhl:I have an issue with SCO standing, but we are talking LROs. Just to put a marker down. Kurt Pritz:The legal rights objection was lightly, if at all, used. It is cheap insurance for the gTLD program. I think we should leave it as is. Paul McGrady:+1 Kurt. I see no reason to wade into the mess if we don't have to. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agreed Jeff Rubens Kuhl:"If ain't broke, don't fix it" Mike Rodenbaugh:The LRO was used in several instances, which bear reviewing and considering whether changes are appropriate. Mike Rodenbaugh:.Merck. .DelMonte. .GCC Rubens Kuhl:Merck is Kramer x Kramer, corporate world version. No happy ending possible. Kurt Pritz:@ Mike - those were the legitimate uses of the process and it worked fairly well Paul McGrady:@Mike, were the examples you gave related to standing? or just the LRO generally? Mike Rodenbaugh:LRO generally. Though GCC has a standing issue. Mike Rodenbaugh:Specifically, GCC was not on the WIPO trademark list until after the applications were revealed. Kurt Pritz:Side issue: initial evidence of gaming: Just checking: out of about 275 objections, the objector prevailed about 30 times, about 11%. In an evenly constructed process, I wiould think objectors would prevail 50% or more of the time. In loser pays, I would think objectors would prevail much greater than 50% of the time. Emily Barabas 2:Objections section of the wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Rubens Kuhl:It could be close to UDRP prevail rates, I believe. Mike Rodenbaugh:GCC did not work well at all. In fact the Board stopped the LRO from being heard, even though it was fully briefed by the parties. Because of intervening GAC Advice. Jeff Neuman:Paul has just volunteered to submit his comments to the list :) Paul McGrady:@Jeff - you bet I did. Jeff Neuman:Does Paul want to form a little subgroup to work on that? Paul McGrady:I was +1'ing Kurt only on the standing issue Paul McGrady:@Kurt, I think it just didn't get the attention it needed at the time. Wasn't meant to be critical of the hard work of the staff at the time. I think we can improve it. Paul McGrady:Attention from the community (not staff) Alan Greenberg:Dead air! Paul McGrady:I can't heart anything. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):audio Paul McGrady:hear Jeff Neuman:This is a tough objection, because we do not really ask registries what they are going to do with the TLD and hold them to that. If we did, a legal rights objection may be easier because you can judge it based on the proposed use Paul McGrady:happy to Jeff Neuman:But that would raise a whole other set of issues in enforcement and how to change your purpose of your TLD, etc. Jeff Neuman:Great discussion on the call! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks. Bye for now

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 13 December
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 December. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 December 1. Frequency or Duration of Future WT3 meetings -- Keep calls every other week for 60 minutes? -- Not sure if we need an increase in frequency, but focus on doing more on the mailing list. -- Continue to plug on and see how we go. Too much on at the moment with other calls. Agreed: Keep to the current every other week schedule of 60-minute calls, but focus on getting work done on the list. 2. Recap & Reminders of Hyderabad Discussions a. Council of Europe Report on Community -Based gTLD Applications: https://community.icann.org/x/Wz2AAw and https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?docum… -- Brought up again at the IGF and the GAC is discussing it b. Role of Independent Objector -- session moderated by Robin Gross -- Community is calling for a major overhaul of that role 3. Update from Full WG since Hyderabad – Jeff Neuman -- Goal for the full WG is to finalize the response to community comment 1. Try to come up with community comment 2 -- more specific questions in each of the work track areas. Focus on early next year. 4. Recap and positioning on Limited Public Interest Objections Content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and 3.5.3 -- agreement with the existing language? -- Keep it on the list for additional comments. Do another review of the decisions. -- Send it back out to the list for comments. -- At-Large and ALAC funded by ICANN to submit Limited Public Interest Objections. Rejected because they didn't have standing. Could require clarification. -- Language of "generally" versus "universally" -- resistence to objection. Something strong than "generally", but not as strong as "universally". -- The only ALAC objection was to .health. Lobbying by groups who did not want to file their own objections. -- Disagree about manipulation. -- Do we want feedback on a per-objection basis, or on all of them? Tailor some CC2 questions towards those that did face objections. -- Costs associated with filing objections -- deal with as a whole or by type? Better dealt with at the end than with each objection. Deal with at the end with some general principals applicable to all -- Should find factual basis for gaming. Add for CC2 questions. -- Circulate to the list the questions address today and ask if there are language tweaks. >From the chat: Kurt Pritz: @ Alan: I think the distinction is that the Independent Objector was automatically granred standing; the ALAC was funded but also had to qualify as having standing as an injured party Jeff Neuman: ok..then I am in favor of abolishing that right. Alan Greenberg: Clearly! Jeff Neuman: The ALAC should have no different objection rights than any other AC (other than the GAC) or SO Alan Greenberg: We had the same rights. Only the funding was different. Alan Greenberg: But in any case, I was simply raising the issue to be discussed. Alan Greenberg: @Kurt, yes that is correct. Kurt Pritz: Not sure how to introduce this: It was cleared to me that the objection process was used (gamed) by some applicants to delay other applications. It was thought that the loser pays mechanism would prevent much of this gaming but it turned out not to be so. Side issue: initial evidence of gaming: Just checking: out of about 275 objections, the objector prevailed about 30 times, about 11%. In an evenly constructed process, I would think objectors would prevail 50% or more of the time. In loser pays, I would think objectors would prevail much greater than 50% of the time. Mike Rodenbaugh: Fees can be dealt with on omnibus basis. Seems no reason why they would be structured differently depending on objection type. Jeff Neuman: Yes, deal with at the end with some general principles applicable to all 5. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3; See Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.4.3+Objections -- Re: standing -- is what was used in the past still relevant for future rounds? -- Not sure there is an issue with standing rules. -- Look into this more before the next call. -- Request for Paul McGrady to lead the discussion on the list on what to aim for. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: LRO standing for IGOs/INGOs is something peculiar. But removing it might cause issues with GAC of where they would go. It was not used, although could have been used by ECO. Paul McGrady: Just to confirm @Rubens. This is a hot topic right now in GNSOland. Rubens Kuhl: ECO later sent a letter to ICANN questioning that application, but that was too late and out of process. We can just acknowledge that as an useful quirk and keep it on. It's weird but not too weird. Greg Shatan: That would be helpful. Rubens Kuhl: I have an issue with SCO standing, but we are talking LROs. Just to put a marker down. Kurt Pritz: The legal rights objection was lightly, if at all, used. It is cheap insurance for the gTLD program. I think we should leave it as is. Paul McGrady: +1 Kurt. I see no reason to wade into the mess if we don't have to. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agreed Jeff Rubens Kuhl: "If ain't broke, don't fix it" Mike Rodenbaugh: The LRO was used in several instances, which bear reviewing and considering whether changes are appropriate. .Merck. .DelMonte. .GCC Rubens Kuhl: Merck is Kramer x Kramer, corporate world version. No happy ending possible. Kurt Pritz: @ Mike - those were the legitimate uses of the process and it worked fairly well Paul McGrady: @Mike, were the examples you gave related to standing? or just the LRO generally? Mike Rodenbaugh: LRO generally. Though GCC has a standing issue. Specifically, GCC was not on the WIPO trademark list until after the applications were revealed. Rubens Kuhl: It could be close to UDRP prevail rates, I believe. Mike Rodenbaugh: GCC did not work well at all. In fact the Board stopped the LRO from being heard, even though it was fully briefed by the parties. Because of intervening GAC Advice.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] SubPro WT 3 Meeting Agenda - 13DEC16 @ 1500 UTC
by Karen Day Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 2016

Hey everyone! I just realized I didn’t change the time in my subject line, but your meeting invitation which the secretariat sent should be for the 20:00 hour. Sorry for the confusion!!! Karen ______________________________________________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 3:42 PM To: Karen Day <Karen.Day(a)sas.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] SubPro WT 3 Meeting Agenda - 13DEC16 @ 1500 UTC I cannot make the call as I take my daughter to school at that hour. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Karen Day <Karen.Day(a)sas.com<mailto:Karen.Day@sas.com>> wrote: Hi Everyone, Just a quick reminder that since we had to cancel last week's call due to lack of participation, we will be sticking with the previously proposed agenda tomorrow. See Below. If you know you cannot make the call, please let us know ahead of time. Thanks! Karen _______________________________________________________________ Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016<tel:%2B%201%20919-531-6016> ▪ gTLDinfo(a)sas.com<mailto:gTLDinfo@sas.com> 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas<http://www.nic.sas>; www.nic.jmp<http://www.nic.jmp>; www.nic.analytics<http://www.nic.analytics> -----Original Message----- From: Karen Day Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 6:16 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Subject: SubPro WT 3 Meeting Agenda - 06DEC16 @ 1500 UTC Dear All, Below please find the proposed agenda for our next WT3 meeting which will take place on 6 December 2016 at 15:00 UTC. 1. Welcome / Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Frequency or Duration of Future WT3 meetings 4. Recap & Reminders of Hyderabad Discussions a. Council of Europe Report on Community -Based gTLD Applications b. Role of Independent Objector 5. Update from Full WG since Hyderabad - Jeff 6. Recap and positioning on Limited Public Interest Objections a. Content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and 3.5.3 b. Needs with regard to future implementation 7. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3 8. AOB 9. Confirmation of Date/Time of next meeting. I'd like to draw your attention to item 3. I'm attaching a copy of our previously developed work schedule. As you can see we're not likely to make our first target date of mid-Dec for finishing our review of objections. What I'd very much like you to think about over the next few days is whether or not we need to adjust our meeting frequency, our meeting duration (60 to 90) or otherwise adjust our schedule to so that we can at least try to stay as on schedule as possible. If you see that we've allotted too much time for future subjects that you feel will be more quickly dealt with so that we should just shift some dates, let us know that too. If you won't be on the call on Tuesday (I know some of you will be at IGF), please provide some feedback on the list when you can. If anyone has any comments/additions or concerns regarding the agenda itself, please let me know. Look forward to speaking with you all on Tuesday. Best, Karen _______________________________________________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ gTLDinfo(a)sas.com<mailto:gTLDinfo@sas.com> 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas<http://www.nic.sas>; www.nic.jmp<http://www.nic.jmp>; www.nic.analytics<http://www.nic.analytics> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3

1 0

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

Dec. 12, 2016

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

1 0

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

Dec. 3, 2016

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

1 0

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

Oct. 27, 2016

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

4 4

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

Oct. 25, 2016

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

2 1

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

Oct. 24, 2016

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

1 0

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

Oct. 11, 2016

**Apologies for the technical issues on today’s call, we are investigating the cause. Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. **Due to the technical difficulties on today’s call, please find the Adobe Connect recording URL:: https://participate.icann.org/p7bq4x972g7/<https://participate.icann.org/p7bq4x972g7/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=fb21aab66502774a…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 11 October 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Karen Day:I'm trying to get it to call me... Jeff Neuman:Agenda looks good Emily Barabas 2:yes Mary Wong:Thursday 13 October, 1200 UTC (Council call) Jeff Neuman:Thanks Steve. Steve Chan:I will double-check before sending. Emily Barabas 2:Everyone can zoom and scroll as needed to view the document Jeff Neuman:I was involved in the response to the objections against Hot health Jeff Neuman:Dot health Terri Agnew:@Jeff your audio cut out Terri Agnew:@Jeff, we are no longer hearing you, please let me know if assistance is needed for a dial out Terri Agnew:@Jeff, audio is back Kevin M Kreuser (Go Daddy):I never lost him Kevin M Kreuser (Go Daddy)::) Karen Day:lost you again :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):gone again Jeff Neuman:I will call in] Roger Carney:I can still hear Jeff Julie Hedlund:I am getting an error -- says reconnecting to the audio bridge. I think the audio bridge is cutting in and out. Isabel Rutherfurd:Same here Terri Agnew:I am contacting tech support for assitance Julie Hedlund:Okay, now it says audio bridge connected (again). Karen Day:Sorry guy, I just got dropped. Will dial back asap Phil Buckingham:karen , i can get you feedback from IG Group re .broker for next call . Mary Wong:I think I just heard an odd conversation between two people unconnected with this call! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Just dropped the dial out to me :-( Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Ohhh dear Greg Shatan:Just got kicked off the phone. Emily Barabas 2:same Julie Hedlund:Got kicked off the phone bridge. Phil Buckingham:shall we all recoonect into adobe Terri Agnew:trying to reconnect Greg Shatan:Everyone will hear music until the host joins the meeting.... Greg Shatan:I only got 3 chords. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):sane back on bridge Greg Shatan:and one was an upstrum. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ear yoou Karen Terri Agnew:telephone connection dropped again, rejoining Greg Shatan:Gone again Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bumped off again trying gain Jeff Neuman:I guess no one wants to hear my story :( Julie Hedlund:Joining the call again. Greg Shatan:Dropped right after 'crazy accusation" A cliff-hanger!! avri doria:these new servers seem to be problematic. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):back I think Terri Agnew:reconnected audio, please join again Karen Day:I'm in an endless loop of "please press 1" Jeff Neuman:Perhaps I will just write it out :) Julie Hedlund:Gee Jeff, was it something you said ;-) Jeff Neuman:probably Steve Chan:@Karen, when that's happened to me, I cancel the request and try again. It's resolved for me in the past. Greg Shatan:This is running on a massively parallel network of Samsung Note 7s and Blackberries, powered by a Yugo. Terri Agnew:Please rejoin, we are connected back Isabel Rutherfurd:Karen is coming in and out for me Crescent Ezekwu:Same here Mary Wong:Seems to be a problem with AC audio only. Terri Agnew:@Isabel, can you join on the telephone? Please let me know if directions are needed how the AC can dial out to you Mary Wong:I'm getting crossed lines again with a different conversation - sounds like an online training module. Isabel Rutherfurd:Thanks, I am dialed in now and hear fine avri doria:but at least i could hear that clearly. everything else was breaking up here in s=South Africa. Terri Agnew:Apologies everyone for the technical difficulties today. We are looking into the cause Terri Agnew:@Mary, I have reported this as well Kevin M Kreuser (Go Daddy):I'm not getting consistent sound. Dropping off. Emily Barabas:yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):fair way forward Jeff Steve Chan:Here are the grounds for LPI in section 3.5.3 of the AGB: Steve Chan:• Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action; Steve Chan:• Incitement to or promotion of discrimination based upon race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or national origin, or other similar types of discrimination that violate generally accepted legal norms recognized under principles of international law; Julie Hedlund:Greg Shatan has his hand up. Steve Chan:• Incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children; or Steve Chan:• A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):human nature it seem Greg Jeff Neuman:got disconnected again Terri Agnew:dropped, connecting again Greg Shatan:I am pressing 1 dammit! Julie Hedlund:Yep, dropped again -- back. Terri Agnew:rejoined Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):dropped agin retrying Greg Shatan:Back Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):back **SIGH** Steve Chan:The call seems to drop every time Jeff speaks :) Karen Day:+1 Steve :) Jeff Neuman:I thikn the problem was the vague reference to "International Law" that was the problem Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):worth discussing KKaren Jeff Neuman:A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law. Steve Chan:AGB Module 3: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Jeff Neuman:In the objection to dot health, they did reference a vague notion of a violation of International law....but obviously it was too far fetched and they lost Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Perhaps a better checklist is essential to o with an objection? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):go Mary Wong:I believe that list of treaties was added as a result of the work of the Rec 6 Working Group on this objection proces, and I think it may be a non-exhaustive list. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Kurt Pritz:Looking down this list, I see only one where the objector prevailed: (ie., kept the string out) .hospital. Is that correct? Jeff Neuman:@kurt - yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I believe we could still work with a nn exhaustive list though Jeff Neuman:If I remember correctly, the objection costs around $250,000 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):None exahstive list Kurt Pritz:I am tempted to say we should consider not having this type of objection, but there are valid, but remote, reasons for having it. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):recognise that an 'other' choice from such a list has greater risk/ scruteny Mary Wong:There's a difference between the principle/basis for filing an objection and what is actually required to be proven in every case. Isabel Rutherfurd:I think it makes sense to put together as there seem to be overlapping issues Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I prefer as a Unique entity for the IO Jeff Neuman:Should address after we do commnity Jeff Neuman:right Isabel Rutherfurd:I don't mind discussing separately, there just may be some overlap Mary Wong:For instance, it's not possible to really state, exhaustively, what the applicable principles of public international law are. However, it MAY be possible to specify that an objector must state the actual principle (treaty, customary law, cases) that they are invoking with some specificity and documentation. Jeff Neuman:We should take thenotes from today and apply it towards the IO discussion Steve Chan:I believe IO was limited to filing on only two grounds - may make sense to consider community first, as Jeff suggested. Terri Agnew:The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 25 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Tough call with the Tech issues but we hve progressed THANKS Karen and all... Talk agin soon... Bye for now Jeff Neuman:Thanks Karen!!! Terri Agnew:Thank you everyone for your patience today Julie Hedlund:Thanks all for hanging in there!

1 0

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

Oct. 11, 2016

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

1 0

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

Oct. 5, 2016

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

1 0

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

Sept. 27, 2016

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

1 0

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

Sept. 27, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 27 September 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held onTuesday, 27 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Terri Agnew: wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/vBWsAw Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): The certificate issue was what I noted as well Terri Agnew: thanks Cheryl Jeff Neuman: There are some phone numbers on the Participant list. It would help our reccords if you cuold state which phone numbers are yours :) Terri Agnew: Please send me a private chat and I can also adjust the name on line regarding phone numbers. Julie Hedlund: @All: The document that is up is unsynced so you can move it yourself. Phil Buckingham: Hi i 'm in . No problems this end Jeff Neuman: I think this order makes sense Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Fine with the order Phil Buckingham: no there is a problem getting into adobe Phil Buckingham: think we / you need to look at overlaps with other work tracks and running topics/ issues in parallel Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense to me Avri Phil Buckingham: that was our WT2 question . We are shooting / plannning on that date Phil Buckingham: yep that would make sense to us Steve Chan 2: Sunday Jeff Neuman: I prefer having specific questions to send out Phil Buckingham: tricky one . would be inclined to wait and accumulate questions Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes WT 4 also needs to ask AC/SO CT's input as well ... Best to coordinate Jeff Neuman: But lets document any questions as we go along Steve Chan 2: I think it might be problematic if the request for input were to be 4x as long as CC1 (to account for all of the WTs) avri: optimally i think sending out qustiosn from all at one time is optimal; avri: well that was overly redundanly said Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): But for WT4 we need that feedback early in our program avri: (referring to my my remark in case there is doubt) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): :-) avri: if someone needs to go before others are ready, then so be it. lets talk in our coordination meeting Phil Buckingham: I guess the overiding is to enhance consumer choice, consumer trust and competition , innovation , but overriding stability security on the DNS Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Agree Phil Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point to watch Avri yes Phil Buckingham: What a question ! Jeff Neuman: Perhaps staff can come back to us on how Morality and Public Order was used in the last round and what the result was Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Avri correct a few ALAC in it as well Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): :-) Steve Chan 2: We'll work on tracking it down Paul McGrady: I'm having trouble seeing this full chart. Is it added to the Wiki? avri: i might be able to find it as well Paul McGrady: Thanks! Julie Hedlund: @Paul: Yes it is on the wiki. I'll put in the link. Julie Hedlund: Here it is: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490779/SubProWT3_ObjStat…. Julie Hedlund: @Karen: Yes. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Jeff Nathaniel Edwards: Exception where Dish Network applied for .direct (DirecTV) Phil Buckingham: ie caravan as an example generic or brand . Prevailed as a .brand Paul McGrady: So long as we are going to try to improve it, I will leave Jeff in his optimism. Jeff Neuman: Thanks :) Phil Buckingham: ++++++1 Jefff Phil Buckingham: Jeff - sorry Phil Buckingham: Q18 what is material especially re business model / plan ( five years after application ! + 1 paul - thorny issues Jeff Neuman: I like Pandora Boxes avri: The Rec 6 CWG final report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/report-rec6-cwg-21sep10-en.pdf avri: the CWG charter: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/new-gtld-final-recommendations-6… Greg Shatan: UDHR is not a legal right. avri: also this on Rec 6: https://community.icann.org/display/ArW/Rec+6+CWG-Morality+and+Public+Order Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks Karen, Thanks everyone... Good call ... Talk again soon... Paul McGrady: Agree! great call Karen. Thank you! Terri Agnew: The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): those links go to the wiki as well I assume avri: thanks Karen, good call. congrat on your first Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Bye avri: bye Phil Buckingham: great job Karen Steve Chan 2: @CLO, yes, we'll move the links there

1 0

Sub Pro WT3 Sept 27th Meeting - Agenda & Materials
by Karen Day Sept. 26, 2016

Sept. 26, 2016

Dear all, We are scheduled to have the next meeting of our WT3 team on Tuesday, September 27th at 15:00 UTC. In advance of our meeting I have gathered a number of materials that I believe will be relevant to our work. Among these are the mapping document (GNSORec08) and objection statistics (ObjStat) requested from staff on the last call. Also, you will find, a document containing all of the relevant principals, guidance and recommendations for our work areas, a proposed order in which we could tackle our work and finally a copy of AGB Module 3. In future I hope that we can have these available on the wiki prior to meetings for your to access and review, however due to the lateness of my preparations this week, I have taken the liberty of creating a Dropbox folder to house the documents for you to download, rather than blowing up your email with a bunch of attachments. https://www.dropbox.com/l/scl/AAB-nOgO2Jxhnh6WO-triC_xtaG-lQukEwo If you have any problems accessing the folder, please feel free to contact me directly on Monday. Our agenda, subject to your comments at the beginning of the call, will be as follows: 1. Welcome & Business regarding roll call and recording – Staff 2. SOI Updates? 3. Proposed Order of Work 4. Proposed Timeline of Work 5. AOB prior to Work Kickoff 6. Objections – Review of Question, Mapping & Statistics 7. Recap of Action Items & Confirmation of next call schedule I look forward to speaking with you all on Tuesday. Best regards, Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 SubTeam Meeting 13 September
by Steve Chan Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Dear WT3 members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 September. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track 3 Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/x/vQ2bAw. Best, Steve Notes/Action Items: 3. No objections to Karen Day as the second co-chair. 4. Avri - full group will discuss letter from the ICANN Board as a priority, ahead of resuming consideration of CC1 input. 5. Jian - Meeting times: initial plan is to rotate between 0300, 1500, 2000 UTC. Meeting frequency: Group will meet every 2 weeks, at least initially. Task Prioritization: String similarity - how closely related is the IDN subject? Jeff - String similarity should take place before string contention. String contention might not exist depending upon allocation method (e.g., first come first served) Objections: staff to determine how many objections filed (type, outcomes) Working Methods: Mike Rodenbaugh - should we be reviewing the existing principles and recommendations or should the time be spent on considering the subjects. Context matters. Jeff - Map the objections to principles/recommendations and determine if the purpose was met Jian - Difference of opinions on relationship between principles to recommendations 7. ACTION ITEMS · WG Members - Consider how the Board letter impacts the work plan of this WT. · Staff - Map principles/recommendations to objection grounds · Staff - Gather statistics for objections · Staff - Investigate what existing reports might exist regarding objections (and other subjects for that matter). Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 13 September 2016 at 03:00 UTC.
by Terri Agnew Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 13 September 2016 at 03:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 September 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held onTuesday, 13 September 2016 at 03:00 UTC Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/uRWsAw Jeff Neuman:we can hear you Jeff Neuman:Cheryl....whats for lunch today Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):it was a cheese toasty with green tomatoe pickle Jeff (on home made 9 grain bread :-) Jeff Neuman:looks good Jeff Neuman:Excited to have Karen join us Steve Chan:Avri, I can hear you, but it's pretty quiet. Jeff Neuman:much Jeff Neuman:I will forward that letter to the full WG shortly (in the next 12-24 hours) Jeff Neuman:I am good Jeff Neuman:you did a good job avri Jeff Neuman:Given the attendance, at first we should rotate Mike Rodenbaugh:I think we must rotate,, to be fair to everyone Jeff Neuman:Its a bad time for Europeans Jeff Neuman:And I know a bunch a Europeans on this group that want to participate Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):They will do Mike Rodenbaugh:fine with me Jeff Neuman:Lets keep these to avoid duplication with other working groups Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):rotation is fine with me, too. Jeff Neuman:2 weeks to start Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):fortnightly (at this stage) Mike Rodenbaugh:every two weeks,. maybe we can go faster as we get later in the work Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):agree with every 2 weeks. Steve Chan:https://community.icann.org/x/GwSbAw Jeff Neuman:Those are all references to the original 2007 policy FYI Mike Rodenbaugh:sorry, what is the question? Jeff Neuman:Prioritization amongst the topics Jeff Neuman:So we have Objections as one topic, string contention (which includes CPE) is another Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Mike Mike Rodenbaugh:String contention also includes auctions? Jeff Neuman:We could go in chronological order of the application process...that would be string similarity first..... Jeff Neuman:We could look at plurals vs. singulars Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):We should YES Jeff Neuman:Sorry...i meant string similarity Jeff Neuman:not contentions....sorry Mike Rodenbaugh:string contention is String Similarity, and Auctions? or is there anything else? Jeff Neuman:So we can do (1) String Similarity, (2) Objections, (3) String contentions (which will dpend on how we choose to accept applications) Steve Chan:FYI, the subjects identified as high interest by the CCT-RT are string similarity, objections, and community applications...to the extent that changes our work plan. Mike Rodenbaugh:objections are limited public interest, community, string similarity and legal rights of others (LRO), right? Jeff Neuman:If we go forward with just first-come first served acceptancce of TLD applications, there would be no String Contention Mike Rodenbaugh:then we should not waste our time.... and we should do Objections first and see what happens with rounds v. FCFS? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Is Independent Objector in this WT or WT2? Jeff Neuman:This one Mike Rodenbaugh:makes sense since IO could bring two types of objections Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):SO some order in resolving certisn issues needs to be applied then Jeff?? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Agree with Mike that we should do objections first, but for slightly different reason String confusion objection work could inform the string similarity/contention work so suggest doing the objection first. Jeff Neuman:@Kristina - I would be good with that Jeff Neuman:and that makes sense Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):With our luck, we'd decide to do FCFS, skip string contention, and then 2 applicants file at the same tie for the same string. :-( Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):time Jeff Neuman:One thing that we may want staff to do is to deliver a report to us on all of the objections filed (number of each type of objection and who prevailed) Jeff Neuman:We also need to make sure under objections that we cover GAC Early Warnings and GAC Objections Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):+1 Jeff. That type of report would be very useful. I think it would also be helpful for the report to include information on the objections for which the outcome was the subject of an accountability mechanism (which could be one metric for identifying "problems" with an objection category as implemented) Steve Chan:Principle G: The string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant's freedom of expression rights that are protected under internationally recognized principles of law. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I'd add Principle A: New generic top-level domains (gTLDs) must be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way. Jeff Neuman:That is Mike Rodenbaugh talking Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Agree with Mike. But, I do think we should review the Principles and Recommendations as a yardstick for the objection (etc) implementation Mike Rodenbaugh:agree with Kristina... Principle A is critical, and has not been implemented so well Jeff Neuman:I think a number of principles relate to the objections Jeff Neuman:but its been a while since we looked at them Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):sorry. Super loud construction so can't come off mute right now. Jeff Neuman:And I wil lforward that letter to the full group ASAP Mike Rodenbaugh:all sounds good to me. Thanks Jian for stepping up to help lead this group! We will have a lot of work to do. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed we do Mike Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks Jian Jeff Neuman:Good job Jian! Terri Agnew:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC, invite will be sent shortly. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I have a request: Would it be possible for staff to pull together a list of the work that's been done on these categories (objection reports, etc.)? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):To be clear, I'm not asking for a new report - just a list of what already exists Steve Chan:@Kristina, anything specific you might be looking for? Perhaps who the work might have been done by? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Steve: Not really. I seem to recall that WIPO did an LRO report. There's the staff implementation report. I suspect that there are others. Terri Agnew:GNSO calls including track calls are also on the GNSO Calendars: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Avri Doria:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qwr41BesyvDQBnqF_gBQlHfJlRkOG… Steve Chan:@Kristina, does the last action item capture your request? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):As it seems my request for call details was a problem, I apologize - and note that I didn't join the WT until after the call details were sent. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Steve: yes, thank you! Avri Doria:put this one in your bookmarks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thanks Jian, thanks everyone talk again soon... Bye for now then... Sorry I have been mainly mute but I an n 2 meetings at once at the moment ... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Thanks, Jian. Great job on leading your first call! Avri Doria:Thanks.

1 0

Proposed agenda for WT3 meeting 13th Sep
by Jian Chang Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Dear all WT3 participants, As you might have known, the second metting of Work Track 3 (String Contention / Objections & Disputes) is scheduled for *Tuesday, 13 September 2016 at 3:00 UTC*. You should have all received an invitation by now.The meeting will last one hour. This will be the first meeting that I will be heading, and also it's the first time for me to lead a PDP discussion. I view it as an valuable learning experience for me. Should you have any questions or concerns re how thing going and how we can improve, please feel free to contact me and/or other co-chairs. Karen Day has volunteered to be co-chair and has circulated her SOI. I appreciate her standing up and look forward to working with her. But before that, I believe our group needs to ratify her leadership, and we will have a few minutes for this issue. FYI, below is the proposed agenda for tomorrow meeting. 1. Review agenda 2. Statement of Interest (SOIs) updates 3. Karen Day as the co-chair of WT3-Avri/Jeff 4. WG activities updates-Avri/Jeff 5. WT3 meeting times, working methods and task prioritization 6. Review of Principle G-- freedom of expression rights 7. Action points for next call 8. AOB -if have time Please let me know if you have any problems with this agenda. Kind regards, Jian Zhang jczhang(a)knet.cn

2 1

Details of 13 September meeting
by Rosette, Kristina Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Hi, Would someone please send me the details of the 13 September meeting? I can't find them. Thank you! K Kristina Rosette Sr. Corp Counsel - IP, Domains | Amazon | 206.740.8191 rosettek(a)amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com>

3 3

WT3 Co-chair
by Karen Day Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

Hi Avri & everyone, If the position is still open and the group would like, I would be willing to volunteer to co-chair WT3 with Jian. My SOI is available at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Karen+L.+Day+SOI. My background is in intellectual property I facilitated three successful applications in the 2012 round for my company. This is however, my first direct participation in an ICANN PDP WG. I have a prior commitment for the next WT-3 meeting(9-12/13-16), but I will be available thereafter for the duration project. Best regards, Karen Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP ?Registry Operations Manager SAS Institute Inc. Direct Dial: 919-531-6016

6 5

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] just need another co-leader
by avri doria Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

Hi Liz, Not sure what you are asking. avri On 01-Sep-16 14:06, liz williams wrote: > Hello there > > I am happy to help out. Just let me know what you’d like me to do > with the existing schedule. > > Liz >> On 1 Sep 2016, at 19:03, avri doria <avri(a)apc.org >> <mailto:avri@apc.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Wanted to remind the group participants: >> >> While Jian Zhang volunteered during our meeting, she only volunteered as >> a co-leader. >> >> We therefore still need another volunteer co-leader. >> >> Any takers. >> >> Thanks >> >> avri >> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 > > *…* > * > * > *Dr Liz Williams* > *Senior Advisor* > *Towerhouse LLP > 10 Fitzroy Square* > > *London W1T 5HP > United Kingdom*** > > *Tel: +44 (0) 20 7874 1850* > *Mob: +44 (0) 7824 877757* > * * > > * > > > > * > *Web: *_www.towerhouse.co.uk_ <http://www.towerhouse.co.uk/> > _www.pierstone.com_ <http://www.pierstone.com/>** > *Twitter*: @towerhouseLLP** > > > *Towerhouse LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in > England and Wales (partnership number OC 330953) and is a firm of > Solicitors regulated by Solicitors’ Regulation Authority* > > *THIS EMAIL AND ITS CONTENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE LEGALLY > PRIVILEGED. * *THIS EMAIL MAY BE RELIED UPON ONLY BY THE INTENDED > RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE NOTIFY US > AND DESTROY THIS EMAIL*** > >

1 0

just need another co-leader
by avri doria Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

Hi, Wanted to remind the group participants: While Jian Zhang volunteered during our meeting, she only volunteered as a co-leader. We therefore still need another volunteer co-leader. Any takers. Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 at 15:00 UTC.
by Terri Agnew Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 at 15:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GwSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 30 August 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held onTuesday, 30 August 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/3AisAw Terri Agnew:members wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/vw2bAw Rubens Kuhl:Hello @ll. Rubens Kuhl:I heard Jeff just fine, Avri. Rubens Kuhl:It seems we might have AC x Bridge issues. Jeff Neuman:not sure why Avri could not hear me Jian C. Zhang (KNET):has Jeff finished or not? Kevin Kreuser (GoDaddy):we can all hear Mike and Jeff Rubens Kuhl:Mike was talking indeed. Jeff Neuman:I heard Mike Emily Barabas:Hi V Rubens Kuhl:Did someone volunteer in that Google Doc people used to enlist ? Emily Barabas:Checking. . . Jeff Neuman:Avri and I will help any volunteers through the process Jian C. Zhang (KNET):@Jeff how long it's gonna take to get this track done? Emily Barabas:No, it appears that no one volunteered on the google sheet Jeff Neuman:all tracks are running in parallel. Avri will show the timing chart Emily Barabas:Staff is also here to support volunteers Jeff Neuman:but this group will meet throughout 2017 Jian C. Zhang (KNET):I can consider to be one of the co-chairs, but not the sole chair. Jian C. Zhang (KNET):my concern is I've never had such kind of experience before.... Emily Barabas:Thank you, Jian! Staff will be in touch about next steps. Jeff Neuman:we will find you a co-chair Jian C. Zhang (KNET):sure. Thank you for your support Rubens Kuhl:I suggest we look into related mechanisms in bundle: string similarity evaluation and string confusion objections ; community priorirty evaluation and community objection . Emily Barabas:Apologies for not circulating, earlier: Jian Zhang SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Jian+C.+Zhang+SOI Rubens Kuhl:Thanks all!

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 30 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 30 August. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 30 August 1. Leadership for the Track 3 Sub Team -- See Sub Team participants at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493247. Action Items: Jian Zhang (SOI) volunteered as Co-Chair and was accepted. Keep Call for Volunteers for Co-Chair open. Sub Team members are encouraged to volunteer. 2. Sub Team Meeting Scheduling: Discussion Notes: · Meet once per week or once every other week. · 0300, 1500, 2000 UTC time slots (rotating) on Tuesdays or Thursdays. · September Schedule: 13 Sept at 0300 UTC, 27 September at 1500 UTC. 3. Work Items/List of Topics -- See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490779 Discussion Notes: · Prioritize. · Determine whether there are links to other Work Tracks. · Was the type of mechanism appropriate (accountability and others)? · Look into related mechanisms in bundle: string similarity evaluation and string confusion objections ; community priorirty evaluation and community objection

1 0

First Meeting of Work Track 3
by avri doria Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

Hi all, The first meeting of Work Track 3 (String Contention / Objections & Dsputes) is scheduled for *Tuesday, 30 August 2016 at 15:00 UTC*. You should have all received an invitation by now. The meeting will last 1 hour. The Agenda for this first meeting: 0) Review Agenda 1) Introductions / Statements of Interest (SOIs) - All participants in the group must submit SOI. Most of you have already submitted one as you are members of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures group. But anyone who has not done so is requested to take care of this. 2) Pick Leadership for the Track 3 Sub Team. This can be one person or several who share the responsibilities, it is up to the group. The requirement is for at least one person to take on the task. Responsibilities include: * Coordinating the efforts of the Sub Team * Communicating the status of the Sub Team to the rest of the leadership team and the full WG. This includes participating in a weekly leadership call to keep the work moving and coordinated. * Working with staff and the WG co-chairs as needed to get the work done, which includes developing the content for the full WG meetings and WG reports. * Acting with neutrality toward the Sub Team participants and the issues being dealt with within the group in the effort to help the group come to consensus on preliminary recommendations. All recommendation will be brought to the full group for discussion and possible approval as PDP WG recommendations. It would be helpful to start this discussion on the mailing list before the meeting on Tuesday, when anyone who wishes to volunteer will be asked to speak up. Volunteering on this list, before the meeting, is optimal. Also feel free to nominate those who you believe would be good in the role. Note that that 2 co-chairs of the full WG (Jeff and I) have disqualified themselves from this role. We will remain involved as needed to assist the leaders and to coordinate with the full working group. Jeff and I plan to make it a point for at least one of us to attend the sub team meetings. A list of Sub Team participants can be found at < https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493247> The decision on Sub Team leadership is the first consensus decision the group needs to make. Please think about becoming a leader or co-leader of this Sub Team and volunteer. 3) Discussion on Sub Team meeting schedule. The current plan it to rotate all the Sub Team meetings among three time slots: 0300 UTC, 15UTC, and 20UTC across all 5 days of the week. Each team will be expected to meet at least every other week, but will be able to meet more often if the Sub Team decides it is necessary. While scheduling outside these two time bands is theoretically possible, the current schedule of other meetings with ICANN makes that challenging. It is also possible to add a third time band or to stick to a single 1 time slot as the Sub Team decides. 4) Walk through the work items for the Sub Team. These are found at <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490779> Among the first tasks of the Sub Team will be to decide: * how they want to work through the issues, * to look at prioritization of issues * to refine the schedule currently posted for these activities. The current schedule is found at: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001972/Policy%20Developm…> In this first meeting we will only talk through the work items for clarification, the work will start in earnest with the next meeting, but it would be good to keep these issues in mind. 5) AOB - if there is time. ------ Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1
by kjb＠bernsteinip.com Aug. 26, 2016

Aug. 26, 2016

Regrets. I will be on holiday with minimal wifi. Will try to login. Very truly yours, Karen J. Bernstein Bernstein IP 200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10166 Tel: (212) 339-9955 Fax: (212) 682-0278 E-Mail: kjb(a)bernsteinip.com Web: www.bernsteinip.com Skype: K.Bernsteinlaw This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please forward the email back and delete all copies of the message and attachments. > On Aug 26, 2016, at 8:00 AM, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-request(a)icann.org wrote: > > Send Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list submissions to > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-request(a)icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-owner(a)icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. First Meeting of Work Track 3 (avri doria) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 17:19:26 -0400 > From: avri doria <avri(a)apc.org> > To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org > Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] First Meeting of Work Track 3 > Message-ID: <4d3c1716-2d5a-de7e-4033-c87ee7a89ebf(a)apc.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi all, > > The first meeting of Work Track 3 (String Contention / Objections & > Dsputes) is scheduled for *Tuesday, 30 August 2016 at 15:00 UTC*. You > should have all received an invitation by now. The meeting will last 1 hour. > > The Agenda for this first meeting: > > 0) Review Agenda > > 1) Introductions / Statements of Interest (SOIs) - All participants in > the group must submit SOI. Most of you have already submitted one as > you are members of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures group. But anyone > who has not done so is requested to take care of this. > > 2) Pick Leadership for the Track 3 Sub Team. This can be one person or > several who share the responsibilities, it is up to the group. The > requirement is for at least one person to take on the task. > > Responsibilities include: > > * Coordinating the efforts of the Sub Team > * Communicating the status of the Sub Team to the rest of the > leadership team and the full WG. This includes participating in a > weekly leadership call to keep the work moving and coordinated. > * Working with staff and the WG co-chairs as needed to get the work > done, which includes developing the content for the full WG meetings and > WG reports. > * Acting with neutrality toward the Sub Team participants and the > issues being dealt with within the group in the effort to help the group > come to consensus on preliminary recommendations. All recommendation > will be brought to the full group for discussion and > possible approval as PDP WG recommendations. > > It would be helpful to start this discussion on the mailing list before > the meeting on Tuesday, when anyone who wishes to volunteer will be > asked to speak up. Volunteering on this list, before the meeting, is > optimal. Also feel free to nominate those who you believe would be good > in the role. Note that that 2 co-chairs of the full WG (Jeff and I) > have disqualified themselves from this role. We will remain involved as > needed to assist the leaders and to coordinate with the full working > group. Jeff and I plan to make it a point for at least one of us to > attend the sub team meetings. > > A list of Sub Team participants can be found at < > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493247> > > The decision on Sub Team leadership is the first consensus decision the > group needs to make. > > Please think about becoming a leader or co-leader of this Sub Team and > volunteer. > > 3) Discussion on Sub Team meeting schedule. The current plan it to > rotate all the Sub Team meetings among three time slots: 0300 UTC, > 15UTC, and 20UTC across all 5 days of the week. Each team will be > expected to meet at least every other week, but will be able to meet > more often if the Sub Team decides it is necessary. While scheduling > outside these two time bands is theoretically possible, the current > schedule of other meetings with ICANN makes that challenging. It is also > possible to add a third time band or to stick to a single 1 time slot as > the Sub Team decides. > > 4) Walk through the work items for the Sub Team. These are found at > <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490779> > > Among the first tasks of the Sub Team will be to decide: > > * how they want to work through the issues, > * to look at prioritization of issues > * to refine the schedule currently posted for these activities. The > current schedule is found at: > > > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001972/Policy%20Developm…> > > In this first meeting we will only talk through the work items for > clarification, the work will start in earnest with the next meeting, but > it would be good to keep these issues in mind. > > 5) AOB - if there is time. > > ------ > Thanks > avri > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 > > End of Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1 > *************************************************

1 0