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

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

Dec. 19, 2017

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

1 0

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

Dec. 14, 2017

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

1 0

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

Dec. 12, 2017

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

1 0

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

Dec. 12, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Adobe Connect chat and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 12 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6fto3ikgxh/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/RQxyB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

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

Dec. 12, 2017

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

3 2

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

Nov. 28, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p89efwas11e/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rZlEB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 November 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 15:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Karen Day:Morning, Michelle. I'm going to let my headset charge up for another 5 min before I dial in. Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there Karen, good morning to you as well, sounds good! Jamie Baxter | dotgay:sure Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):fair enough Robin Gross:sounds good, Karen Jon Nevett:sounds good Samantha Demetriou:Fine by me :) Emily Barabas:Slides are unsynced Steve Chan:The three drafting teams can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… the bottom of each of the respective pages, you' fndl the current working document for each topic Jim Prendergast:link doesnt work Jim Prendergast:at least for me Steve Chan:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.o… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I apologize - i have not had time to read Mark's summary yet. Steve Chan:@Jim, rhere was a period at the end of the URL - I guess it got integrated into the link? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Are you linking to Mark's summary? I can't make ttha link work. Jim Prendergast:that worked Steve Chan:@Anne, you can find the Mark Carvell summary on the Wiki page here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Steve Chan:FYI, we are on slide 5 Donna Austin, Neustar:is that 75% figure accurate? Michael Flemming:Does the paper attempt to define the public interest? Apologies as I have not yet been able to read it yet either? Michael Flemming:.* Donna Austin, Neustar:What's the status of the CPE Review? Emily Barabas:@Donna, a summary document of community application is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Donna .. we've been trying to get info on the CPE review, but all we know at this point is that Scope 1 results were delivered to ICANN several weeks ago and that Scope 2 findings should have been delivered at this point. Jon Nevett:Did the GAC approve the paper or is it a committee of interested GAC members? Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Jamie Steve Chan:According to Emily's link, 5 Prevailed CPE and 21 Did not Prevail. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: THanks Steve for the link. I have the same QUESTION as Jon Nevett re this summary - Is this paper approved by GAC? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks Jamie Steve Chan:@Jon, Anne, I'm not sure actually. What I do know is that they consider the paper factual in nature (e.g., statistics and a collection of GAC Advice) and will, or already have, posted on the GAC site. Trang Nguyen:There were 84 applications that were designated as community applications. Of these 51 have been delegated. Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks for the data Trang Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):no reply that I am aware of Trang Nguyen:84 community applications. 51 delegated. 16 withdrawn. 4 in progress. 11 on-hold. 1 not approved. 1 will not proceed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):it is a piece of GAC work Emily Barabas:note, the above referenced spreadsheet only covers CPE results, which explains the discrepancy Jon Nevett:so let's not call it GAC Advice in our deck Alan Greenberg:I believe that it was approved by the GAC but will ask. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Mark holds the pen Jamie Baxter | dotgay:Of the community designated applications, only 5 actually passed CPE Jon Nevett:That has a formal meaning Donna Austin, Neustar:GAC input Jamie Baxter | dotgay:The pieces noted as GAC advise were actual elements of GAC advise duirng prior ICANN meetings. Jon Nevett:Combined with other input Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jon it is a review and status of GAC Advice on the topic, it is meant to be of assistance to our work Robin Gross:Unless we have confirmation that this is truly GAC Advice, we should consider this as GAC input (which discusses Advise). Susan Payne:Apologies if this has already been explained - is the first part of Mark's paper a summary of the Council of Europe report or something else? Alan Greenberg:As far as I know, GAC "ADVICE" only has specific meaning when directed at the Board. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):correct Alan Robin Gross:That is also my understanding, Alan. Robin Gross:So let's not muddy the water by calling this GAC Advice, if it isn't that specific thing. Robin Gross:I didn't hear any argument for changing the title of the document. Karen Day:@Robin Jon asked that I not call it advice in our deck Karen Day:that is what got the conversation going Susan Payne:@Alan, I think we need to be clear that it is advice. It has been referred to as Mark Carvell's document - has it actually been adopted by the full GAC and submitted as advice (some of it is not a summary of past advice). I don't know the answer to that, it seems unclear and we need clarification Jon Nevett:Getting to the substance. Am I reading this right? So under this input if some users of Banks had gotten together and applied for .BANK as a community applicant, they would have gotten .BANK over the current registry operator of .BANK as they are a collection of commercial entities? Alan Greenberg:I have asked the GAC Chair whether this document was formally approved by the GAC. Donna Austin, Neustar:If this has been attached to a communique then we should consider it advice, but what we probably should understand is how does that impact how we consider that advice. It doesn't necessarily mean that we have to accept it, but we should provide explanation as to why we did not accept it. Robin Gross:Completely agree, Donna Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Is there any reason why we couldn't as a Work Team write to Mark with clarifying questions (e.g., status of doc within GAC, answer to Jon's question, etc.)? I realize the fact that he's rotating out as UK GAC rep may complicate logistics, but it should be possible to have reasonable questions answered. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I will reach out to Mark and the GAC via the secretary to clarify some of your questions Alan Greenberg:@Jon, the operator of .bank DID designate that their application was a community application. Jon Nevett:@alan I was talking about two competing .BANK applicants Jon Nevett:two competing .BANK community applicants Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):and discussion on what constitutes Community as well as if there are class differences on how any preferences are given needs discussion and development Alan Greenberg:If there had been a 2nd application that was not withdrawn, then the community application would have taken precedence *IF* it had passed the CPE. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes exactly Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:so, if the CPE stays, an additional point might be in the offing for a non-commercial community? Robin Gross:That was my understanding as well, Jeff. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Jeff .. I have the same understanding Jon Nevett:Jeff, that is the scenario I am talking about -- two competing community applicants -- do we give preference to one over the other in the evaluation process because one is commercial and one isn't Emily Barabas:Full text of responses is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Emily Barabas:The CC2 Themes document is available at the bottom of this wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Emily Barabas:We are now at the top of page 2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jamie greater predictability Jamie Baxter | dotgay:missed the call last night, but will listed to the recording today. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:I am not sure an Ian Mplementation Team would have authority over an Evaluation Panel? Does that seem obvious to others? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):all good Jeff Neuman:Things that go to a "Standing Panel" would have general applicability, and would not be geared towards individual applications. But as Karen says, if there are questions of general applicability, that could be a topic for a standing panel Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to drop. Thanks all. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:If you go that direction, you make the Standing IRT the appeals Board for the determination in Community Priority Evaluation. Not really appropriate. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):top of the hour but we waited for more to join a Few minutes extension seems reasonable Karen Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):good point Alan Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:Guidelines should be published before next round. Jon Nevett:Agree with Jamie here -- goes to predictability Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):we have opportunity to look at and hopefully redress that now Jamie Donna Austin, Neustar:need to drop. Thanks Karen Jamie Baxter | dotgay:big lesson here .. community applicate processes cannot be an afterthought Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:Thank you Karen, Cheryl et al. Have a good day - and Cheryl hope you can get back to sleep! Robin Gross:+1 to using our mailing list to advance this discussion in the next two weeks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thank you all lots covered today (more to do of course) Thanks everyone. Thanks Karen, bye for now ðŸ‘‹ Robin Gross:Thanks Karen and all, bye! Emily Barabas:I believe the next call is actually 20:00 on the 12th Karen Day:thanks! Michael Flemming:thx

1 0

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

Nov. 28, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p89efwas11e/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rZlEB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 November 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 15:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Karen Day:Morning, Michelle. I'm going to let my headset charge up for another 5 min before I dial in. Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there Karen, good morning to you as well, sounds good! Jamie Baxter | dotgay:sure Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):fair enough Robin Gross:sounds good, Karen Jon Nevett:sounds good Samantha Demetriou:Fine by me :) Emily Barabas:Slides are unsynced Steve Chan:The three drafting teams can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… the bottom of each of the respective pages, you' fndl the current working document for each topic Jim Prendergast:link doesnt work Jim Prendergast:at least for me Steve Chan:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.o… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I apologize - i have not had time to read Mark's summary yet. Steve Chan:@Jim, rhere was a period at the end of the URL - I guess it got integrated into the link? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Are you linking to Mark's summary? I can't make ttha link work. Jim Prendergast:that worked Steve Chan:@Anne, you can find the Mark Carvell summary on the Wiki page here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Steve Chan:FYI, we are on slide 5 Donna Austin, Neustar:is that 75% figure accurate? Michael Flemming:Does the paper attempt to define the public interest? Apologies as I have not yet been able to read it yet either? Michael Flemming:.* Donna Austin, Neustar:What's the status of the CPE Review? Emily Barabas:@Donna, a summary document of community application is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Donna .. we've been trying to get info on the CPE review, but all we know at this point is that Scope 1 results were delivered to ICANN several weeks ago and that Scope 2 findings should have been delivered at this point. Jon Nevett:Did the GAC approve the paper or is it a committee of interested GAC members? Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Jamie Steve Chan:According to Emily's link, 5 Prevailed CPE and 21 Did not Prevail. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: THanks Steve for the link. I have the same QUESTION as Jon Nevett re this summary - Is this paper approved by GAC? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks Jamie Steve Chan:@Jon, Anne, I'm not sure actually. What I do know is that they consider the paper factual in nature (e.g., statistics and a collection of GAC Advice) and will, or already have, posted on the GAC site. Trang Nguyen:There were 84 applications that were designated as community applications. Of these 51 have been delegated. Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thanks for the data Trang Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):no reply that I am aware of Trang Nguyen:84 community applications. 51 delegated. 16 withdrawn. 4 in progress. 11 on-hold. 1 not approved. 1 will not proceed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):it is a piece of GAC work Emily Barabas:note, the above referenced spreadsheet only covers CPE results, which explains the discrepancy Jon Nevett:so let's not call it GAC Advice in our deck Alan Greenberg:I believe that it was approved by the GAC but will ask. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Mark holds the pen Jamie Baxter | dotgay:Of the community designated applications, only 5 actually passed CPE Jon Nevett:That has a formal meaning Donna Austin, Neustar:GAC input Jamie Baxter | dotgay:The pieces noted as GAC advise were actual elements of GAC advise duirng prior ICANN meetings. Jon Nevett:Combined with other input Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jon it is a review and status of GAC Advice on the topic, it is meant to be of assistance to our work Robin Gross:Unless we have confirmation that this is truly GAC Advice, we should consider this as GAC input (which discusses Advise). Susan Payne:Apologies if this has already been explained - is the first part of Mark's paper a summary of the Council of Europe report or something else? Alan Greenberg:As far as I know, GAC "ADVICE" only has specific meaning when directed at the Board. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):correct Alan Robin Gross:That is also my understanding, Alan. Robin Gross:So let's not muddy the water by calling this GAC Advice, if it isn't that specific thing. Robin Gross:I didn't hear any argument for changing the title of the document. Karen Day:@Robin Jon asked that I not call it advice in our deck Karen Day:that is what got the conversation going Susan Payne:@Alan, I think we need to be clear that it is advice. It has been referred to as Mark Carvell's document - has it actually been adopted by the full GAC and submitted as advice (some of it is not a summary of past advice). I don't know the answer to that, it seems unclear and we need clarification Jon Nevett:Getting to the substance. Am I reading this right? So under this input if some users of Banks had gotten together and applied for .BANK as a community applicant, they would have gotten .BANK over the current registry operator of .BANK as they are a collection of commercial entities? Alan Greenberg:I have asked the GAC Chair whether this document was formally approved by the GAC. Donna Austin, Neustar:If this has been attached to a communique then we should consider it advice, but what we probably should understand is how does that impact how we consider that advice. It doesn't necessarily mean that we have to accept it, but we should provide explanation as to why we did not accept it. Robin Gross:Completely agree, Donna Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Is there any reason why we couldn't as a Work Team write to Mark with clarifying questions (e.g., status of doc within GAC, answer to Jon's question, etc.)? I realize the fact that he's rotating out as UK GAC rep may complicate logistics, but it should be possible to have reasonable questions answered. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I will reach out to Mark and the GAC via the secretary to clarify some of your questions Alan Greenberg:@Jon, the operator of .bank DID designate that their application was a community application. Jon Nevett:@alan I was talking about two competing .BANK applicants Jon Nevett:two competing .BANK community applicants Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):and discussion on what constitutes Community as well as if there are class differences on how any preferences are given needs discussion and development Alan Greenberg:If there had been a 2nd application that was not withdrawn, then the community application would have taken precedence *IF* it had passed the CPE. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes exactly Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:so, if the CPE stays, an additional point might be in the offing for a non-commercial community? Robin Gross:That was my understanding as well, Jeff. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Jeff .. I have the same understanding Jon Nevett:Jeff, that is the scenario I am talking about -- two competing community applicants -- do we give preference to one over the other in the evaluation process because one is commercial and one isn't Emily Barabas:Full text of responses is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Emily Barabas:The CC2 Themes document is available at the bottom of this wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Emily Barabas:We are now at the top of page 2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jamie greater predictability Jamie Baxter | dotgay:missed the call last night, but will listed to the recording today. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:I am not sure an Ian Mplementation Team would have authority over an Evaluation Panel? Does that seem obvious to others? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):all good Jeff Neuman:Things that go to a "Standing Panel" would have general applicability, and would not be geared towards individual applications. But as Karen says, if there are questions of general applicability, that could be a topic for a standing panel Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to drop. Thanks all. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:If you go that direction, you make the Standing IRT the appeals Board for the determination in Community Priority Evaluation. Not really appropriate. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):top of the hour but we waited for more to join a Few minutes extension seems reasonable Karen Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):good point Alan Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:Guidelines should be published before next round. Jon Nevett:Agree with Jamie here -- goes to predictability Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):we have opportunity to look at and hopefully redress that now Jamie Donna Austin, Neustar:need to drop. Thanks Karen Jamie Baxter | dotgay:big lesson here .. community applicate processes cannot be an afterthought Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2:Thank you Karen, Cheryl et al. Have a good day - and Cheryl hope you can get back to sleep! Robin Gross:+1 to using our mailing list to advance this discussion in the next two weeks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thank you all lots covered today (more to do of course) Thanks everyone. Thanks Karen, bye for now ðŸ‘‹ Robin Gross:Thanks Karen and all, bye! Emily Barabas:I believe the next call is actually 20:00 on the 12th Karen Day:thanks! Michael Flemming:thx

1 0

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

Nov. 28, 2017

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

1 0

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

Nov. 22, 2017

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

1 0

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

Nov. 14, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 14 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1jnhe8jmgk/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/qZlEB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 November 2017 Michelle DeSmyter: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 14 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Hi all Gg Levine (NABP):I will switch to audio only in 25 minutes. Tijani BEN JEMAA:Hi everyone Aslam G Mohamed:Hi everyone. Tijani BEN JEMAA:my first call Karen Day:Hi all, a gentle reminder to please mute if you are not speaking Jeff Neuman:i defer to Cheryl Jeff Neuman:Having mic issues Jeff Neuman:nope Aslam G Mohamed 2:there is an echo Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):ah that's a technical issue not a defer then Jeff ðŸ˜Š Jeff Neuman:its both Jeff Neuman:Yes we will have to be proactive and aggressive Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):That comes more naturally to some of us than others. ;-) Alan Greenberg:;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):perhaps reaching out to the wider community Jeff Neuman:@Kristina - I resemble that remark Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):offer briefing and webinars watch., Krishna Seeburn - Kris:+1 jamie and alan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Jamie Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):important to try that again Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i guess the word is outreach Jeff Neuman:We have been trying, but it would help if you all know of people that are no longer participating that you can direct us to Karen Day:@Jamie we tried to socialize CC@ questions to Community applicanants but as Robin notes many are reluctant to speak until the review is complete Karen Day:sorry CC2 questions Jamie Baxter | dotgay:i think that the CPE website lists all those who went through the process and their contact info should still be listed on the Applicant website. Jeff Neuman:@Jamie - True, but we are reluctant to use that website to reach out to those in an unsolicited manner. Thus, if anyone knows them and can facilitate the communication, the better Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I'm happy to reach out to those I may have met along the way. Who should I ask them to reach back to? Jeff Neuman:If we were to have categories of communities, would we have different criteria? Krishna Seeburn - Kris:perhaps we can get a list of previous people and talk to them Gg Levine (NABP):How would the priveleges differ by category? Robin Gross:Gg, that would be for us to decide. Donna Austin, Neustar:What's the distinction between a community category and other categories? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yet to be determined I guess Donna Kurt Pritz 2:I think Anne's comments demonstrates the unworkability of this group trying to determine a priori how to accommodate the purposes of yet-to-be borne TLDs. Rather than create categories before the round, it’d be better to create a process for forgiving contractual conditions depending on the purpose of the application (and not the identity of the applicant). Emily Barabas:@Jaime, I just sent you a private message about points of contact regarding feedback on CPE. Thanks! Donna Austin, Neustar:agree with Kurt's comment Jeff Neuman:@Kurt - I dont believe we are talking about contractual forgiveness, but rather forgiveness of rigid criteria in the application process Jeff Neuman:and for that, we cannot adopt a wait and see approach Jeff Neuman:But perhaps there needs to be a closer association between the string and the community Kurt Pritz 2:@ Jeff: As an example, Aren't brands forgiven from the Code of Conduct contractual condition? Haven't we spoken about reduced registry fees for brands or not-for-profits? Jeff Neuman:I think Jon Nevett made a good comment during one of the sessions which stuck with me Jeff Neuman:Its not that we are trying to make it difficult for communities....but perhaps the string should be closer related to the community Kurt Pritz 2:The American Bowlers Association might object to the American Bar Association getting .ABA - it is very difficult to fix Jeff Neuman:Kurt, we can always think of those examples, but both could apply for those TLDs as communities and then work through contention Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Jeff ... it sounds good in theory, but in practice it got completely twisted in practice. When the world knows and refers to the "gay community" in every aspect of reality as the "gay community", but that community cannot secure .GAY in CPE then serious questions are raised. Donna Austin, Neustar:Isn't that what CPE was designed for? Jon Nevett:I think that the registries recommended that a community that meets a certain level of criteria, it gets some benefit (e.g. some multiplier at auction) and if they meet a higher level, they get the TLD outright. Jon Nevett:this way Navajo nation gets .navajo outright, but ABA doesn't necessarily get .law, but maybe gets some benefit Jeff Neuman:We have that option Jeff Neuman:Lets be precise Jeff Neuman:Can someone get the 2008 Final report which was passed by the GNSO Steve Chan:@Jeff, here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu… Jeff Neuman:Right....the GNSO did not define which communities it was targeting Donna Austin, Neustar:Only in terms of going through CPE Jamie Baxter | dotgay:that is correct Robyn ken stubbs:definitions are still vague here. especiall if you have groups of "groups" Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):We (GNSO Council at the time) intentionally interpreted community broadly. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):IG P: "community should be interpreted broadly and will include, for example, an economic sector, a cultural community, or a linguistic community. It may be a closely related community which believes it is impacted." Jeff Neuman:The GNSO defined a community only for purposes of filing objections Jeff Neuman:but not in terms of what would qualify as a community for purposes of priority Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Time to dust off the AGB redlines. Jeff Neuman:To clarify, the GAC did not support the recommendations of the report. Infact, I think I asked them to be specific identify which recommendations of the report they supported and which they did not Tom Dale:Jeff, that is correct. What GAC agreed was that the recommendations should go to the PDP as an input/resource. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Council of Europe refers to this definition: "Anky groups of individuals or any legal entities brought together in order to collectively act, express, promote, pursue or defend a filed of common interests". Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair) 2:Co-Chair hat off I prefer the variable approach over the "one size fits all" one.... ken stubbs:key here is the definition of what constitutes a "community" under the terms of the guidebook (incredibly political here) Donna Austin, Neustar:a variable approach gets tricky when you have two applicants from different community sectors applying for the same string ken stubbs:+1 donna ken stubbs:example = INTA a.https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__inta.gob.ar_&d=DwIFa… b. inta.org Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Problems with evaluators could be why we have problems. In other words, it may be the panel process, not the definition of Community. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I agree with Robin that a lack of direction was a problem Jon Nevett:I agree with Robin -- we need to have a clear definition Jeff Neuman:Rather than thinking of it as a "variable approach" could we think of it as a sliding scale Donna Austin, Neustar:i think the implementation of CPE and some of the difficult to understand decisions was what created the problems. Paul McGrady:Thanks Robin. Well run! ken stubbs:adios folks ! Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair) 2:thanks Robin, thanks everyone.. bye ðŸ‘‹ for now Karen Day:Thanks, All. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Donna re CPE evalution Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Donna re CPE evalution'

1 0