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

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

Sept. 22, 2017

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

1 0

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

Sept. 12, 2017

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

1 0

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

Sept. 12, 2017

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

1 0

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

Sept. 8, 2017

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

1 0

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

Aug. 29, 2017

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

1 0

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

Aug. 29, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p6av0ejzxuy/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=6bd626c2308666a9…> https://participate.icann.org/p6av0ejzxuy/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org] ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/MQEhB> https://community.icann.org/x/MQEhB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 29 August 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=RNUDs8z6xPrQ69K6sbfIJzjZcV4Ei81LG19Qy7jDgLU&s=JzsrnKcQSLFYgLWKYngO7a2g85vGwKFG7zQ9o0688tQ&e= Karen Day:Hi all Karen Day:Anne - would you be able to speak today under item 4 to your email from yesterday? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):thanks Karen and terri joining now and yes Karen Day:Thanks, Anne! Greg Shatan:lol Jim Prendergast:tough to hear Robin Gross:very low gain Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Terri - sounds like Avri is in a cave. Need to dial out to her. Terri Agnew:much better Avri - thank you Paul McGrady:How much was spent on the I.O. for his two victories in the last round? Mike Rodenbaugh:I recall his budget was more than $20m Robin Gross:It makes less sense to talk about fixing details if we are going to nix the concept. Jim Prendergast:wow Jim Prendergast:$20 mil Steve Chan:Budget was a @24.8 million but actual spend was around $2.5 million Karen Day:my bad all! Only 2. 8 was spent Mike Rodenbaugh:ah, thanks Steve, big difference.... Karen Day:2.5 - seems I can't type any better than I can remember :( Jim Prendergast:$2.5 million for IO budgte and untold milliosn spent by other applicants who prevailed Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):it cannot be 20 MM Jim Prendergast:and the money spent by applicants denefing themselves against IO objections. I dont think we have that figure and probably impossible to get Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):"not addicted" - LOL Avri! Paul McGrady:+1 Robin. Paul McGrady:@Jim - good point. Greg Shatan:Why was this a good idea in the first place? Jim Prendergast:To Annes point on Board objecting - several of them were conflicted in 2012 and may be in next process so it would only be a subset of the board. I dont think that is desirable Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Anne .. it seems apparent that the Board neither wants to make those decisions, or has the tools to make them when when it comes to having a clear understanding/definition of "public interest" Paul McGrady:@Greg, it might neverave been a good idea, but now that we know that it definetly isn't, it seems irresponsible to keep it. avri doria:Robin, empowering the Board with the Global Public Interet objections is another mechinism for hadling them. But are we sure we want to hand that task to them, and to have the Board judging each application for its GPI? Greg Shatan:I'm trying to recall who thought it was a good idea and why.... Robin Gross:Last time I checked, the board is already there. avri doria:Policy set the goal of handling these issues, AGB decided on how. avri doria:only in exception processing at the end. not in terms of being th first address for such appeals. Mike Rodenbaugh:I don't see how a panel of IOs solves any of the problems we had with just one IO Robin Gross:I tend to agree, Mike, as I see the concept flawed. avri doria:and rember all the IO could so was file an objection. not make the determination. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Alan Jim Prendergast:agree with Alan on his points about kicking this to the Board Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Because it's not one person determining Global Public Interest - for example, it is a panel of 7 experts and they vote - 4 out of 7 means the Limited Public Interest Objection is filed. Mike Rodenbaugh:my biggest problem with IO was that, even if he decided not to object (after lengthy deliberations with one of my clients), or if he later lost his objection, that did not stop anyone else from objecting on the same basis (incl. governments). So it greatly increased costs to applicants, with no benefit to anyone Robin Gross:The IO process seems to be expanding the types of objections we initalially created by this "in the global public interest" test. That is dangerous. Greg Shatan:In 15 out of 17 cases, the IO's judgment about when a GPI filing was warranted were found to be wrong. If the IO was a baseball pitcher, he'd be cut from the team.... avri doria:(personal) Greg, that is a reason to find a better mechanism, not to eliminate pitchers. Jim Prendergast:what would be the soure of those funds? Jim Prendergast:would it be an application tax like we had for the ICANN legal defense fund? avri doria:(personal) Jim, it is part of the expense of processing applications justly. Robin Gross:Wouldn't a better solution be to build this concern into our own processes, rather than outsource "globlal public interest" to an outside body? "Independent" also means no responsibility or accountability on some level. Greg Shatan:My rates are very reasonable. Paul McGrady:@Anne - but those "real money" events happened to the 15 winners, brought on by a defective I.O. mechanism. Jim Prendergast:@avri - I dont disagree but in other WTs we have people arguing to cut the application feees as low as possible to spur demand but this seems like somehting that would add to the cost. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Paul - I agree. That is why we have to have "gates" that put a check on unlimited "Limited Public Interest" Objections Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Unfortunately I think the qualification for the fund would take forever. avri doria:(personal) the problem may also have been with the objection evaluation panels and the criteria they used and not in the IO Paul McGrady:What could possibly be confidential about the activities of a person who is paid to represent the public interest? avri doria:I agree with Paul on that, there should not be much secrecy needed. avri doria:i think it would be valuable Greg Shatan:Good idea. avri doria:but that is why i siggested it a few meetings back. Paul McGrady:Valusable so long as we all stay really nice. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Yes - always best to understand the challenges Greg Shatan:The site is still up. Mike Rodenbaugh:IO website: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobje… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobje…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=RNUDs8z6xPrQ69K6sbfIJzjZcV4Ei81LG19Qy7jDgLU&s=lfUbErHyCVeLE-5XYIW_uiFGB59cNHRuSRiYk17AZG0&e= Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):There may be a difference as to need for Limited Public Interest Objection as opposed to Community Objection. Greg Shatan:Looking at Alain Pellet's bio, he is certainly a distinguished jurist, with significant experience in international law, multiple cases before the ICJ, Chevalier of the Legion d'Honneur, etc. Greg Shatan:But whether this was the right experience is open to review.... Mike Rodenbaugh:if both parties agree to 3, then fine; but otherwise 1 must be the default else cost would be at least double for 3 Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Mike Karen Bernstein:+1 Mike Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Mike Robin Gross:me too avri doria:i am personally undeccided Jim Prendergast:I agree with Mike Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Robin Gross:Thanks Karen and all. Bye! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Karen! Greg Shatan:Bye

1 0

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

Aug. 28, 2017

Dear All, In preparation for our next call, Tuesday, August 29, 2017 @ 15:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed agenda. 1.Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI 3. Plenary Update 4. Independent Objector – Unanswered Questions 5. CC2 – Objections – Q 3.1.7 – 3.1.11 (see attached) 6. AOB Hope you have all had a good weekend and I look forward to talking to you on Tuesday. Best, Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

2 1

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

Aug. 15, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8ppftmix4t/<https://participate.icann.org/p8ppftmix4t/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=92ef84797cbc0a40…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FgEhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 15 August 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Robin Gross:what is the beeping on the line? Julie Bisland:Emily's line, i've muted it Robin Gross:Thank you! Emily Barabas:sorry, my line dropped Julie Bisland:but seems she's having some AC issues Julie Bisland:I apologize for not getting it sooner. :( Robin Gross:No worries. Thanks. Phil Buckingham:Good explanation , Jon. Q Do you think going foward there should be some forewarning that an applicant will apply for CPE ( assuming of course there CPE for a Round 2 ! ) Jamie Baxter | dotgay:the current community objections do not have a component of mitigating harm, so unless that changes the community objection process serves a very important role Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):Sorry to be late - previous meeting in our office ran overtime Phil Buckingham:thanks Jon Emily Barabas:The full report is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobje… Robin Gross:The fourth ground is “A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law.” Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Staff - can you post the LPIO grounds in the chat so we see the 3 that IO recommends be rejected? Emily Barabas:The other three grounds: Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action;• Incitement to or promotion of discrimination based upon race, color, gender,ethnicity, religion or national origin, or other similar types of discrimination thatviolate generally accepted legal norms recognized under principles of internationallaw;• Incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children;or Emily Barabas:From the IO report: "I believe that the first three grounds should be removed from this list since I have notedthat it can mislead people who tend to think that these three grounds are the only reasonswhich could trigger a Limited Public Interest Objection. The fourth ground is very generaland includes in any case the three other grounds. Thus, for the sake of clarity, I am of theposition that only the fourth ground should be retained in a future version of theAGB. " Paul McGrady:Big dollars + low success rate = ???? Emily Barabas:see IO cases and outcomes on pages 27-29 Steve Chan:@Paul, we'll try to get a better understanding of the IO budget and how it was utilized Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I thought I crunched all these numbers in Copenhagen . . . Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Do we have any independent verification that the IO's claim that LPIO grounds 1-3 are, in fact, covered by #4? Paul McGrady:@Steve - thanks. PP. 27-29 only sets forth his very high loss rate, not how many dollars were spent on his many losses Emily Barabas:@Paul, correct. We'll see if we can get more information on the other half of the equation. Paul McGrady:+1 Jon - with such a high loss rate, we need to (at a minimum) change the elements. Jon Nevett:+1 Kristina on last two points Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):@Paul and Jon - we need to have a gatekeeper on LPIO other than just the IO him or herself. Paul McGrady:+1 Kristina. Susan Payne:completely agree Kristina, it shoud be a preliminary determination Jon Nevett:agree as well and I like the Kristina show! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes early identification of any COI. is essential Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jon: Thanks! Jim Prendergast:No harm in asking but I would agree - they wll run from anything that has potential liability. Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):+1 Paul Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):In case you're looking for some light reading, here's my May 2013 letter to ICANN on behalf of Patagonia regarding the IO's conflict of interest. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… Jon Nevett:and who could appeal? Paul McGrady:Would the appeal be limited to the final decision (merits) or also include initial decisions (e.g. standing, IO conflicts)? Phil Buckingham:and the time limits Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):After all the hours spent on Accountability, I can't even imagine that we'd consider depriving applicants of the opportunity to use those mechanisms for IO objections. (Specifically not addressing appeals.) Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):@Kristina - great letter - we need to learn from history on this issue of conflict of interest. This has got tobe FIXED! Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Thanks, Anne! Paul McGrady:Can we put this issue back at the top of our list for the next call. Worthy of more than 4 minutes. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Has the Board taken any action on the IO's report? Specifically referred it to GNSO? Something else? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):+1 Paul Jamie Baxter | dotgay:without an appeals mechanism it seems that the expectation was that every panel or hired evaluators would get every detail correct on first attempt. Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):The issues arose due to too much discretion in the hands of the IO. Structure revisions in decision-making can address these issues so that they don't become issues no matter who has the assignment as IO. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Thanks, all! Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Jon Nevett:Thanks!! Steve Chan:Another outreach mechanism could be to formualte a set of questions that were unanswered by his report Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye ðŸ‘‹ for now.. we are making progress on this... thanks everyone. Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you Robin, staff, and everyone. Phil Buckingham:Great call , Robin

1 0

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

Aug. 15, 2017

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

1 0

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

Aug. 14, 2017

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

1 0