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

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 01 Augusts 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 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, 01 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p9rzmb9xk7g/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a734cab52dd0f74b 6487850c643c955ffb306ed2d345023772faa3091aafe84d> https://participate.icann.org/p9rzmb9xk7g/ 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/twAhB> https://community.icann.org/x/twAhB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 01 August 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_t wAhB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ twAhB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k &s=gaN5ZSI4gaIccaFpEcTE_vdCnTrb3PTySAsqcHcmLb4&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=ga N5ZSI4gaIccaFpEcTE_vdCnTrb3PTySAsqcHcmLb4&e= Jeff Neuman:hearing a bunch of crackling noise Jeff Neuman:Anne, that may be coming from you Jeff Neuman:Is Robin on? Jeff Neuman:Just give us one more minute and we will start Jeff Neuman:sure Michael Flemming:yes Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I was curious if we will be returning to 3.1.5 since it was not covered on the last call Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group will take place on Monday, 07 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Alan Greenberg:Not particularly relevant to this group, but I have been selected as Chair (Interim) of the RDS-WHOIS2-RT. Emily Barabas:The full group call will be on 29 August at 3:00 UTC Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Congrats Alan - good to know. Emily Barabas:(Tuesday in UTC, but Monday night for those calling in from the Americas) avri doria:no addition Emily Barabas:document is now unsynced so everyone can zoom as needed Emily Barabas:we are on page 7 Emily Barabas:Excerpts are on display in the central pod. Full text of the comments are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads heets_d_1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0_edit <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread sheets_d_1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0_edit&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3 PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H 4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=jLCBZwF85LNAScKDfApS myc0c_vBtg8G-4t2WImR9sA&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=jL CBZwF85LNAScKDfApSmyc0c_vBtg8G-4t2WImR9sA&e= avri doria:so yes dotgay was forced to respond to someone who was ultimately denied standing. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: I support the idea of a screening based on standing but it should not take forever to do - should be done quickly in order to provide certainty for Applicants and potential Objectors. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):makes sense to me Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Alan it is difficult to detremine standing without both sides filing pleadings. Alan Greenberg:I strongly support a preliminary determination (which will catch most who do not have standing). Alan Greenberg:Better said by Anne. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed! be very useful Alan Greenberg:To be clear, what I was sayingwas that there should be a preliminary determination on standing, and if it fails, the objection is dead. Only if preliminary standing is granted does the complain prodeed. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I could concur with that Alan. Basic investigation to confirm that the objector represents a legitimate organization that is capable of achieving standing is key. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:but does it mean that no other entity can object to the community application if they select CPE? avri doria:and for a community objector, is this just the applicant being barred or any of the community who supprted the application? Alan Greenberg:Note that 2/19 is 10%. Alan Greenberg:I presume the IO was not paid on a per-objection basis. That would be a direct conflict of interest. Trang Nguyen:The IO was not paid on a per-objection basis. avri doria:the degree to which any of the money spent on application processing and objection resolution were good expenditures is a large subject of its own. Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, the AGB says "The IO may consider public comment when making an independent assessment whether an objection is warranted. The IO will have access to application comments received during the comment period." avri doria:i.e once we start the evaluation of function versus expenditure, this is not the only one that should be subject to such analysis.i.e once we start the evaluation of function versus expenditure, this is not the only one that should be subject to such analysis. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:i think it would be hard to conduct a full 360 on the effectiveness of the IO. we will never have any idea how many gTLD ideas or applications were thwarted by the meer existance of an IO. Greg Shatan:We need a Bodhisattva. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Underlying philoshical basis was the Limited Public Interest Objection. If poorly executed, it needs to be fixed. Otherwise, we are getting rid of that Objection. Greg Shatan:@Jamie, do you have any reason to believe that any applications were thwarted/unfiled due to the existence of the IO? Trang Nguyen:The AGB also says "In light of the public interest goal noted above, the IO shall not object to an application unless at least one comment in opposition to the application is made in the public sphere." So, you are correct, Jeff. avri doria:can we invite IO for a discussion? Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Greg, without the IO role to intervene on issues of morality or human rights with string applciations, what would stop people from applying from them and who would intervene to prevent some of the ideas mentioned on this call? avri doria:the discussion of his understanding might help in revising the description of the function Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree wtih Jamie. If the IO is the wrong tool or needs more support to determine Limited Public Interest, we should fix that. What if the ICANN Board appointed a non-conflicted subcommittee? Susan Payne:IO's final activity report may be of interest https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobjec tor-2Dnewgtlds.org_home_final-2Dactivity-2Dreport_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobje ctor-2Dnewgtlds.org_home_final-2Dactivity-2Dreport_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrc rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk &m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=0In10JVVDYy6Fne0MVMtRawwuju ZlbsMtE-22UlyT8s&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=0I n10JVVDYy6Fne0MVMtRawwujuZlbsMtE-22UlyT8s&e= Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... good discussion... bye for now then Terri Agnew:@Jeff, apology noted for next call Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff et al. Robin Gross:Thanks Jeff for jumpin in! Bye!

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 01 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 01 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: 01 August 2017 Action Items: 3.1.5: Leadership to reach out to RySG and Afilias to join the next call to discuss their comments. 3.1.6: 1) Research how the IO was paid; 2) Make a formal request to invite the Independent Objector to a meeting for discussion. Notes: 1. Plenary Update -- We have a call on Monday, 07 August at 20:00 UTC. The second call will be on 29 August at 3:00 UTC. -- On the last call we talked about rounds versus first come first served. -- Next we will continue that discussion as well as predictability. -- Soon we will send invites to the SOs and ACs asking them to appoint a leader for the new Work Track 5 on Geographic Names. Then we will send a call for participants. 2. CC2 Response Reviews -- Objections Continued Questions 3.1.6-3.1.11 Excerpts are on display in the central pod. Full text of the comments are available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… 3.1.5 - Are you aware of any instances where any parties attempted to "game" the Objection procedures in the 2012 round? (page 7) -- dotgay LLC provided evidence of gaming. -- dotgay LLC, RySG, and Afilias made suggestions to reduce the likelihood of gaming. -- RySG and Afilias: "No individual entity should be able to participate in both an objection and CPE for the same string." Discussion: -- (dotgay) Wanted to point out and via the example. For some reason in the community objections the process of determining whether someone was able to file an objection was not done until the objection was moved to the panelists. Very concerning glitch that allows for anyone, even without standing, to start a proceeding and force a community application to respond. There is not process for those concerns to be highlighted and dealt with. Standing should be determined before a community is pulled into an objection. -- Are there examples where had there been processes in place someone would not have had to respond? The objections are confidential. It was very clear in the case of dotgay had standing been required it was have saved a lot of time and money. -- Would there be any harm in requiring a standing check upfront? Dotgay -- can't think of any harm as it relates to our situation. -- It seems like requiring an evaluation of standing prior to a response seems like a good approach. -- (dotgay) the objection referenced was one that never made it to the panelists. The objection that did make it to the panelists didn't pass standing. The community applicant has to pay a $5,000 fee just to respond to the objection. If they don't get standing there is no way the community application can be successful. -- Wondering whether there may be cases where the decision that the group does not have standing is at least partially based on the contents of the response. Then you would want to evaluation to be preliminary. -- (dotgay) That is a good point. It is important to make it clear that standing has no connection to the complaint itself. Standing can be determined without needing to know the complaint. -- Worry that the review no matter how specific it is might miss something that the response catches. -- It makes a lot of sense to make a screening based on standing but if you don't have the opportunity of both sides to plead on standing you don't have the full picture. -- (dotgay) If we go back and look at the standing requirements they look at the time of the existence of the organization, the composition, etc. Look at the criteria to determine standing. We had been told by ICANN that if the standing isn't achieved then the impact of the complaint itself has no bearing on anything else down the road. Example: Our panelist said he was not going to hold up dotlgbt from proceeding because the gay community was going to get .gay. We were told that something from one determination was not useable in another. -- Not sure agree that an entity should not be able to participate in both an objection and CPE for the same string. Also raises more questions: if a community application decides to choose CPE does that mean no one can file an objection for the application? Implication is one or the other, if applied for CPE forego right to object to another application. This needs more discussion. ACTION: Leadership to reach out to RySG and Afilias to join the next call. >From the chat room: avri doria: so yes dotgay was forced to respond to someone who was ultimately denied standing. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: I support the idea of a screening based on standing but it should not take forever to do - should be done quickly in order to provide certainty for Applicants and potential Objectors. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense to me Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Alan it is difficult to detremine standing without both sides filing pleadings. Alan Greenberg: I strongly support a preliminary determination (which will catch most who do not have standing). Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed! be very useful Alan Greenberg: To be clear, what I was sayingwas that there should be a preliminary determination on standing, and if it fails, the objection is dead. Only if preliminary standing is granted does the complain prodeed. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: I could concur with that Alan. Basic investigation to confirm that the objector represents a legitimate organization that is capable of achieving standing is key. Alan Greenberg: Better said by Anne. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: but does it mean that no other entity can object to the community application if they select CPE? avri doria: and for a community objector, is this just the applicant being barred or any of the community who supprted the application? 3.1.6 - Do you believe that the use of an Independent Objector (IO) is warranted in future application processes? -- Nominet and ALAC expressed that the use of an IO is warranted in future application processes -- The BC stated that the use of an IO is not warranted in future application processes. -- RySG, BRG, and Afilias raised concerns about the use of the IO in the 2012 round and suggested changes for future application processes. Discussion: -- Statistics quoted by the BC are interesting and should be considered. The fact that this is an objection process it will implicitly prove not beneficial for some. -- Standing with respect to the IO: Curious who would have standing to file for a limited public interest objection. Who would determine who would have standing? If there is not IO who file the limited public interest objection? -- The IO was created to pass the requirements of standing on morality, public order, limited public interest. If we get rid of the IO who would have standing -- this needs to be considered. -- Perception was that the IO went beyond the morality, public order, limited public interest. Considered things such as .health for example. Was not created for that. For the IO needs to be a better quick look process or some other check to make sure the scope is quite limited. -- Do we know how many objections the IO was successful in and how many total dollars the applicants paid him? BC filed comments that there were 19 objections and only two successful. We can probably come up with that figure. At some point we need to do an efficiency analysis. ACTION: Research how the IO was paid. -- The question of whether the IO made good decisions is a different question from whether there should be someone with standing to file a limited public interest objection. Might be better to focus on how the IO or some other body should be required to document support for a valid limited public interest objection so that the community agrees that it is qualified. -- There are separate but related questions around the IO. Look at the 17 objections that did not prevail and why. Look at whether the IO went beyond its remit. Is there a relationship between where the IO went beyond its remit and the objections that were lost. -- The IO was only supposed to file an objection if comments were raised in the initial public comment period. It was designed to look at public comments received then to be a voice of those. -- The IO had a fixed budget that included a salary. Compensation structure needs to be looked at. -- Re: who will do this if the IO doesn't do it: Should look at whether the IO served is essential purpose. It is an odd construct that holds all the public interests. Need to look at whether there is a different mechanism. -- There is another thing to check. People were able to come to the IO with issues to consider. It is a place where those concerns can funnel in. If we are going to have these kinds of concerns there does need to be a way to funnel it into the system. -- If we are going to start looking at function, expenditure, and value for money this is not the only one we need to subject to this analysis. Not sure if it is in our scope to do this. ACTION: Make a formal request to invite the IO to a meeting for discussion. >From the chat: Alan Greenberg: Note that 2/19 is 10%. Alan Greenberg: I presume the IO was not paid on a per-objection basis. That would be a direct conflict of interest. Trang Nguyen: The IO was not paid on a per-objection basis. avri doria: the degree to which any of the money spent on application processing and objection resolution were good expenditures is a large subject of its own. Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, the AGB says "The IO may consider public comment when making an independent assessment whether an objection is warranted. The IO will have access to application comments received during the comment period." avri doria: i.e once we start the evaluation of function versus expenditure, this is not the only one that should be subject to such analysis.i.e once we start the evaluation of function versus expenditure, this is not the only one that should be subject to such analysis. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: i think it would be hard to conduct a full 360 on the effectiveness of the IO. we will never have any idea how many gTLD ideas or applications were thwarted by the meer existance of an IO. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Underlying philoshical basis was the Limited Public Interest Objection. If poorly executed, it needs to be fixed. Otherwise, we are getting rid of that Objection. Greg Shatan: @Jamie, do you have any reason to believe that any applications were thwarted/unfiled due to the existence of the IO? Trang Nguyen: The AGB also says "In light of the public interest goal noted above, the IO shall not object to an application unless at least one comment in opposition to the application is made in the public sphere." So, you are correct, Jeff. avri doria: can we invite IO for a discussion? Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Greg, without the IO role to intervene on issues of morality or human rights with string applciations, what would stop people from applying from them and who would intervene to prevent some of the ideas mentioned on this call? avri doria: the discussion of his understanding might help in revising the description of the function Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree wtih Jamie. If the IO is the wrong tool or needs more support to determine Limited Public Interest, we should fix that. What if the ICANN Board appointed a non-conflicted subcommittee? Susan Payne: IO's final activity report may be of interest https://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/home/final-activity-report/ 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? -- RySG, BRG, and Afilias recommended that parties should be able jointly determine whether to use a 1- or 3-member panel.

1 0

August 1st 15:00 UTC Discussion Agenda
by Robin Gross July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

Dear WT3 Members: Our next WT3 meeting is scheduled for Tuesday August 1st at 15:00 UTC (60 minutes). The meeting’s discussion agenda and CC2 questions on which we'll focus are below. Please note that staff has compiled a number of responses to our discussion questions already in the attached “themes” document, and so please review these responses in advance to our call for the fullest discussion on Tuesday. Thank you. I hope you all can join in the call. Best, Robin Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. Plenary Update 4. CC2 Response Reviews Objections Continued - Questions 3.1.6 - 3.1.11 (see below) 5. AOB We will continue our review of the CC2 responses and in particular to the following questions: 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?

1 0

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew July 18, 2017

July 18, 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, 18 July 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p3hu557v9ng/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3011643f1f7b0839 e912cc31b822a52f47df76a428b3e4dce623421de5d0964f> https://participate.icann.org/p3hu557v9ng/ 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/mnHwAw> https://community.icann.org/x/mnHwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 18 July 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday18 July 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_m nHwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ mnHwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=1XzvS_BUYogQD9npo882Fg3oEOp06wj-6MmAW2BSuV M&s=GTqj4rkkqhnn-QjYU0tNuyXI5n82E_PbOf62mrpQClM&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=1XzvS_BUYogQD9npo882Fg3oEOp06wj-6MmAW2BSuVM&s=GT qj4rkkqhnn-QjYU0tNuyXI5n82E_PbOf62mrpQClM&e= Steve Chan:Full WG meets on 24 July at 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Terri .. yes Jim Prendergast:Does Recommendation 2 include singular and plurals? Emily Barabas:Full versions of comments excepted above are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads heets_d_1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0_edit-23gid-3D845153891 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread sheets_d_1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0_edit-23gid-3D845153891 &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=1XzvS_BUYogQD9npo882Fg3oEOp06wj-6MmAW2BSuVM&s=bF fqtquszig0F4x8_V2VQnNv3Uo9KVDegF0FDcAfxJg&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=1XzvS_BUYogQD9npo882Fg3oEOp06wj-6MmAW2BSuVM&s=bF fqtquszig0F4x8_V2VQnNv3Uo9KVDegF0FDcAfxJg&e= Emily Barabas:*excerpted Jeff Neuman:@JIm - agree and that was discussed previously by this group when we looked at the small RySG group recommendations Jon Nevett:If we have a clear recommendation, let's make it clear in the policy Jon Nevett:ok to add it to guidance if we don't want to change the policy Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Policy needs to be clear and unambiguous Jim Prendergast:yes Gg Levine (NABP):I agree that the policy should be clear. Jim Prendergast:clear and unambiguous as CLO says Jim Prendergast:thats a very important distinction Jeff Susan Payne:need to be clear. if we are talking about singular/plural it needs to be policy Jamie Baxter | dotgay:agree it needs to be clear Jeff Neuman:@Alan - Just to clarify, the GNSO policy did not just think about visual similarity. That was much more of an ICANN-staff interpretation later on Jeff Neuman:but agree that being clear here is important and agree with Paul that singular/plural is not the only kind of confusion Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I agree with Alan as to developing policy on singular and plural. However it also has to be qualified in relation to closed generics, if awarded. Jeff Neuman:WE would also incorporate the previous discussions on this Alan Greenberg 2:Jeff, My recollection is that we discussed all sorts of confusions during the PDP, but that it was only visual that we included as something to review during the application process. Other types of confusion could be raised in objections. Trang Nguyen:String similarity review vs. string confusion objection. Paul McGrady:@Jeff, correct. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):For example, if a closed generic is awarded for .poppy, I would feel more favorably disposed of .poppies - but we also have to be aware that the meaning and purpose of the particular word may not be the generic. So, for example, if there is a registered trademark for .poppy that is for children's clothing as a brand, that probably should not prevent .poppies for sale of the flowers. Paul McGrady:@Jeff, two different times to look at confusion, but only one policy governing both. Jon Nevett:early on for sure Jim Prendergast:yeah - why create a situation where applicants spend time and resoruces applying, only to be denied once ICANN has the application fee? Trang Nguyen:@Alan, are you talking about an appeals mechanism for the string similarity review and not using string confusion objection if the applicant disagrees with the string similarity panel's determination? Jeff Neuman:We have string similarity review in this Work Track :) Jon Nevett:But we should not foreclose the opportunity for an objection Alan Greenberg:@Trang, yes. Correct. Jeff Neuman:@Paul - if there are other types of "String similarity" other than singular/plurals that should be handled up front, you should propose that Alan Greenberg:Where are we in the document? Steve Chan:@Alan, the bottom of page 2 Steve Chan:and page 3 Alan Greenberg:Thanks. Paul McGrady:Is this a policy issue or an implementation issue? Paul McGrady:It feels like it should be in the implementation Guidance instead of policy. Flat fee is a good idea but it seems granular. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:as long as implementation guidance provides assurance to applicants Paul McGrady:@Jamie, it will if it makes it into the Guidebook Jamie Baxter | dotgay:my concern is that the guidebook in the last round provided markers that were not adhered to, so that is not really assurance Jon Nevett:ICANN could do the remediation Paul McGrady:+1 SLO Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thankyou.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 18 July
by Julie Hedlund July 18, 2017

July 18, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 18 July. 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: 18 July 2017 1. Full WG Update -- Update from ICANN59, Geonames, and Next Steps for the Plenary: -- The WG will meet on 24 July at 1500 UTC. WT1 and WT2 also meeting next week. -- Each WT is going through the CC2 comments to see if they change or support the current line of thinking. Going through a second reading of all of the topics. -- Goal will be for the WT Chairs and leadership to see if we can draw up preliminary recommendations for the full WG to come to a preliminary report towards the end of this year or early next. -- Geonames: Will start a WT 5 on geographic names at the top level. Invites will go out to the SOs and ACs to appoint one person to serve as a co-leaders of the WT. The PDP rules allow great flexibility in how sub teams are set up for each PDP WG. We hope by ensuring leadership can come from these SOs and ACs there will be more incentive for them to participate. Goal is to start up WT5 by the beginning of September. 2. CC2 Response Reviews: Note that the full versions of comments are at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… 3.1.1 Do you think the policy recommendations (recs 2, 3, 6, and 20) require any modifications? if so, what would you suggest? -- Received 6 separate responses: INTA, Nominet, RySG, BRG, Afilias, and ALAC -- INTA, Nominet, RySG, BRG and Afilias believe that the existing recommendations do not need to be revised. [Reading excerpts.] -- RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggest a minor change to Recommendation 20 -- to clarify what constitutes "a significant portion of the community." -- ALAC suggests a change to Recommendation 2. Discussion: -- Some of them are saying that the recommendation remains the same but the implementation could change. -- Re: question about Recommendation 2 including singular and plurals -- asked the question because it is not clear. It has to be explained explicitly some place so people are aware of what they can and cannot apply for. -- Question for the group: Should the policy for Recommendation 2 be changed, or only the implementation? Or keep the policy the same but in the guidance notes section we say that the WG believes, for example, plurals and singulars should be included (or whatever we want to say). Or, do we write the rules on plurals and singulars into the policy? -- When it comes to policy we are telling staff/Board that you must implement this in this way. When we give implementation guidance we are recommending it -- how it should be implemented -- but it is not as strong as being part of the policy. It seems that this is of such importance it may need to be in the policy. -- What we don't want to do is put in singular and plural so strongly that it suggests that this is the only way to be confusing. -- We need to make a strong recommendation as policy. It was such a huge gaping hole in the policy. -- Think about the mechanisms in which we use confusion: 1) confusingly similar done on the front end; 2) the recommendation is also implemented in the objection process -- legal rights objection on the basis that the string is confusingly similar. There are two different times, at least, that we look at confusion. -- For the string similarity review up front -- if singular or plural of an existing TLD it won't go forward (small group of registries proposal). Need to decide if the analysis up front governs the objection process. -- Optimally we would deal with this up front and one time only. Action: Paul McGrady volunteered to work on some language. Need to tap into the definition of confusion to make it clear when confusion analysis is undertaken what it is that we are looking at. >From the Chat: Jim Prendergast: Does Recommendation 2 include singular and plurals? Jeff Neuman: @JIm - agree and that was discussed previously by this group when we looked at the small RySG group recommendations Jon Nevett: If we have a clear recommendation, let's make it clear in the policy Jon Nevett: ok to add it to guidance if we don't want to change the policy Jim Prendergast: thats a very important distinction Jeff Susan Payne: need to be clear. if we are talking about singular/plural it needs to be policy Jamie Baxter | dotgay: agree it needs to be clear Jeff Neuman: @Alan - Just to clarify, the GNSO policy did not just think about visual similarity. That was much more of an ICANN-staff interpretation later on Jeff Neuman: but agree that being clear here is important and agree with Paul that singular/plural is not the only kind of confusion Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Policy needs to be clear and unambiguous Jim Prendergast: yes Gg Levine (NABP): I agree that the policy should be clear. Jim Prendergast: clear and unambiguous as CLO says Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I agree with Alan as to developing policy on singular and plural. However it also has to be qualified in relation to closed generics, if awarded. Jeff Neuman: WE would also incorporate the previous discussions on this Alan Greenberg 2: Jeff, My recollection is that we discussed all sorts of confusions during the PDP, but that it was only visual that we included as something to review during the application process. Other types of confusion could be raised in objections. Trang Nguyen: String similarity review vs. string confusion objection. Paul McGrady: @Jeff, correct. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): For example, if a closed generic is awarded for .poppy, I would feel more favorably disposed of .poppies - but we also have to be aware that the meaning and purpose of the particular word may not be the generic. So, for example, if there is a registered trademark for .poppy that is for children's clothing as a brand, that probably should not prevent .poppies for sale of the flowers. Paul McGrady: @Jeff, two different times to look at confusion, but only one policy governing both. Jon Nevett: early on for sure Jim Prendergast: yeah - why create a situation where applicants spend time and resoruces applying, only to be denied once ICANN has the application fee? Trang Nguyen: @Alan, are you talking about an appeals mechanism for the string similarity review and not using string confusion objection if the applicant disagrees with the string similarity panel's determination? Jon Nevett: But we should not foreclose the opportunity for an objection Alan Greenberg: @Trang, yes. Correct. Jeff Neuman: @Paul - if there are other types of "String similarity" other than singular/plurals that should be handled up front, you should propose that 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 the spirit of the original policy recommendations? -- Jannik Skou, BC, RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested that String Confusion needs to be improved. [Reading sample excerpts.] -- Jannik Skou and the ALAC suggested that Legal Rights Objections need to be improved. -- The RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested that Community Objections need to be improved. -- The BC suggested developing a process to appeal decisions. -- The RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested specific procedural improvements to the objections processes. Discussion: -- From the ALAC, string confusion is probably the single largest issue of gTLDs. Specific cases (hotel/hotels) if a user doesn't remember what he used last time then it is confusing. -- Legal rights objection takes place at the application stage not use stage -- note strawman from Paul McGrady. -- Seems that we are talking about two different things. Seems like someone is talking about adding a remediation step -- don't know how that could work practically with the panel. -- Should remediation be part of the objection process or separate? -- The opportunity for mediation leading to possible remediation should be an option for a precursor to arbitration. >From the chat: Paul McGrady: Is this a policy issue or an implementation issue? Paul McGrady: It feels like it should be in the implementation Guidance instead of policy. Flat fee is a good idea but it seems granular. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: as long as implementation guidance provides assurance to applicants Paul McGrady: @Jamie, it will if it makes it into the Guidebook Jamie Baxter | dotgay: my concern is that the guidebook in the last round provided markers that were not adhered to, so that is not really assurance Jon Nevett: ICANN could do the remediation Paul McGrady: +1 CLO

1 0

WT3 Meeting Agenda - Tuesday, July 18, 2017 @ 20:00 UTC
by Karen Day July 17, 2017

July 17, 2017

Dear WT3 Members, Our next meeting will take place next Tuesday @ 20:00 UTC and our agenda will be as follows 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. Plenary Update/ICANN 59 Review 4. CC2 Response Reviews 5. AOB For the substance of the meeting, we will begin our review of CC2 feedback, specifically looking at the following questions: 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 Guidebook (AGB), or as carried out by the providers? Please explain. 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. Please take a moment prior to the meeting to review the responses to these questions on the wiki https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63155738 Some of these responses are quite substantial so we hope avoid having to read them verbatim in during the call in favor of discussion of themes derived from the responses. Thanks & I look forward to talking to you on Tuesday! Karen

1 1

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

June 20, 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, 20 June 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1wrmqg8r6h/<https://participate.icann.org/p1wrmqg8r6h/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=502b53d437b9cfc2…> 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/FxLfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 20 June 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 15:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki Page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… David McAuley (IRP IOT):I am no. 4154 Julie Bisland:thank you, David Jeff Neuman:New IRP is a "Substantive review of whether they violate the bylaws." But that is different than a substantive review of whether the Guidebook was breached, correct? Jeff Neuman:In other words, would a breach of something in the Guidebook be a violation of the bylaws? Jeff Neuman:This is what we need to consider.... Jim Prendergast:or an action by a contractor to ICANN - IRPs have discovered some actions there that didnt seem right - especially in the CPE space. Jeff Neuman:@Jim, but it is a strectch to argue that all breaches of the guidebook are violations of the bylaws....which is why many have argued that an appeals process is required Jim Prendergast:correct Jim Prendergast:which leads to the question of - are the 4 on the first slide enough? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - It seems that a breach of ByLaws or Mission is not the same as a decision which 'breaches" the Guidebook. Directors are held to standard of Mission and ByLaws and can review decisions of panel. I am not seeing basis for "breach" of Guidebook per se unless the action or inaction breaches mission or bylaws. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I doubt we can change the scope of the revised IRP at this point in time. It's a function of the consensus and Chartering Org approval accomplished in WS1. John Laprise:I like the IRP structure Jeff Neuman:@Anne - correct ; which is again why many believe an appeals process is necessary for substantive decisions, or actions or inactions of icann staff or its contractors in violation of the guidebook Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - Does Request for Reconsideration apply in the circumstances you describe and is there an appeal from that? Jeff Neuman:Requests for Reconsideration is not a substantive review of whether provisions of the Guidebook were breached. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):What is the standard of review in Request for Reconsideration? Paul McGrady 2:@Avir ot Jeff - I see the 2 geo sessions on the JoBurg calendar, but I didn't see the F2f Plenary for SubPro. Can you let me know when that is? Sorry. Karen Day:@Paul - it's Tues am 8:30 local time Emily Barabas 2:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_e… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Paul - goes to noon I think on Tuesday Paul McGrady 2:Thanks Karen Thanks Emily! & Anne! Jeff Neuman:Standard of Review for Reconsideration: (c) A Requestor may submit a request for reconsideration or review of an ICANN action or inaction ("Reconsideration Request") to the extent that the Requestor has been adversely affected by:(i) One or more Board or Staff actions or inactions that contradict ICANN's Mission, Commitments, Core Values and/or established ICANN policy(ies);(ii) One or more actions or inactions of the Board or Staff that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the Requestor could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the Board's or Staff's consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or(iii) One or more actions or inactions of the Board or Staff that are taken as a result of the Board's or staff's reliance on false or inaccurate relevant information. Jeff Neuman:Again, does not necessarily cover violations of the Guidebook. And of course an applicant cannot go to court because of ICANN's disclaimers of all liability Alan Greenberg:Sorry, that screach was me switching to a new phone. Susan Payne:does the cost sanction work the other way - if ICANN does not meaningfully engage in CEP? Jeff Neuman:So, there is still NO mechanism to handle cases where the ICANN staff, contractor, or board just got a decision wrong substantively. Jeff Neuman:unless it is of such a degree to violate the mission, core values or bylaws Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - Issue of "breach" of Guidebook provision is very touchy. In the past, the Board has received policy advice - both from the GNSO and from the GAC, that arguably varied from the Guidebook provisions. When you consider that the Board is already bound to one degree or another in relation to voting majorities that apply to GNSO advice (2/3 to overcome) and GAC Advice (60% to overcome) and by IRP on Mission and ByLaws violations, I think you are putting the Board in a very difficult position where they won't be able to make decisions on issues that arise after the Guidebook is finalized if you say there can be IRP on Guidebook breaches. Paul McGrady 2:Sorry all, have to step away early. See many of you in JoBrug Karen Day:Thanks, Paul. Safe travels Susan Payne:I don'tthink that is what we would be seeking to do Anne. Susan Payne:I think the idea is more whether we consider that we should implement appeals to decisions based on the guidebook David McAuley (IRP IOT):I will hang on till end of call Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff. Agree IRP does not cover breach of guidebook so worth looking at in Sub Pro. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): PICDRP was originally drafted as a complaint to be filed outside of ICANN and adjudicated by a neutral not selected by ICANN staff. Too bad that was not the structure was adopted because these problems would not have arisen in that procedural context. Jeff Neuman:[Co-Chair Hat off][Former Registry Hat on}: When we started this PIC Process the registries asked that it only be ICANN that enforces / does not enforce the PICs. ICANN did not want to exclusively take on that role since it did not feel like it had the knowledge or expertise to do so. It also did not want to take on the liability of making the decisions. Registries did not want to be left without an appeals process if the decision was made exclusively by an outside provider (especially if the panel made an overly harsh decision), so thus the compromise was that the Panel makes a recommendation, but ICANN determines the remedy such that a registry can challenge under the contractual provisions in their agreement. This is why it is so complex. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):"Registires did not want to be left wihout an appeals process if the decision was made exclusively by an outside provider" - i.e. registries knew that they would be protected to some degree by ICANN itself due to relationship. This goes to the core of definition of "public interest" and who should be deciding what is in the public interest - the old "GPI" debate. Susan Payne:thaks Kiran Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Should a PICDRP decision be appealable to IRP now that scope of IRP includes review of panel decisions? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think Alan also means that ICANN Compliance is supposed to be monitoring compliance with PICs - e.g. Are eligibility provisions be applied in Safeguarded strings? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Sorry must drop off for another call. Thank you. Alan Greenberg:A complaint to Compliance would not result in your being compensated, but it in theory should address any violation. Kiran Malancharuvil:Hi Alan, thanks. We aren't seeking compensation, just addressing the vilation David McAuley (IRP IOT):I will drop off now, many thanks Kiran Malancharuvil:violation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks for this and obviously lots more to discuss.... Alan Greenberg:Sorry, not a targetted you but a gneral one! Steve Chan:FYI, WT2 submitted questions to contractual compliance on complaints related to PICs. We will make sure that the responses are made available to both WTs 2 and 3. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now everyone.... safe travels to those who are attending JNB avri doria:bye, thanks Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks Karen, great call

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 20 June
by Julie Hedlund June 20, 2017

June 20, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 20 June. 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]. Slides from the call are attached for reference and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 20 June 2017 1. Status Update from Plenary Chair -- In the last meeting we focused on the last of the three drafting teams on the community comment issues -- rounds/first come, first serve. -- Next meeting -- CC1 topic and then each Work Track will take one of their issues to get input from the community. -- Working on the cross-community meeting: GeoNames at the top level for two sessions. Put out a strawperson of the proposals and trying to develop a single story. We wanted to show that we could fabricate a possible solution. Encourage everyone to read the strawperson and the chart comparing the various proposals. 2. New gTLD Accountability Mechanisms -- Slide 3 Charter: Examine whether dispute resolution and challenge processes are adequate redress options or if additional redress options specific to the program are needed. -- Independent Review Process (IRP) -- Public Internet Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) -- Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) -- Trademark Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (TM-PDDRP) -- best dealt with in the RPM PDP, not in this PDP A. Independent Review Process (IRP) David McAuley, Lead, IRP Implementation Oversight Team, Verisign Policy Team Slide 5 -- IRP -- Bylaw Section 4.3 -- Came into effect 01 October 2016 Slide 6 -- IRP (Purpose) -- See Section 4.3 (a) of the Bylaws -- Ensure (a) against exceeding mission; (b) compliance with Articles/Bylaws -- Empower community/claimants to enforce compliance -- Ensures accountability -- Address claims ICANN failed to enforce IANA Naming Functions contract -- Provide vehicle for direct IANA customers to seek resolution of PTI service complaints -- Reduce disputes by creating precedent in connection with policy development and implementation... Slide 7 -- IRP (Purpose) Cont. -- Accessible, transparent, efficient, consistent, and just resolution of disputes -- Leads to binding, final resolutions -- Provide vehicle for resolving disputes/alternative to civil litigation Slide 8 -- IRP (Main Pillars) -- New Standard of Review -- substantive review of whether ICANNs actions or inaction are a failure to enforce the Bylaws -- Standing Panel -- Updated 'Supplementary' Rules of Procedure Side 9 -- IRP (Main Pillars) Cont. -- New standard of review (scope) of IRP -- Address claims that ICANN (Board, individual directors, officers, or staff) acted/failed to act in a manner that violated the Bylaws -- Exceeded scope of mission -- Resulted from response to advice or input from AC/SO -- Resulted from decisions of process-specific expert panels that are claimed to be inconsistent with Articles or Bylaws Slide 10 -- IRP (Main Pillars) Cont. -- Resulted from a response to a DIDP request -- Arose from claims involving rights of the EC -- Claims of non-enforcement of ICANN’s contractual rights with respect to the IANA Naming Function Contract -- Claims regarding PTI service complaints by direct customers of the IANA naming functions that are not resolved through mediation Slide 11 -- IRP (Main Pillars) Cont. Excluded from Scope of IRP: -- EC challenges to the result(s) of a PDP, unless the SO(s) that approved the PDP supports the EC challenge -- Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations; -- Claims relating to Internet numbering resources, and -- Claims relating to protocol parameters. Slide 12 -- IRP (Main Pillars) Cont.: Nature of Review "objective, de novo" -- Section 4.3(i) Slide 13 -- IRP (Main Pillars) Cont. Standing Panel: -- At least 7 members -- Secretariat/admin support -- ICANN issuing Expressions of Interest -- Seeking/vetting applications -- Panel nominations by SOs/ACs and confirmation by the Board Slide 14 -- IRP (Main Pillars) Cont. -- 5-year term -- Panelists must be independent -- Individual cases to be heard by 3-member panel. -- Appeals to full standing panel possible (Section 4.3(w)); -- Resolution within six months is target (Section 4.3(s)); -- Enforcement in court envisioned if needed (Section 4.3(x)). Slide 15 -- IRP (Mail Pillar) Cont. Rules of Procedure: -- First draft of updated rules -- Review of public comments underway; making progress. -- Time within claim must be filed -- Retroactivity of 1) standard 2) rules -- Joinder of interested parties -- Challenges to consensus policies Slide 16 -- Miscellaneous -- Cooperative Engagement Process -- Conciliation efforts to narrow issues under review -- IRP IOT status -- Access consideration Questions/Discussion: -- Don't think the changes go far enough. The substantive review is whether an action or inaction caused a breach of the Bylaws, but there is nothing that would act of an appeals mechanism for a breach to the AGB unless it also breached the Bylaws. -- Not every violation of the AGB would be construed as a violation of the Bylaws -- Doesn't cover appeals where staff or contractors got the decision wrong. -- If someone doesn't like the decision of the string similarity panel, for example, there is nothing anyone can do to get that decision reviewed. -- Not dissimilar from PTI service complaints. Panel may have to wrestle with this, but there are some unclear areas. -- Question: The scope of the work in Workstream 2 re: the scope of an IRP -- what is a valid claim to be filed in an IRP? Seems that Workstream 2 is not going to be able to change the scope of Workstream 1. Is this in scope? Answer: Anything that would change the scope of an IRP would have to be suggested as an amendment to the Bylaws. See 4.3(b) is scope re: "covered actions" that violate articles or Bylaws. Gets to the further notion that this deals with someone being materially affected by the action to have standing -- has to be harm. -- Not arguing that we should be pushing for a change in the scope of the IRP; arguing that we could consider developing a new gTLD appeals process that would go into the AGB. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: New IRP is a "Substantive review of whether they violate the bylaws." But that is different than a substantive review of whether the Guidebook was breached, correct? Jeff Neuman: In other words, would a breach of something in the Guidebook be a violation of the bylaws? Jeff Neuman: This is what we need to consider.... Jim Prendergast: or an action by a contractor to ICANN - IRPs have discovered some actions there that didnt seem right - especially in the CPE space. Jeff Neuman: @Jim, but it is a strectch to argue that all breaches of the guidebook are violations of the bylaws....which is why many have argued that an appeals process is required Jim Prendergast: correct Jim Prendergast: which leads to the question of - are the 4 on the first slide enough? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - It seems that a breach of ByLaws or Mission is not the same as a decision which 'breaches" the Guidebook. Directors are held to standard of Mission and ByLaws and can review decisions of panel. I am not seeing basis for "breach" of Guidebook per se unless the action or inaction breaches mission or bylaws. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I doubt we can change the scope of the revised IRP at this point in time. It's a function of the consensus and Chartering Org approval accomplished in WS1. John Laprise: I like the IRP structure Jeff Neuman: @Anne - correct ; which is again why many believe an appeals process is necessary for substantive decisions, or actions or inactions of icann staff or its contractors in violation of the guidebook Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - Does Request for Reconsideration apply in the circumstances you describe and is there an appeal from that? Jeff Neuman: Requests for Reconsideration is not a substantive review of whether provisions of the Guidebook were breached. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): What is the standard of review in Request for Reconsideration? Jeff Neuman: Standard of Review for Reconsideration: (c) A Requestor may submit a request for reconsideration or review of an ICANN action or inaction ("Reconsideration Request") to the extent that the Requestor has been adversely affected by:(i) One or more Board or Staff actions or inactions that contradict ICANN's Mission, Commitments, Core Values and/or established ICANN policy(ies);(ii) One or more actions or inactions of the Board or Staff that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the Requestor could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the Board's or Staff's consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or(iii) One or more actions or inactions of the Board or Staff that are taken as a result of the Board's or staff's reliance on false or inaccurate relevant information. Susan Payne: does the cost sanction work the other way - if ICANN does not meaningfully engage in CEP? Jeff Neuman: So, there is still NO mechanism to handle cases where the ICANN staff, contractor, or board just got a decision wrong substantively. Jeff Neuman: unless it is of such a degree to violate the mission, core values or bylaws Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - Issue of "breach" of Guidebook provision is very touchy. In the past, the Board has received policy advice - both from the GNSO and from the GAC, that arguably varied from the Guidebook provisions. When you consider that the Board is already bound to one degree or another in relation to voting majorities that apply to GNSO advice (2/3 to overcome) and GAC Advice (60% to overcome) and by IRP on Mission and ByLaws violations, I think you are putting the Board in a very difficult position where they won't be able to make decisions on issues that arise after the Guidebook is finalized if you say there can be IRP on Guidebook breaches. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thanks Jeff. Agree IRP does not cover breach of guidebook so worth looking at in Sub Pro. B. PICDRP -- Lessons Learned Kiran Malancharuvil, Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor -- First PICDRP that made it to the Standing Panel stage -- Purpose: Ensure new gTLDs operated in the public interest. -- PICDRP was a way for parties to bring a complaint against registry operators re: fraud and malicious conduct. -- Process is arduous and complicated, uncertain and lack of transparency. -- The problems with PICDRP: (1) transparency violations -- ICANN regularly shared all of the coalition's filings with the respondent (TLS), but refused to share any of the respondent's filings. Approached ICANN but didn't get a satisfactory answer. (2) In the dark from when we filed and we got the decision. No notice of the composition of the Standing Panel to identify conflicts of interest. -- After PICDRP gave its findings -- TLS submitted to ICANN Compliance a mediation plan to address teh violations, but we did not receive any information. No way to understand what happened to know if the remedy was appropriate. -- During the Standing Panel's deliberations ICANN instructed the panel on the scope of the PICDRP -- process violation of ICANN's neutral role in the decision of the PICDRPs. -- Concerns expressed by Panelists. -- Registry operator TLS after the PICDRP was filed and decided and after remediation, engaged in retaliatory behavior by claiming we had a confidentiality breach by association/proxy. Requested termination of our accreditation with them. Complainants aren't protected from retaliation. Questions/Discussion: -- Question: Stages during which information you shared with ICANN and the procedural methods where you weren't kept informed, was that before you made it to the panel? Where did ICANN stop having a role? Answer: Vast majority happened before the panel. Once panel was convened it was sealed off, except for ICANN instructing them on the scope. Will note the question and respond on the list. -- General comment/question: To what extent are we aware of actions ICANN has taken on the other half of the PICDRP enforcement mechanism -- simple complaint to Compliance the results in some kind of action by ICANN that the PICs are being enforced. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): PICDRP was originally drafted as a complaint to be filed outside of ICANN and adjudicated by a neutral not selected by ICANN staff. Too bad that was not the structure was adopted because these problems would not have arisen in that procedural context. Jeff Neuman: [Co-Chair Hat off][Former Registry Hat on}: When we started this PIC Process the registries asked that it only be ICANN that enforces / does not enforce the PICs. ICANN did not want to exclusively take on that role since it did not feel like it had the knowledge or expertise to do so. It also did not want to take on the liability of making the decisions. Registries did not want to be left without an appeals process if the decision was made exclusively by an outside provider (especially if the panel made an overly harsh decision), so thus the compromise was that the Panel makes a recommendation, but ICANN determines the remedy such that a registry can challenge under the contractual provisions in their agreement. This is why it is so complex. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): "Registries did not want to be left without an appeals process if the decision was made exclusively by an outside provider" - i.e. registries knew that they would be protected to some degree by ICANN itself due to relationship. This goes to the core of definition of "public interest" and who should be deciding what is in the public interest - the old "GPI" debate. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Should a PICDRP decision be appealable to IRP now that scope of IRP includes review of panel decisions? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think Alan also means that ICANN Compliance is supposed to be monitoring compliance with PICs - e.g. Are eligibility provisions be applied in Safeguarded strings? Alan Greenberg: A complaint to Compliance would not result in your being compensated, but it in theory should address any violation. Kiran Malancharuvil: Hi Alan, thanks. We aren't seeking compensation, just addressing the violation Steve Chan: FYI, WT2 submitted questions to contractual compliance on complaints related to PICs. We will make sure that the responses are made available to both WTs 2 and 3. 3. ICANN59 Topics Slide 18: ICANN59 F2F Meeting Topics -- How GAC Advice & GAC Early Warnings impact the freedom of expression and the application process Slide 19: Meetings: Tuesday, 27 June, 0830-1200: GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Face-to-Face Meeting Tuesday, 27 June, 1700-1830: https://schedule.icann.org/event/B3pX/cross-community-discussion-geographic… Thursday, 29 June, 1515-1830: https://schedule.icann.org/event/B3pD/cross-community-discussion-geographic…

1 0

Discussion Agenda for WT3 - Tuesday 20 June at 15:00 UTC
by Karen Day June 16, 2017

June 16, 2017

Dear WT 3 members, We are scheduled to have our next call this coming Tuesday, June 20th at 15:00 UTC. Please review our agenda below and plan to join us on the call if you are able. 1. Welcome / Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Status Update from Plenary Chair 4. New gTLD Accountability Mechanisms A. Revised IRP B. PICDRP – lessons learned 5. Discussion topics for ICANN 59 F2F 6. AOB Hope to see you there, Karen _______________________________________________________________ Karen L. Day, ACP NCCP SAS Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ gTLDinfo(a)sas.com 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas<http://www.nic.sas/>; www.nic.jmp<http://www.nic.jmp/>; www.nic.analytics<http://www.nic.analytics/>

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 3 - 6 June 2017
by Emily Barabas June 7, 2017

June 7, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from yesterday’s meeting. 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. Slides from the call are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 1. Welcome / Update SOIs -- no updates 2. Review / Revise Agenda -- no revisions 3. WG Plenary Co-Chair Update - Primary focus - completing CC1 work and preparing draft recommendations. Last meeting focused on predictability and community engagement. - Discussion of comments coming from GDD on "gating" issues that will need to be settled before GDD can begin its work towards subsequent procedures. - Work looking ahead to geographic names sessions at ICANN59. 4. Accountability Mechanisms Applicable to New gTLD Program a. Review of ICANN-Org-Wide Mechanisms -- see slide 3 for overview i) Ombudsman Office ii) Complaints Office iii) Reconsideration Request Process iv) Independent Review Panel Process v) Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) Process vi) Documentary Disclosure Information Policy (DIDP) vii) Law suits? b. gTLD Specific Accountability Mechanisms -- see slide 4 for overview i) PIC Dispute Resolution Procedure -- this group will look at the actual process, WT1 will look at the PIC ii) Trademark Post-Dispute Resolution Procedure (being addressed by RPMs PDP) iii) Independent Objector Process -- also Registration Restrictions DRP 5. Questions to Consider: a. Standard of Review (procedural, substantive) appropriate for this instance (new gTLDs)? - substantive review is necessary to get to the root of some problems. In 2012 round, the mechanisms did not provide for this, or there was a lack of ability to "think outside the box" in getting to the root of the underlying problem. - the accountability mechanisms need to give better guidance to the people reviewing the cases about how to come to a resolution. There was so much restriction on what can be looked at. - more instruction to third-party dispute resolution providers may be necessary. - Staff: It may make sense to think about the phases of accountability separately. On the one hand, there is ICANN’s accountability to the evaluation procedures, and on the other hand applicants’ ability to seek redress to decisions and actions of ICANN and its providers through post delegation procedures. And then perhaps it might make sense to think of the accountability of registries and their commitments in the application and in the registry agreement. Chat excerpt: Rubens Kuhl: I also believe one degree of substantive review is needed. Local court system allows 1st and 2nd instances to look at substance, produce evidence and witnesses. Rubens Kuhl: After that, higher courts only look at already in-file evidence. - There have been enhancements to the accountability mechanisms, but they still don’t do a substantive review of decisions that are made. They mostly look at whether the Board and staff acted in a manner consistent with the Bylaws, mission, etc. - The Registries filed a statement today, includes comments indicating that they would like to see appeals of substantive decisions, as opposed to appeals through accountability mechanisms. We need to know if the panel adhered to the rules and process, but we also need to know did the panel making the decisions get it right? If they didn't, where can they turn? - Boards should be making high-level decisions, not making very granular decisions. There should be someone or some group of subject matter experts other than the Board to review decisions. It should also not go to the group/individuals who made the decision in the first place. In reconsiderations, the Board is sometimes reviewing decisions they made in the first place, which is not effective. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @Jeff: That is not my recollection. I remember a webinar where ICANN staff member said that an action by one of the review panel was the same as a staff action for the purposes of Reconsideration Requests and IRP avri doria: Kurt, that is the way it was treated. Jeff Neuman: But that does not change the fundamental point that no one reviewed the decisions by the evaluators. Kurt Pritz: Those Reconsdieration requests were generally lost because the Board Governance Committee found no policy violation (not judging as to whether there was one or not) - Problem to avoid going forward -- fix what exists, so those in charge of accountability have the tools they need to get the right result. - Instead of creating another organization at another level that is responsible for this, we can empower the Board to act on in the way they were meant to behalf of the community. b. Adequate transparency in new gTLD decision making process, including implementation? - With regard to conflicts of interest, there needs to be transparency on the front end. On the PICDRP, some questions came up about the panelists and their potential conflicts after the decision was received. There was no way to know who panelists were while going through the PICDRP until the decisions was rendered. Chat excerpt: Jamie Baxter | dotgay: Lack of transparency around evaluators used in CPE is also an issue. There is no way to assess any conflict of interest issues. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes dealing with potential COI. impossibly challenging it seems Karen and Jamie . Karen Bernstein: I have a problem with the qualifications of arbitrators overseing objections. Specifically, we had an admiralty lawyer preside over a String Confusion Objection. Rubens Kuhl: While we look at accountability mechanisms, we need to make sure they are not used, or we try to avoid that, them to be used to delay a contention set. Kiran Malancharuvil: Of course the problem with limiting areas of expertise is that those who have an expertise in this area are VERY likely to have conflicts of interest Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): There's a difference between requiring experts to have expertise in the DNS and the domain industry, on the one hand, and requiring tht experts have expertise in an area more closely related than admiralty. Karen Bernstein: Kristina, this particular arbitrator had no experience in trademark or DNS/dn industry c. Are there special concerns with respect to conflicts of interest and adequate safeguards for COI in new gTLD program? - In the context of the independent objector, there needs to be a mechanism through which assertions of conflict of interest can be dealt with in a preliminary matter and separate from a full hearing/consideration by the expert. If you look at the independent objections against the .amazon case, Amazon raised the conflict of interest issue early and often, but was told that there was not mechanism to address, and that it was up to the expert panel to decide whether it would want to address the potential conflict of interest. It shouldn’t be up to expert. Also, you shouldn't put a party in a position to litigate the full objection before you can reach the conflict of interest issue. Chat excerpt: Susan Payne: I don't have audio I'm afraid. I seem to recall the IO, in his own review of his role, raised the issue about having an alternative IO who could act in situations on conflict. Assuming the IO role is retained that seems a sensible suggestion - One of the DRPs has a first look process - review to see if they have some merit -- possible to use that on the objections side, limit to conflicts of interest. - One possibility we considered on an earlier call is to spread first look process across all mechanisms. Chat excerpt: Jeff Neuman: I am not sure we can improve the accountability mechanisms as they are pretty well baked right now Jeff Neuman: but we can focus on new things like a susbstantive appeals process. Rubens Kuhl: I believe PICDRP has such a first look mechanism. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense if first look s used across and to take in COI issues as consideration. Rubens Kuhl: Not fine, for sure. - Does this group agree that this is an area that should be left alone because it is "baked in." - Some things in the Bylaws are difficult to change, but some enhancements to existing mechanisms or new narrowly focused mechanisms are within reach. - The Accountability Mechanisms were developed through intensive work over a period of years, but we could recommend new grounds for appeal, intermediate steps in addressing issues. - Might be helpful to distinguish in deliberations between organization-wide accountability mechanisms and more narrowly tailored mechanisms specific to the New gTLD Program. d. Are there adequate penalties against abuse? e. Is there adequate enforcement? f. Are there specific needs with respect to new gTLDs which make ICANN's basic accountability mechanisms inadequate? g. Is there a need for an accountability mechanism specifically focused on new gTLD program? h. Who should be final adjudicator in such cases? 6. AOB / Next Meeting (20 June - 15:00 UTC) - Next week - focus on Dispute Resolution Processes

1 0