Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4e3e3mssdk/<https://participate.icann.org/p4e3e3mssdk/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ba32205baa7d5c6f9f2d022df27c77f6f8ad33f70eee561c5b2448cd9588aee0> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/roJEB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 October 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_r... jeff neuman:FYI - for the next 15 mins or so I will not be on adobe, but will be listening on the phone Karen Day:Hi all Julie Bisland:thanks Jeff, I've noted this on Adobe Julie Bisland:Avri, we can't hear you Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bad audio Julie Bisland:Still nothing Avri Julie Bisland:she's trying again to get audio Karen Day:As well as accountability mechinisms no? avri doria:after 3 tries back, avri doria:i think Jim Prendergast:is there a specific day you are looking at? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Maybe those are good topics for Face to Face Anne Aikman-Scalese:THanks Karen Jim Prendergast:see i t in notes Anne Aikman-Scalese:Be there or be square avri doria:24th people are travelling Julie Bisland:Donna, no audio Jim Prendergast:so the plenary on 10/23 will be cancelled? Donna Austin, Neustar:ok, thanks Karen Anne Aikman-Scalese:I think Donna has a pretty good idea about reversing the order here and preparing on GAC topics. Steve Chan:Note, the meeting with the GAC is only 30 minutes. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:makes sense Julie Bisland:Anne: no audio Cheryl Langdon-Orr:audio? Steve Chan:After the 30 minute GAC meeting with WT1 and WT3, the GAC will be talking amongst themselves, though it's an open session for anyone to attend. Donna Austin, Neustar:Given Jeff's examples, I think opening this up will create more problems then its worth. Phil Buckingham:That would be a great idea , Anne Jim Prendergast:if as Jeff said it can be gamed too easily - I think we need to be very very cautious. Roger Carney:@jeff @Jim, talking that one step further, I am not sure the benefits outwiegh the risks/costs Jim Prendergast:they way round 1 went - I would have loved to applied for a bunch of contended tlds. Would have made huge $$$ in private auctions. jeff neuman:@Jim - I know, but in the brands situation I can see areas where changing a string should be allowed Donna Austin, Neustar:@Roger, I don't think any benefit would outweigh the risk/cost. jeff neuman:Lets say a string is found to be "geographic" when no one thought it would be and the GAC objected. I think rather than the Board refusing to delegate anything, perhaps an alternative could be selected Roger Carney:@Donna :) Donna Austin, Neustar:@Roger, I meant to say I agree with you. Alan Greenberg:Can I please be unmuted? jeff neuman:I think we should separate String Similarity from String contention jeff neuman:They are 2 different things Anne Aikman-Scalese:Don't think you should be able to opt out of one string contention set into another. It would have to be an option to go to a clear string that was contemplated by your initial application as a fallback. jeff neuman:The first part is String Similarity (a check against existing strings) jeff neuman:if it is judged to be too similar to an existing string, the application dies Phil Buckingham:Anne , I think we could apply that ( a second choice ) to a closed brand , but would be more difficult , in terms of potential gaming for an open TLD jeff neuman:I am talking about at this stage that a string should be allowed to be changed as opposed to at the "Contention phase" Alan Greenberg:I am muted and cannot unmute myself. Jon Nevett:what if more than one party wanted to swtich to the same alternative TLD? Would that create another contention set? Steve Chan:Sorry Alan, just saw your note. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Rules: 1. you have to specify your alternates up front - max 4 total. You cannot opt into another contention set. (3) There should still be a reasonable relationship between the TLD name and the stated Question 18 purpose of the TLD. avri doria:Jon, I think they would need to agree among themselves with a rule of no new contention produced. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jon, I think it would create another contention set. Alan Greenberg:@Jeff, I did understand and I was (I thought) agreeing with you. jeff neuman:@Alan - yes....i was referring to some others jeff neuman:Does anyone agree with my example? I am not sure how that could be gamed jeff neuman:I am not sure people are happy...but not sure what the alternatives are Jamie Baxter | dotgay:the notion .. yes, the implementation .. no Jim Prendergast:arent we still waiting for CPE review by board? Donna Austin, Neustar:yes we are Jim Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Jim .. yes. we are now a year into the CPE investigation with no clear sight on a result avri doria:i think they may provide a form of gaming. avri doria:i mean private auctions - personal view jeff neuman:how do we prevent private auctions? avri doria:hard to prevent Jon Nevett:private auctions is just one form of contention resolution -- policy question is whether we should support private resolution or not. Jim Prendergast:you could allow for other resolutions - forming JVs wa prohibited last round Phil Buckingham:exactly Jeff . so do we make ALL auctions public ? But what happens to the proceeds in that case ? jeff neuman:Are there ideas on how we could stop private contention resolution avri doria:never understood the preventon of partnerships and joint ventures jeff neuman:The only other option for contention resolution is subjective evaluation..... avri doria:as a contention resolution mechansim Jon Nevett:JVs were permitted by the way -- just couldn't replace an applicant with a JV jeff neuman:@Jon - right....hence why you all created so many new entities Jon Nevett:"It is understood that applicants may seek to establish joint ventures in their efforts to resolve string contention" Donna Austin, Neustar:Was there any context to the GAC input? I think the comments are expressly related to IDN ccTLD Policy. What is the EPSRP? Steve Chan: Extended Process Similarity Review Panel, though I can't speak to the substance of the process. jeff neuman:yes Steve Chan:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources... Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thought so Donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr:there is some supposed confusability with some scripts lettering. yes Jeff jeff neuman:it looked like .br not be jeff neuman:the cyrillic version of Bulgaria two characters Alan Greenberg:Yes, it was .br jeff neuman:I thought it looked more like 6r Emily Barabas:@Donna, the full text of the GAC comment is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachm... jeff neuman:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system... Emily Barabas:Unfortunately, no additional context is provided in the document related to this comment Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Emily Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed Alan Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Alan, so its a decision relating to confusability that may be relevant/applicable to our discussions. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:good progress.. thanks everyone ð bye for now... avri doria:bye