- Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 - lists.icann.org

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 14 December
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 14 December. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Note also that the referenced slides for today’s meeting are attached. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 14 December 1. Hyderabad recap [slide 5 of the slide deck] -- Support for IDN 1-character was pictogram (Japanese or Korean), but opposition was not to Latin and Cyrillic, but use a more generic term. -- Probably would be good to use generic terms for all of them. -- Only those that represent 1 word. -- On support for IDN Variant TLDS -- Staff have had preliminary discussions with Sarmad Hussain on staff. He could provide background or a status update on the program. >From the Chat: avri doria: idoegraphic cs. non ideographic 2. Consensus call 1: Technical capability to be assessed at contract signing time [slide 7 in the slide deck] Possible language: "Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out, but will only be required to do so at contract-signing time, after passing other criteria and/or approvals and prevailing in contention set(s), [if any]." -- If we do a consensus call over email should have the full story documented and presented to be taken into account. -- Today's discussion is just a temperature taking, not a consensus call. -- Explaining why the change is being made is important. Good to lay out those conditions, which will help this make sense. -- The financial model and testing the technical model are two different things. >From the chat: avri doria: might want to consider adding ", if any" at the end of the stmt. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Avri avri doria: i think we need two reading, both on calls to close a consensus call. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes the rationale is important on this proposed recommendation Phil Buckingham: this is a catch 22 , since the technical costs/ so contractual relationship with the backend provider will need be incurred and the costs put in the financial model for evaluation. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thx Avri 3. Discussion: Technical evaluation of applications to be performed as aggregated as feasible [slide 9 from the slide deck] -- During the evaluation process there wasn't a realization of how the market would evolve with respect to backend providers . -- It was thought at the outset that individual applications needed to be evaluated in the absense of knowing that the backend marketplace would be established. Things didn't work out as predicted. >From the Chat: Steve Chan: If I recall, part of why every application was considered indivudually overall was related to principles of fairness? Kurt would probably be able to fact check that statement. Phil Buckingham: Totally agree Kurt. and nobody knew who was going to apply , how many portfolio players would submit multiple applications using the same model 4. Discussion: Timing and method for Financial Evaluation [slide 10 from the slide deck] -- Could have speculative applications. The financial models are going to vary even more if the price goes down. -- Look at the program implementation report that staff produced. There were inefficiencies from treating every application individually. >From the chat: Phil Buckingham: the financial model was templated / standardised . It wont work for Round 2 . Each applicant's financial model needs to treat separately , evaluated , due diligence accordingly Agreed Alan . Alot more . Steve Chan: @Rubens, I tried to note that the report acknowledges those challenges to some degree, but apparently i made that point ineffectively. So not just about inefficiency...

1 0

Work Track 4 agenda for 14 Dec 2016
by Rubens Kuhl Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

Dear WT4 members, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC, 12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET. For other times: http://tinyurl.com/hsjzcqf <http://tinyurl.com/hsjzcqf> The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Hyderabad recap 4. Consensus call 1: Technical capability to be assessed at contract signing time 5. Discussion: Technical evaluation of applications to be performed as aggregated as feasible 5. Discussion: Timing and method for Financial Evaluation Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ <https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/> You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option that was sent in the calendar invitation. Best, Rubens

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 27 October
by Edwards, Nathaniel Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

Thanks, Mike. My apologies, the gTLDs were recommended to be permanently reserved. This is an important distinction that I inadvertently overlooked. My concern is that the economic desires of a few registries and motivated stakeholders seem to be driving the push to release the gTLDs, which is illustrated by the August 24, 2016 letter to the Board from certain of the applicants for the gTLDs. One proposed solution is to give private network operators notice of the risks of a newly delegated gTLD in the form of an “information and education campaign” that provides the operators the opportunity to stop/prevent leaking queries. But why should the burden and economic cost of the registries’ for-profit business fall upon these businesses? This frankly seems completely incongruent with much of the spirit of ICANN policy and also may also be a good way to get sued. Whether the name collision issue is overstated is another issue. The independent advisors retained to analyze the name collision issue by ICANN concluded otherwise in 2013-2014, though changed circumstances could compel a different conclusion now. I do not know the answer. I have noticed that the majority of parties asserting the problem is overstated have an economic interest in minimizing the problem. Nathaniel W. Edwards Counsel 602.262.5367 office 602.748.2530 fax nedwards(a)lrrc.com<mailto:nedwards@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D23061.A219B380] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2595 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 11:36 AM To: Edwards, Nathaniel Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 27 October .home, .corp and .mail are not permanently reserved. They are indefinitely in limbo, at moment. But generally I agree that in future rounds -- as should have happened in this last round -- there needs to be much more certainty about what is not allowed, and the Board and Staff must have far less discretion to create new rules on the fly. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Edwards, Nathaniel <NEdwards(a)lrrc.com<mailto:NEdwards@lrrc.com>> wrote: My apologies and regrets for not being able to attend the meeting this morning. The Adobe Connect link resolved to a page that stated “resource not found.” On the topic of name collision, I do not believe it is helpful to the next round to revisit permanently reserved names. The more pertinent question, already included in the questions for JAS, is whether there are any strings that were not applied for in the first round that could be deemed too high risk to delegate in subsequent rounds. My view is that the lone goal with respect to name collisions should be to inform potential applicants of all reserved gTLDs prior to significant allocation of resources to an application for a reserved gTLD in the next round. This goal does not require revisiting names that have already been permanently reserved based on commissioned reports and public comment. The iniquity on each applicant for .home, .mail and .corp was not that it was not delegated the gTLD. There were many competing applications for the now permanently reserved names. Any individual applicant’s chances of delegation were quite low. The iniquity was that the applicants invested substantial resources in applications for gTLDs that it turned out were never available at all. Best regards, Nate Nathaniel W. Edwards Counsel 602.262.5367<tel:602.262.5367> office 602.748.2530<tel:602.748.2530> fax nedwards(a)lrrc.com<mailto:nedwards@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D23049.97D4D7A0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2595 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 8:58 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 27 October Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 October. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 October Action Items: 1. Update the JAS questions in the Google Doc with the suggested additions. 2. Avri and Jeff will draft a letter for GDD concerning contacting the JAS. 3. Send the final version of the outreach questions, as well as the JAS questions, to the Sub Team WT4 list. Send to the community and JAS after Hyderabad. Discussion Notes: 1. Update from WG activities • The next meeting is a face-to-face meeting in Hyderabad, Thursday, 03 November, 13:45-18:30. See: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cxk/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-procedure… and remote access at: https://participate.icann.org/hyd57-hall6. • The Working Group and Work Track Sub Teams are working on outreach questions. • The next call will be scheduled in the last week of November. A notice will be sent. 2. Actions from meeting #3 and Specific Outreach Questions (Continued): Referencing the slides -- slide 5. Also, see the questions at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/147Jn259tNHjFEcZyzPrCWyv8y7GmBVaVL_xVVZa9_G…. Specific questions for JAS Advisors on Application Quality Control and Name Collisions. • Should we ask more generally: “Under what set of circumstances could .corp, .home, and .mail be released as TLDs? Under what, if any...” • Ask questions that would directly impact the outcome of the next round, not the current round. • The question could be added to the third bullet point under name collisions: "Are there circumstances where strings considered high risk could be released. "Based on data from the first round, can the controlled interruption period be reduced in future rounds..." • Add: "What if any circumstances could be released under BP3." Add Text for controlled Interruptions. • From staff: Could provide these to GDD staff since they liaise with JAS. I think they may have suggestions concerning the questions too. • We will write to GDD asking them for them to let us contact JAS directly, but wouldn't suggest having staff revise the questions. • Referencing the outreach questions (slide 7), for Hyderabad and also for community input. Might need to work out to the ccNSO too. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations call
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/HQSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 27 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Rubens Kuhl:I think Cheryl is in another call and will join us in a few. Jeff Neuman:wow....lots of people today ;) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Finally on audio Thx Rubens Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:+1 Jeff - maybe everyone is packing their bags for Hyderabad Rubens Kuhl:Or taking the last dose of their vaccine prescriptions Jeff Neuman:They can pack the bags all they want, whether they show up or not is another story Rubens Kuhl:#4 avri doria:one can pack a bag and attend a conference call or two at the same time. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:yes Rubens Kuhl:Remote participation is said to be available with standard Adobe participation, just not with remote hubs. Emily Barabas:Questions also available at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_forms_… Kurt Pritz:Should we ask more generally: Under what set of circumstances could .corp, .home, and .mail be released as TLDs? Kurt Pritz:Under what, if any, ... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):So this is the *LAST CALL* for comments on these (which are prepared as a Google Form Questionaire before after todays call we request Jeff and Avri to have them sent out (via Stff I assume) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Add te What if any circumstances could be released under BP 3 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):add Text for controlled Interuptions Kurt Pritz:@Jeff's question: "Based on data from the first round, can the controlled interruption period be reduced in future rounds....." Rubens Kuhl:Will do. Emily Barabas:Slides are now unsynced Emily Barabas:all can scroll through the two slides of questions Steve Chan:I had a question, but I can just ask it here: were the questions in the Google Doc shared with the WT4 members? I couldn't seem to find an email where the link was shared. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Emily Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Rubens owns the Google Form Doc Steve he would need to answer that I certainly got my invite to revie I did not think you could Invite a list email to do so but perhaps could have sent an 'anyone with the link" invitation to a list, not sure if that happened as I got the invite to my gmail Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Regardless after today's edits we can send a 'copy to the list as Final Draft as per todays call Steve Chan:I didn't have the link myself actually - I found the questions within the transcript of another meeting. Perhaps that was a factor in the lack of response from WT members. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Safe travel everyone going to Hyderabad Emily Barabas:Next meeting is not yet scheduled Emily Barabas:we will be sending out an invitation Rubens Kuhl:But we like hearing from you Avri... Rubens Kuhl:Safe travels everyone! Jeff Neuman:thanks! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye for now

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 27 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 October. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 October Action Items: 1. Update the JAS questions in the Google Doc with the suggested additions. 2. Avri and Jeff will draft a letter for GDD concerning contacting the JAS. 3. Send the final version of the outreach questions, as well as the JAS questions, to the Sub Team WT4 list. Send to the community and JAS after Hyderabad. Discussion Notes: 1. Update from WG activities · The next meeting is a face-to-face meeting in Hyderabad, Thursday, 03 November, 13:45-18:30. See: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cxk/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-procedure… and remote access at: https://participate.icann.org/hyd57-hall6. · The Working Group and Work Track Sub Teams are working on outreach questions. · The next call will be scheduled in the last week of November. A notice will be sent. 2. Actions from meeting #3 and Specific Outreach Questions (Continued): Referencing the slides -- slide 5. Also, see the questions at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/147Jn259tNHjFEcZyzPrCWyv8y7GmBVaVL_xVVZa9_G…. Specific questions for JAS Advisors on Application Quality Control and Name Collisions. · Should we ask more generally: “Under what set of circumstances could .corp, .home, and .mail be released as TLDs? Under what, if any...” · Ask questions that would directly impact the outcome of the next round, not the current round. · The question could be added to the third bullet point under name collisions: "Are there circumstances where strings considered high risk could be released. "Based on data from the first round, can the controlled interruption period be reduced in future rounds..." · Add: "What if any circumstances could be released under BP3." Add Text for controlled Interruptions. · From staff: Could provide these to GDD staff since they liaise with JAS. I think they may have suggestions concerning the questions too. · We will write to GDD asking them for them to let us contact JAS directly, but wouldn't suggest having staff revise the questions. · Referencing the outreach questions (slide 7), for Hyderabad and also for community input. Might need to work out to the ccNSO too.

2 1

Fwd: interesting reading about value of findings of Name Collisions
by Rubens Kuhl Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

The ICANN-commissioned CDAR study of the effects of new gTLDs on the root zone presented in the RIPE meeting a draft summary of their findings so far: https://ripe73.ripe.net/presentations/147-cdar-ripe-73.pptx The CDAR study will definitely be a factor to consider in the name collisions part of WT4, but since the above report is a draft subject to change we won't add it to Wiki just now, although adding https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/ssr <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/ssr> where new developments of this study are likely to appear is probably a good thing. While this is not in the agenda for our meeting today, it's in scope for AOB if there is interest. Rubens

1 0

Agenda for this week call #4
by Rubens Kuhl Oct. 26, 2016

Oct. 26, 2016

AGENDA SubPro WT 4: IDN / Technical / Operations Meeting #4 1500 UTC 27 October 2016 08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 16:00 London, 17:00 CEST For other times: http://migre.me/vlGOp Adobe Connect room(NEW): https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ 1. Welcome 2. Opening Remarks 3. Call Administration 4. Any update from WG activities 5. Brief Review of Meeting #3 and any AI's 6. Specific Outreach Questions (Continued) 7. AOB 8. Review of any Action Items We welcome you all to join us on this call. Rubens and Cheryl

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 29 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 29 September. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 29 September 1. Update from WG Activities Discussion Notes: Jeff Neuman: · Sent a letter to GNSO Council on Board letter to the Council on whether we could bifurcate some matters and launching in parallel a new round. We notified the Council that we did not come to consensus. The GNSO Council will discuss today, 29 September. · Each Work Tracks have started on substantive matters and items to give to staff to research. 2. Brief Review of Meeting #2 and any action items Discussion Notes: Cheryl Langdon-Orr: · First thing: generate outreach questions SOs/ACs, GNSO SGs and Cs. A number of different work tracks are hoping to have outreach questions, so helpful if there could be one coordinated letter. However, our questions need to go early in the process and if there is undue delay from other Work Track Sub Teams it shouldn't hold us up. · Look at other drafting as response to the action items from our last meeting: Steve Chan: · Staff reached out to internal colleagues re: score cards and to the Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG). · Helpful to have specific questions for GDD and UASG. Need to understand the scope that we want to ask. · UASG noted that their work is generally outward facing, but willing to participate, but specific questions would be helpful. Jeff Neuman: · Did the questions asked of the applicants provide the information that the evaluators were looking for -- probably note as there were clarifying questions. · Need guidance on how can we revise the questions to avoid having to go back with clarifying questions? · How can we assist future evaluators and make the process more streamlined? · Don't have enough information about the process to ask specific questions. Rubens Kuhl: · The initiate questions were public, but when clarifying questions were issued they were not published. · There is a lot of information that could be used to improve the process. Steve Chan: ICANN staff did release a number of Applicant Advisories in regards to problematic questions -- something that we can work with in the interim. 3. Discussion of Specific Questions for JAS Advisors Action Item: Rubens Kuhl will put the questions into a Google Doc. Discussion Notes: Rubens Kuhl: Possible outreach to JAS Advisors -- role in quality control, back up evaluator, framework for name collisions. Here are draft questions: Application Quality Control · “In your role of quality control for the 2012-round application evaluation, what suggestions you have for improving the application process that you would like the community to consider ?” Name Collisions · “In your role of developing the framework and analysis to respond for the namespace collisions issue, what general guidance would you like the community to consider for the next round ?” · “Among the 3 strings not recommended to move forward (.home, .corp and .mail), we can classify them in two groups: ones without much dotless queries (.home and .corp) and one with prevalence of dotless queries (.mail). Considering dotless operation is forbidden in gTLDs, could you clarify why the later group presented a collision risk as well ?” · “Were there non-applied for strings that would fall into one of those two risk profiles that would be suggested to not be allowed for the time being in subsequent new gTLD procedures ?” Rubens Kuhl: DNS Stability Review looked at IDNs. There were no language generation rules at that time. Name collisions were not part of that. 4. Specific Outreach Questions Action Items: 1. Sub Team members should think up and propose additional questions. But we don’t want to create the world's longest survey. Need to make it easy. Use letter approach to UASG and survey approach for community questions. 2. CLO and Rubens: Put into Google Forms as a collaborative tool in comment mode. Principle B; Recommendation 18; Principles D, E and F; Recommendations 4, 7, and 8; General 1. Consider how to encourage adoption of gTLDs. · Internationalized Domain Names and Universal Acceptance – Coordinate with UASG Questions to pose. 2. Evaluate whether rules around IDNs properly accounted for recommendations from IDN WG. 3. Determine and address policy guidance needed for the implementation of IDN variant TLDs. · Security and Stability: a. Were the proper questions asked to minimize the risk to the DNS and ensure that applicants will be able to meet their obligations in the registry agreement? b. Should there be non-scored questions and if so, how should they be presented? c. Were the proper criteria established to avoid causing technical instability? d. Is the impact to the DNS from new gTLDs fully understood? Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational and Financial: · Were Financial and Technical criteria designed properly to allow applicants to demonstrate their capabilities while allowing evaluators to validate their capabilities? a. How can the criteria be streamlined and made clearer? Rubens Kuhl: Just noting that most of these are very open-ended so we'll probably get answers that go in opposite directions or answer different things. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: · Look for example "Consider how to encourage adoption of gTLDs" -- ideal to ask the respondent to react to a statement with a scale of 1-7 avoiding neutrality. Same could apply to other issues. · Could use Google Forms. Also for a matrix response -- pose a set of statements that could be the antithesis of what you are asking. Could use survey-style materials. Jeff Neuman – Additional Questions: 1. On IDNs: Should we allow single character IDN in nthose languages where a single character an denote a full word or phrase? (eg., Chinese, Japanese Korean)? 2. Should IDNs continue to be prioritized over AScII applications as was done in the 2012 round? 3. Should applicants be required to DEMONSTRATE their ability to meet the technical requirements prior to an application being accepted (as opposed to afterwards through PDT testing)? 4. If yes to above, is there even a need to have "predelegation testing" 5. If there is a pre-approval process for RSPs, what questions would need to be asked of applicants in that pre-approval process vs. what is asked in the application process itself? 6. Should there be a question asked of RSPs that asks about the number of TlDs that they currently support or will support in the future? And if so, how should that play into the evaluation (in terms of scale) Rubens Kuhl: 2012-round prevented IDN Variant TLDs to be delegated, even for the same registry operator. This WT will have to look into whether this is still should be the policy, or if it is to be changed, what policy would need to apply to such variants (such as .quebec and .québec), like a TLD bundling (like what is done with variant IDNs SLDs in some TLDs, or like what is done with .ngo and .ong on a TLD level), or they could exist free of any agreement-imposed restriction (even though registry policy could specify similar restrictions). 5. Next Call: 13 October at 0300 UTC.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC.
by Terri Agnew Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/HQSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 29 September 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held onThursday, 29 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew: wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/xBWsAw Jeff Neuman: We have to all stop meeting like this avri: i used up my daily allotment of patience and politeness in that meeting, so better be quiet in this one. Julie Hedlund: I am hearing static -- is anyone else? Rubens Kuhl: Be careful what you wish for... Julie Hedlund: Now it has stopped. Emily Barabas: Everyone should be able to scroll through the slides themselves Emily Barabas: Following Cheryl's request, staff will control the slides. Thanks all! avri: Jeff Terri Agnew: @jeff, plese check mute Rubens Kuhl: We can move on and then circle back to this item. Emily Barabas: yes Rubens Kuhl: Yes Jeff. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes Charles Guarino: Yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yeah! Rubens Kuhl: Yup! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Next slide Terri avri: some of us are meeting multiple times each week Rubens Kuhl: Or we could file a DIDP... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): next slide Terri Steve Chan: Available here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories Rubens Kuhl: As an applicant, I can say that some advisories make it clearer and some make it worse. ;-) Nathaniel Edwards: Where are you getting the data on the dotless queries? Nathaniel Edwards: Understood, thanks. Steve Chan: DNS Stability Review Jeff Neuman: yes thanks Jeff Neuman: I think that test ccan be enhanced to look at namcollision risk Jeff Neuman: Questions: On IDNs: Should we allow single character IDN in nthose languages where a single character an denote a full word or phrase? (eg., Chinese, Japanese Korean) Jeff Neuman: Question: Should IDNs continue to be prioritized over AScII applications as was done in the 2012 round? Jeff Neuman: Question: Should applicants be required to DEMONSTRATE their ability to meet the technical requirements prior to an application being accepted (as opposed to afterwards through PDT testing) Steve Chan: Is the audio choppy for anyone else? Jeff Neuman: Question: If yes to above, is there even a need to have "predelegation testing" Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Jeff Neuman: If there is a Jeff Neuman: oops Rubens Kuhl: Will do. Julie Hedlund: @Rubens: I was not able to capture most of what you said -- sorry! Jeff Neuman: QUestion: "If there is a pre-approval process for RSPs, what questions would need to be asked of applicants in that pre-approval process vs. what is asked in the application process itself" Jeff Neuman: Should there be a question asked of RSPs that asks about the number of TlDs that they currently support or will support in the future? And if so, how should that play into the evaluation (in terms of scale) Jeff Neuman: Its therauetuc Terri Agnew: The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 13 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC.

1 0

Agenda for this week call #3
by Rubens Kuhl Sept. 28, 2016

Sept. 28, 2016

AGENDA SubPro WT 4: IDN / Technical / Operations Meeting #3 2000 UTC 29 September 2016 13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 21:00 London, 22:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/zkpbrbr Adobe Connect room(NEW): https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ 1. Welcome 2. Opening Remarks 3. Call Administration 4. Any update from WG activities 5. Brief Review of Meeting #2 and any AI's 6. Specific Outreach Questions 7. AOB 8. Review of any Action Items We welcome you all to join us on this call. Rubens and Cheryl

1 0