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

ICANN62: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 28, 2018

Aug. 28, 2018

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings’ team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN62 Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> Step 1 – Create a profile and your personalized ICANN62 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. 1. Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. 2. Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. * For Outlook calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/81449-moving-your-schedu…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> * For Google calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/1313-moving-your-schedul…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> and on the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ>) will provide audio streaming only Adobe Connect room microphones will not be enabled. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN62” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Panama to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://FB60497E-61D8-4FE9-BF9C-EB238191E416/gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

2 2

Registry Services Example Question
by Rubens Kuhl June 3, 2018

June 3, 2018

In preparation for our discussions on 1.7 (Evaluation criteria) in less than 24 hours, I've noticed that in Financial Evaluation due to the many changes from the 2012 method we included example questions. Considering the latest exchanges on Registry Services in the list, I imagined that a similar example could be useful. It's not yet part of the report and whether will be included or not is up to discussion by membership and leadership.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018
by Steve Chan April 17, 2018

April 17, 2018

Dear WT4 Members, For those that may have missed the last call, as noted below in the action items, it was decided that in relation to WT4’s request for data related to clarifying questions, it would be pursuing option 1, “Compile and share existing information and resources regarding application questions and clarifications.” Please see a fuller description here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735969/ICANN%20Org%20Res… Note, this does not preclude WT4 from seeking additional clarifying question information it deems necessary, which could include options in the letter referenced above and/or other options. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 1:08 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018 Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB. Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included below. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 – 05 February 2018 Action Items: 1) CQ Options: Agreement for Option 1: Compile existing info regarding questions and CQs (what was done for PIRR); but doesn't preclude other options; consider survey question for the survey of applicants in option 5. 2) RSSAC paper: Clarifying question -- Ask the RSSAC to provide clarify on what it meant re: 5%. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: No updates. 2. Review of Technical Services suggestions for additional technical criteria (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58735969) Slide 5: Responses from Technical Services -- 8 recommendations regarding Registry System Testing and 3 regarding Application Evaluation. -- RST recommendations mostly linked to Registry Service Provider (RSP) program -- sync with WT1 and/or full WG. -- 1 Application Evaluation recommendation linked to RSP. -- 1 Application Evaluation recommendation about using RSEP for Registry Services Evaluation. -- Other Application Recommendation about 0-1 scoring instead of 0-1-2 from Program Implementation Review Report (PIRR) and accepted by WT4. 3. Review of Operations responses for request on CQs (also available at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58735969) Slides 6-7: Responses from Operations -- As for full text of CQs and answers for the questions with published answers and counts of CAs and answers for questions without published answers. Slide 8: Possible Ways Forward -- Insist on initial request but allow for redaction of content that mixes public and private responses. -- Pick either option 2 (staff review) or 3 (3rd party review). -- Other options? -- Continue working on known issues such as 0-1-2 scoring, Q30b (Security Policy) and Financial Evaluation. Discussion: -- Difficult to get additional funds in the budget, so precludes 2 and 4. -- Combine 1 with a survey of applicants. -- Change option 5 to survey of new registries. -- Possible option: Select options but in addition the bullet on slide 8 about requesting that during implementation other studies might be needed. -- What policy question are we trying to answer? Need to know which problems need policy decisions. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: My recommendation was combining 1 and 5 Jeff Neuman: ok. I thought a combo of 1 and 5 was the way to go which cost the least amount of money Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): 5. might not work - it was quite long ago (many applicants were consultants and have no contract since then) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): combination options can be discussed and proposed of course Rubens Kuhl: Any combination is fine, any new option is fine too. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so .5 might be changed to survey of new Registries Jeff Neuman: @maxim - true, but they still have email addresses on file. If they dont work, then they dont work Jeff Neuman: I think we should try to reach out to the failed ones. In some ways, their feedback would be more valuable. Jeff Neuman: There were not too many failed applications Kurt Pritz: You can ignore this if it will drag us backward; what policy question are we trying to answer by reading the CQs? The answer to that would govern which option is selected Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff, if applicant is not equal to Registry - most probably they might have no real life info from the current registry Jeff Neuman: Kurt - Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to make recommendations that will improve the questions asked in the previous round so as to make the questions more clear and to provide the information that was actually sought by the evaluators. It is hoped that this would reduce the number of CQs the next time Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point @Steve Jeff Neuman: For example, if the same CQ was asked to 80% of the applicants, chances are that the problem was in the question and not the answers Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly @Jeff Trang Nguyen: If the goal is to understand what the issues were with questions, Option 1 would provide the most direct answer. Org published advisories on the issues that were encountered most frequently by applicants. That together with statistics on the number of CQs could help to identify the issues. Jeff Neuman: @Trang - Agree that we need option 1 and I believe option 5 will also help. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): COI related questions were good example of wrong ones (where all companies had to change their letters of credit few times) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): 1 as a priority and 5 as. following recommendation? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Could we update .5 with - ask the Registry - if it is Ok to ask Applicant or them ? Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, option 5 could be useful as well. It hadn't occurred to me before, but now thinking about it, doing 5 during implementation may be even more impactful. Any changes to the questions based on policy recs could be made, then published for public comment, during which we could ask whether any formulation of the questions need clarification. Martin Sutton: @Trang - agree that 1 is a sensible option, with option 5 to add more context to CQs they may have responded to. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): certainly could @Maxim Martin Sutton: @maxim - I recall COI triggering the most CQs, which was mainly as a result of inadequate instructions provided in the first place. 4. Review of responses for delegation rate and maximum number of TLDs (available at https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability) Slide 10: ICANN Org -- Mostly discussed application processing limits, not root zone scaling. -- Mentioned a relevant change: the increasing use of root zone replication to resolvers (RFC 7706) -- also applies to RFC 7816 (DNS query minimization) -- Says determining scaling capacity would require significant effort that might not be worthwhile since application processing limitations will likely be reached before any limitation becomes an issue. -- No response to root zone size question. Slide 11: SSAC -- ICANN should continue developing the monitoring and early warning capability with respect to root zone scaling. -- ICANN should focus on the rate of change for the root zone, rather than the total number of delegated strings for a given calendar year. -- ICANN should structure its obligations to new gTLD registries so that it can delay their addition to the root zone in case of DNS service instabilities. -- ICANN should investigate and catalog the long term obligations of maintaining a larger root zone. Slide 12: RSSAC -- Confirmed deployment of root zone system monitoring. -- Suggested adopting a monthly thinking instead of per annum. -- Recommended 5% per month growth rate (target, not ceiling). -- Strong recommendation on keeping allowed DNS records at root zone to a minimum (not related to TLS zone contents). -- Suggests possiblity of delaing or removing delegations. -- On zone size, is more concerned of possible TLDs becoming as popular ast .com/.net/.org than zone size, although unsure of effects for flattening DNS namespace. -- 3 non-technical questions referred to full WG and/or other WTs. Slide 13: Recommendations not incompatible with GNSO policy or each other -- Monitoring and early warning of the root zone system (RSSAC & SSAC). -- Delaying or removing delegations that cause instability (SSAC & RSSAC). -- More focus on change rate over smaller time periods than annually (SSAC and RSSAC). -- 5% monthly growth rate target (RSSAC). -- Maintain conservative approach to DNS records in the root zone (RSSAC). Slide 14: Recommendations incompatible with GNSO policy or each other -- Application processing limitations will already avoid issues (ICANN Org x SSAC and RSSAC). -- Investigate long term obligations of larger root zone prior to new delegations. Discussion: -- These are opinions not based on research; they are conservative. From a risk management perspective that is not necessarily a bad thing. -- Discuss further the 5% monthly growth rate face-to-face with representatives with RSSAC and SSAC. >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what was the justification for 5%? any ? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Martin, the requirements changes over the time - which is not good Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *changed Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): why not 7% or 10%? Jeff Neuman: This may be a stupid question, but is gorwth rate strictly limited to adding new TLDs, or does it include adding new records (like DNSSEC records)? If so, according to some rudimentary calculations on a spread sheet, it would take only 5 years to delegate 25,000 new TLDs at a growth rate of 5% per month Christa Taylor: +1 Jeff Christa Taylor: This would have some significant impacts to the delegation of new gTLDs Kurt Pritz: I did some rough calculations that are close but not exact: if the 5% requirement was imposed inthe 2012 round, some TLDs would have been delayed a year beyond the date when they were actually delegated and the backlog created (as compared to the actual delegations) would have taken 3 years to clear Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and 5% gives 50 per month and 790 per year ... which is lower than 1000 , and thus it is not correct from perspective of 1000 per year is ok Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *per first year Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *ofr the first year :) Jeff Neuman: @maxim, the 5% is cumulative Jeff Neuman: If you start at 1200 and increase 5% per month, it would take 62 months to delegte 25,000 new gTLDs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff, my point that this number is not based on a research Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it is just "we think 5% should be safe" - which is an opinion and not something calculated Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Could we request from RSSAC the method they used to calculate this particular threshold? Jeff Neuman: at 6%, it would be take 53 months Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): 5% will detoriate the speed of delegation from 1000per year Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and that 1000 was not properly justified too Jeff Neuman: at 7% per month, that would take 48 months for 25000 TLDs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff I am afraid that they meant 5% of the starting amount (not cumulative)... Jeff Neuman: I interpreted it at 5% per month Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I read as a " from now on" point as well @Rubens Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so it is not 1.05*1.05 but simply 1*1.05 Jeff Neuman: 5% from original amount is less than 1000 per ye Jeff Neuman: Look at the chart on page 7 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *risk Kurt Pritz: I am with Maxim about asking for the methodology to arrive at this number. If there is a methodology, then the number is a starting point for discussion, as Cheryl says. If it is an opinion without basis, then it is not a starting point Jeff Neuman: of the RSSAC paper Steve Chan: @Maxim, the RSSAC paper is available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735967/RSSAC031%20FINAL.… Kurt Pritz: In the 2012 round 35-40% was acceptable in the first month of delegations Rubens Kuhl: Do the resolution mentioned what would happen with the current work in progress at SSAC, asked by the board at November 2017 ? Rubens Kuhl: The graph on the appendix of the RSSAC suggestion makes clear which interpretation it is, which is (1+5%) to the power of number of months. Christa Taylor: Maxim +1 - s/b linear 5. AOB: Board decision on .corp, .home, and .mail -- not to be delegated in a next round and deposits will be refunded. Staff will provide links to the resolution when available. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Do the resolution mentioned what would happen with the current work in progress at SSAC, asked by the board at November 2017 ? Rubens Kuhl: (on home/corp/mail)

1 2

FW: [Gnso-next-gen-rds-lead] FW: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft
by Terri Agnew April 2, 2018

April 2, 2018

FYI From: Brian Winterfeldt <Brian(a)Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Brian@Winterfeldt.law> > Date: Monday, April 2, 2018 at 15:07 To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> " <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> > Cc: "internet(a)winterfeldt.law <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> " <internet(a)winterfeldt.law <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> > Subject: RE: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft Dear ICANN Community Leadership Colleagues: I write to follow up on my prior communication below to provide you with a formal invitation from the IPC and the BC to participate in a community-wide discussion regarding the proposed accreditation and access model for non-public WHOIS data, which was first circulated to the community during ICANN 61. The discussion will take place via ICANN-supported remote participation and/or audio bridge this Friday April 6, 2018 from 1400-1600 UTC. Please find the formal invitation attached with the pertinent participation details. Please distribute the invitation to your respective stakeholders and encourage broad distribution to encourage as much participation as possible in the discussion. Of course, please continue to channel written comments on the accreditation model proposal to <mailto:3amcomments@gmail.com> 3amcomments(a)gmail.com, with a copy to <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law. Thank you very much for your assistance and engagement with respect to this ongoing effort. Best regards, Brian _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> [winterfeldt.law] Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> brian(a)winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422 From: Brian Winterfeldt Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:24 PM To: <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org Cc: <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law Subject: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft Importance: High Dear ICANN Community Leadership Colleagues: As a follow-up to my statement on behalf of the IPC during Public Forum II at ICANN 61 in Puerto Rico with Steve DelBianco (from the BC), I am writing to again request your stakeholders' input and collaboration on the proposed Accreditation Model for access to non-public WHOIS data (Version 1.3). Our sincere hope is that this model will be implemented alongside the ICANN-developed Proposed Interim Model for GDPR Compliance. The Accreditation Model can be found here: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ipconstituency.org_ assets_docs_WHOIS-2520Access-2520Accreditation-2520Process-25201.3-255b1-255 d.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhp AMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ &s=ZVAEQxooXzT86rLVPfHTxmzU0WSDnjHfiAcifwTNcmk&e=> http://www.ipconstituency.org/assets/docs/WHOIS%20Access%20Accreditation%20P rocess%201.3[1].pdf[ipconstituency.org]. We welcome any questions or feedback on the proposed Accreditation Model, put forward as a strawman to facilitate broader community-wide efforts to develop an accreditation system proposal. We had hoped to convene a community-wide call swiftly after ICANN 61, but the absence of Adobe Connect has made facilitating community discussion and input difficult. However, with the stop-gap solutions being put into place, we hope to convene a call to discuss Accreditation Model development within the next week or so. Developing an Accreditation Model for access to non-public WHOIS data is a critical yet-to-be-developed element of the interim GDPR compliance model, and as Goran noted in his letter to DPAs, the community has achieved consensus that something must be finalized and implemented to assure the appropriate functioning of a gated/tiered/layered access WHOIS system. Again, we hope that the Accreditation Model proposal we are sharing can act as a starting point for the community to make quick progress in this respect. Please send any input on this matter to <mailto:3amcomments@gmail.com> 3amcomments(a)gmail.com as soon as possible, with a copy to <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law. This will help us make sure all the input provided is received and appropriately captured. Again, we hope to convene a community call to facilitate continued discussion on this issue next week, so we would love to receive your feedback ideally before the community session! Thank you for your input and timely engagement in this vital aspect of our ongoing work around GDPR and WHOIS! Best regards, Brian _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> [winterfeldt.law] Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> brian(a)winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne March 26, 2018

March 26, 2018

I think Greg Shatan is correct that this report is in fact only a Discussion Draft and not a true Initial Report. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D3C4F6.A6302B90] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 5:55 AM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Working Group Status and Next Steps Importance: High That works great even better …it should help greatly but we proceed cautiously. We do not need another battle in front of the door. On Mar 26, 2018, at 16:42, Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: Though I understand points raised by Greg, we could also use the opportunity to make an open survey with open issues to the community to not postponed too much those decisions. Another alternative could be finalizing points that demands no relevant changes, for instance: I do believe that related to “TLDs=city names” we did not have problems with the Application Book as it is. So why not open sliced Applications Books for each area we have no more questions?. To do so we need to make it public as a different reports and get feedback from the community. At least we would show some real progress and may be contribute to the ICANN’s budget. My 2c Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k(a)gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 at 04:12 To: "<Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, "Christopher. Wilkinson" <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Working Group Status and Next Steps makes logical sense….. Kris On Mar 26, 2018, at 10:53, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Sensible thoughts Regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Samstag, 24. März 2018 05:33 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... Just my 2 cents, Greg On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission first. The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular region, and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the Objection. Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to the commencement of any substantive proceedings. It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years regarding this arena. It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without getting the geo names issues resolved first. Maybe no one wants another Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the varying interests are far apart? I would favor a new Objection process to resolve this. At that point, the community may be able to accept some of the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide). I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the Objection, its application fee will be refunded. Just to be clear, the process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the same. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image001.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM To: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange; Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>;gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Thanks Christopher. I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 Kris Seeburn seeburn.k(a)gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> • www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" <image001.gif> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg Kris Seeburn seeburn.k(a)gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> * www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" [cid:image003.gif@01D3C4F6.A6032820] ________________________________ 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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu March 25, 2018

March 25, 2018

Good afternoon: I have considerable empathy with the concerns expressed by Greg here below I suggest that the current plan underestimates the inter-relationships between the Work Tracks, notably but not exclusively with WT5. Regards CW > On 24 Mar 2018, at 05:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? > > An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. > > Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) > > Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... > > Just my 2 cents, > > Greg > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: > It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission first. The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular region, and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the Objection. Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to the commencement of any substantive proceedings. > > > > It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years regarding this arena. It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without getting the geo names issues resolved first. Maybe no one wants another Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the varying interests are far apart? I would favor a new Objection process to resolve this. At that point, the community may be able to accept some of the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide). > > > > I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the Objection, its application fee will be refunded. Just to be clear, the process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the same. > > > > Anne > > > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > > Of Counsel > > 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office > > 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax > > AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > _____________________________ > > <image002.png> > > Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP > > One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 > > Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > > lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> > > > > > From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM > To: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange; Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> > > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps > > > > Thanks Christopher. > > > > I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. > > > > To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. > > > > If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. > > > > In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. > > Thanks. > > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA > > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > > E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> > M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> > @Jintlaw > > > > From: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM > To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps > > > > Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: > > > > Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. > > > > In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. > > > > Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. > > > > Regards > > > > Christopher Wilkinson > > > > > > > > On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: > > > > Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, > > > > You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. > > > > Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. > > > > ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. > > > > This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. > > > > As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year > > > > This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> > > > > > 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4> > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

2 2

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Jeff Neuman March 23, 2018

March 23, 2018

Thanks Christopher. I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work. To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4. If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4. In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange(a)norid.no>; Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com>; Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues: Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4. In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis. Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

2 1

Working Group Status and Next Steps
by Jeff Neuman March 23, 2018

March 23, 2018

Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers, You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here. Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report. ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment. This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd. As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs

1 0

PLEASE READ - NEW SESSION INFORMATION ICANN61
by Terri Agnew March 14, 2018

March 14, 2018

Dear all, Due to security difficulties, (see Goran's blog <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo g_issues-2Dwith-2Dadobe-2Dconnect-2Dat-2Dicann61&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwl l3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTB s0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=fxijpUJu6LmmroHN9tH8OL-ro_yRzrp5RcsF-DsRnHY&s=_RqTDbLxF ZWrmTMt09Hldqs9KQbB7-Kg-pZFjJw0ink&e=> here[icann.org]) the Adobe Connect room facilities will no longer be available to ICANN61 participants. In order to minimize disruption, we have the following steps we encourage you to follow: 1. TO JOIN THE AUDIO * Audio streaming will be available for all open, public meetings. Links can be find on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/> https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * The audio bridge is available for those who would like to ask questions or comment over the telephone. Dial in details for open GNSO sessions can be found here: <https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B> https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B 2. TO ACCESS THE PRESENTATIONS * All presentations and documents which were to be shown in the AC room will be uploaded to the corresponding page on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/> https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * Presentations and documents will also be circulated via email on demand 3. ASKING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTING IN WRITTEN FORMAT * These will be handed via live management of email comments and questions by the Remote Participation Manager. Please see list of meeting room email addresses here: <https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350> https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350 We apologize for the inconvenience caused. We encourage participants who have not already done so to download the ICANN61 mobile app by searching for "ICANN61" in your app stores. Please do not hesitate to email us at <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org if you need a dial out specifying which meeting you would like to join and your preferred contact number. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our i <applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses /gnso> nteractive courses and visiting the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn so.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgM FAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUh becsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EH toX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=> GNSO Newcomer pages

1 0

Presentations at DNS-OARC
by Rubens Kuhl March 9, 2018

March 9, 2018

Hi all. Colocated with ICANN Puerto Rico, DNS-OARC (the organisation of DNS operators that among other things collect DITL, used to base decisions regarding name collisions) is having it's day two today. There will be an ICANN presentation in a few minutes connected to the name collisions theme: Using DITL data to look at leaked queries Paul HOFFMAN Room:209-BC Location:Centro de Convenciones de Puerto Rico 11:45 - 12:15 (local time) I will also be doing a lightning talk (10 minutes) foreseen to happened at 17:10 presenting the general agreements in WT4 and what feedback we are eager to receive from the technical community. DNS-OARC presentations are made only on behalf of the presenters/authors not representing positions from organisations or groups, but I'll try to portrait a community view, even though thru the lenses of my own eyes. DNS-OARC is broadcast and archived in Youtube, thru this channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtgW_wIPdA_WBmMKX79JT4g Each part of the day has its own URL so the one right now won't be the one late in the afternoon, so one needs to look for the "Live" icon. See a good number of you tomorrow in our F2F session. Rubens

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 01 March 2018
by Julie Bisland March 1, 2018

March 1, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance, AC Chat and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations call held on Thursday, 01 March 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8wfwoeo381/<https://participate.icann.org/p8wfwoeo381/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=9b19dba8ccfaa74a…> 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-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ARO8B Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 01 March 2018
by Julie Hedlund March 1, 2018

March 1, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included below. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 – 01 March 2018 1. Welcome, SOI updates: No updates. 2. WG Co-chairs guidance on Initial Report: -- Very aggressive timeline. Want to hone in on possible recommendations where there is no contention, as well as questions for the community. -- There is an Initial Report format used by the GNSO. -- There are a number of documents from various Work Tracks that are being compiled into one very preliminary draft working document. -- A lot of the Initial Report will be presenting the different options on the table and where we don't have recommendations. Propose questions for public comment the would include your perspective. -- Document will be the bulk and meat of the report, such as recommendations and questions; there are other pieces that we will include later, such as appendices etc., as they are informed by the substance. -- Will pick up the boilerplate contents later. -- Capture everyone's views in the Initial Report. Need to have the positions document and get input on all of the different options. 3. Registry System Testing Slide 14: Convergence of Recommendations: -- Split RST between overall RSP matters and specific TLD testing. -- Remove a better part or all of self-certification assessments. -- Rely on SLA monitoring for most if not all overall RSP testing. -- Limiting IDN testing to specific TLD policy. -- RSP Pre-Approval Program Slide 15: Recommendations that are not convergent: -- IDN testing -- Additional operational tests -- 3rd-party certifications of ROs/RSPs infrastructure and key personnel -- Periodic RSP audits -- Stricter penalties for repeated SLA breaches -- Consideration of number of TLDs per RSP in RST Discussion: -- Idea of ISO certifications. Makes barriers quite high. It costs money and not all companies can do this. -- Certification that it is not directly tied to technical performance (not only price concern) -- Stricter SLA it was not shown why ICANN wants more strict SLA penalties. Don't have an answer from ICANN why. -- To have an audit of an RSP you have to have a relationship with them. To have another contract makes it more complicated. >From the chat: Steve Chan: Taking a look again at the recommendation from technical services, it does mention the expected number of registrations, but it does not appear to cover the other element you mentioned, about activity in the TLD. Rubens Kuhl: Steve, they mentioned total registrations instead of registrations per time period. 3. Next meeting: Face-to-Face meeting at ICANN61 -- 10 March 12:15-15:00 for SubPro -- Work Track 4 in the last 45 minutes unless this changes.

1 0

WT4 Call #25
by Rubens Kuhl March 1, 2018

March 1, 2018

Dear WT4 members, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place for 60 minutes on Thursday, 01 March 2018 at 20:00 UTC, 21:00 Brussels, 20:00 London, 12:00 Los Angeles, 15:00 Washington DC; Friday 02 March, 04:00 Singapore, 05:00 Tokyo, 07:00 Sydney. The proposed agenda, as previously mentioned during the last WT4 call, is as follows: 1. Welcome, SOI updates 2. WG Co-chairs guidance on Initial Report 3. Registry System Testing 4. AOB Since RST (Registry System Testing) was described in AGB as PDT (Pre-Delegation Testing), reading section 5.2 is recommended: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/transition-delegation-04jun12-… More documents are available at ICANN's RST website, https://www.icann.org/resources/registry-system-testing <https://www.icann.org/resources/registry-system-testing> , of which this chart - https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/rst-1280x720-31jul17-en.jpg <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/rst-1280x720-31jul17-en.jpg> - is an useful high-level summary. For WG members, please use the instructions in the calendar invite for connecting to AC and phone bridge, with phone bridge recommended for those willing to speak. Best, CLO & Rubens

3 6

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Monday, 12 February 2018 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 12, 2018

Feb. 12, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance, AC Chat and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations call held on Monday, 12 February 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5n41ccfzwc/ 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-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/LAWfB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 12 February 2018
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 12, 2018

Feb. 12, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB. Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included below. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 – 12 February 2018 1. SOI Updates: No updates. 2. Continued discussion of financial evaluation models Slide 6: -- Discussed 4 financial evaluation models: 1) No financial evaluation 2) No business model or financial fitness evaluation, only financial wherewithall. 3) Some level of self or 3rd-party certification, still without business model evaluation. 4) Comprehensive evaluation of business model and finances. Slide 7: -- Let's start from scratch, using what we got from WT members so far: -- Little support for models 1 and 4. -- Model 2 with some simplifications and some additions looked more capable of achieving consensus. -- The output isn't consensus-grade yet, let's test it. Slide 8: -- 5 criteria (see details on the slide) Slide 9: -- Implementation mock-up of the evaluation questions (see details on the slide) Slide 10: Financial Evaluation in Initial Report -- Include both "middle-earth" and "straw-cookie monster" models mentioning agreement (or lack thereof) level, and in the case of "middel-earth", mention to possible simplifications. -- Include, if provided, mock-up questions for each model. Since Financial Evaluation is getting a full re-write, providng questions simplify and clarifty implementation, although not required and not immutable. Discussion: -- COI piece -- given this mock up the COI element that could be taken as a payment by ICANN could be deferred to the signing of the payment and delegation (rather than at application submission). Or it could be spread across the regular payments made to ICANN. (Note that WT2 has spent a lot of time on this.) -- Like the proposed financials and taking an overall view of how many applications submitted. Still have to consider what would happen if they would win 50% or 90% and what percent could go to private option. Otherwise pooling is great. -- Two types of review: finanical review and an audit. The downfall is that the applicant might say that they don't expect a launch for two years. The process that a company has to do it in line with this process -- working with an auditor to understand what the business is going to do, the volume, to showing that they have given enough thought. -- Side note: Need to be sure that the applicant can demonstrate their ability to contract companies for bandwidth, hardware, etc. Too hard to have everything contracted in advance. >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): audited financial statement of a new company gives almost no info beyond officers and address and starting balance Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): it was violation of FATF recommendations to governments Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Martin Sutton: Could the COI amount you referred to be part of a payment once agreement is signed? I know this is not directly related to this wt.. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): I am not saying starting audit is not required, that is a measure to prevent purely (from financial of judicial points of view)bad companies from participation Phil Buckingham: 70% 80% of CQ s issued were related to Q50 re the LOC / COI not Q46 on lack of / submission of financial statements Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): +1 Martin, it would simplify COI obtaining from banks Jon Nevett: Good point Martin -- making applicants pay a COI doesn't make much sense at all Phil Buckingham: yes agreed . Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): COI is required only for 6 years, and payment is one way thing Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): to support new Registries with EBERO (paid via COI if smth goes wrong) Christa Taylor: An audit/review will evaluate the business model as it would have implications on the financial viability of the corporation Trang Nguyen: Perhaps stating the obvious, but there’s a tie between COI and the RSP discussion. I believe one of the approaches under discussion there is to have the RSP take-over in cases of financial failure. If that is adopted, there would be no need for a COI.

1 0

WT4 Call #24
by Rubens Kuhl Feb. 11, 2018

Feb. 11, 2018

Dear WT4 members, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place for 60 minutes on Monday, 12 February 2018 at 15:00 UTC, 16:00 Brussels, 15:00 London, 07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 23:00 Singapore; Tuesday, 13 February 2018 00:00 Tokyo, 02:00 Sydney. The proposed agenda, as previously mentioned during the full WG call last Monday, is as follows: 1. Welcome, SOI updates 2. Continued discussion of financial evaluation models 3. AOB All of the models reviews will include assessment of WG agreement or disagreement, and can lead to tentative consensus calls. Prior reading of the models and meeting #22 slides (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-01-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-01-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…>) is strongly recommended. For WG members, please use the instructions in the calendar invite for connecting to AC and phone bridge, with phone bridge recommended for those willing to speak. Best, CLO & Rubens

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Monday, 05 February 2018
by Julie Bisland Feb. 5, 2018

Feb. 5, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance, AC Chat and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations call held on Monday, 05 February 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2nph1syd1m/<https://participate.icann.org/p2nph1syd1m/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=965d4db171c7a81f…> 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-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/KgWfB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input
by lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Feb. 5, 2018

Feb. 5, 2018

Dear Alexander: I think we shall not proceed to argue over a reductio ad absurdum. Let’s get real. CW > On 5 Feb 2018, at 20:56, Alexander Schubert <alexander(a)schubert.berlin> wrote: > > Dear Anne, > > So you suggest to lower the entry barrier (cost) to a VERY low amount (e.g. USD 10k) so that anyone who can afford today buying a used llll.com <http://llll.com/> can make their own gTLD in 2020? > > At 10k we will have 25,000 applications – and that’s a conservative estimate. At 1k processing speed per year we will gnaw at that for a decade. > > We need SOME kind of barrier for the next round! Money is a good one. If not money: what then? > > My humble opinion. > > Thanks, > > Alexander > > > > From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 8:48 PM > To: 'lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>' <lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input > > Excellent points which certainly merit discussion. I realize the original policy was always toward “unlimited” TLDs. But seriously the cost of entry is SO HIGH. > > It is tempting to draw some analogies here with (1) lack of Internet access and (2) lack of computer hardware and (3) lack of cell phone service > > Is there a “Great Divide” developing in the world of gTLDs? Will small business be left behind? > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > 520.629.4428 office > 520.879.4725 fax > AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > _____________________________ > <image001.png> > Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP > One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 > Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> > > > From: lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> [mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>] > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 11:41 AM > To: Jeff Neuman > Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input > > Good evening: > > Whatever domain names may have become, I think that the vast expansion - in the past and perhaps to come - has been mainly at the second level. > > At the top level, I still have serious misgivings: > > - The sudden, large expansion following the previous round has resulted in a significant proportion of Registries that are not financially viable, > at least on a stand-alone basis. (c.f. ‘vertical' integration) > > - we still lack market research by ICANN as to the business scope for introducing even more new TLDs. > Both in terms of the aggregate DNS market and in terms of the macro-economic context. > > - I am sensitive to warnings about how many and how quickly changes to the Root can be relied upon to maintain stability and security. I defer to RSSAC among others > > - I would love to live in a DNS world where a TLD would represent <significance or memorability to a small community, locality or even a family> > I would be on for that! But last time I looked, the costs and risks associated with creating a new TLD Registry are way beyond small communities’ resources. > ICANN oblige. > > Just a few thoughts > > CW > > (Speaking personally, of course.) > > > >> On 5 Feb 2018, at 17:20, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: >> >> Completely personal opinion here, but I think that comment from the RSSAC is a “red herring” meaning that it ignores the rationale for new TLDs. The RSSAC is looking at the notion of domain names as only being for the original purposes in which they were intended: Namely to create more memorable representations of network resources, because it was perceived to be too difficult to remember IP Addresses. >> >> What it ignores is that the use of domain names, whether at the top or the second level, has evolved into being used for many other purposes than purely that for which it was originally designed. As stated by John Klensin in IETF RFC 3467 (2003), >> >> “The DNS was designed to identify network resources. Although there was speculation about including, e.g., personal names and email addresses, it was not designed primarily to identify people, brands, etc. At the same time, the system was designed with the flexibility to accommodate new data types and structures, both through the addition of new record types to the initial "INternet" class, and, potentially, through the introduction of new classes.” >> >> Despite not being designed for these purposes, that is what has evolved. Domains are now used to identify computers, machines, organizations, people, places and things. Whether used for commercial or non-commercial purposes, they identify brands, people, geographic locations and things to their relevant user base. That user base may be global, national, local or even familial. A domain may be used for web traffic, machine-machine communication, e-mail or a host of other potential applications. It is up to the owner of the domain name (Or TLD) to make its intended user base aware of its existence. The significance of the domain is then ascertained and judged by the user base and not those outside of its intended user base. >> >> The RSSAC is asking an existential policy question of the GNSO community. One that has no right or wrong answer and one which has no clearly ascertainable answer. The answer to the question will differ to every person that attempts to answer it. There is no way to measure the global significance or memorability of any particular namespace. There is no purely scientific way to answer that question. And even if there was, why would it be limited to “library and cognitive science.” Why not look at it from an Anthropological, Economical, Educational, Historical, Linguistic, Philosophical, Political, Psychological, Sociological, Sustainability or other type of social science perspective? >> >> My personal view is that regardless of the global significance or memorability of a namespace, that namespace may have significance or memorability to a small community, locality or even a family. It may not even be used in the traditional sense and not intended to have any memorability by any persons or groups, but may only be significant to other machines. One of the things discussed at Namescon last week was a venture that Donuts has invested in which is working on using a TLD Namespace for a Geographical mapping tool to map the entire world down to the centimeter. If it does use the TLD namespace to do this, then there may or may not need to be any memorability of the namespace to any human so long as devices knew how to find the appropriate location. >> >> Sorry for the long e-mail and I will get off my soapbox, but I am not a huge fan of spending any more time on that question given that in my opinion it misses the point and relevance of what domains (and TLDs) have become. >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA >> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 >> Mclean, VA 22102, United States >> E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >> T: +1.703.635.7514 >> M: +1.202.549.5079 >> @Jintlaw >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>] >> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 1:15 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> >> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input >> >> I think the following point made by the RSSAC is very significant and certainly deserves further discussion. >> >> Using concepts from the disciplines of library and cognitive science, what number of TLDs results in their loss of memorability and significance? >> >> >> Hard to balance this with freedom of expression goal, but it should be given more consideration. In addition, the marketplace trend is toward apps – not more websites. >> >> Anne >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese >> Of Counsel >> 520.629.4428 office >> 520.879.4725 fax >> AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >> _____________________________ >> <image001.png> >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP >> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 >> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> >> >> >> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman >> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 7:05 AM >> To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> >> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input >> >> Just in from the RSSAC. We will add the questions asked of us to the appropriate Work Tracks. Although some of the, may naturally fit in Work Track 4, others may be overall questions to the Working Group. >> >> If you have any thoughts on responses, please do not hesitate to weigh in and we will start keeping track on a Google Doc. >> >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> Senior Vice President >> Com Laude USA / Valideus USA >> 1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 600 >> McLean, VA 22102 >> Jeff.Neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com> >> +1 (202) 549-5079 >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org>> >>> Date: February 2, 2018 at 8:49:36 AM EST >>> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, avri doria <avri(a)apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>> >>> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "rssac(a)icann.org <mailto:rssac@icann.org>" <rssac(a)icann.org <mailto:rssac@icann.org>> >>> Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input >>> >>> Dear Jeff and Avri, >>> >>> Per your request on 14 September 2017, attached please find RSSAC’s response on root scaling. >>> >>> In addition to its formal advice, the RSSAC raises the following questions for the wider community (including GNSO) to consider. These questions go beyond the specifics of operations of DNS, the IANA functions, and the root server system, to broader issues of the costs and benefits of aggressive expansion of the root zone: >>> >>> Independent of expanding the commercial buoyancy of the DNS industry, how does the addition of many thousands of new gTLDs to the root zone make the Internet better for the people who use it, aside from the addition of IDNs for language and culture? >>> >>> Using concepts from the disciplines of library and cognitive science, what number of TLDs results in their loss of memorability and significance? >>> >>> Is adding a significantly large number of TLDs (e.g., more than 100,000) to the root zone, and presumably augmenting the business interests in the addressing system, a sustainable model for the DNS? At what point might this model fail. What next steps for naming system innovation are required, and when? >>> >>> >>> Best Regards >>> Steve Sheng on behalf of >>> >>> Tripti Sinha and Brad Verd >>> Co-Chairs, Root Server System Advisory Committee >>> >>> >> >> >> >> 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 mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> > > > > 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 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 5, 2018

Feb. 5, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB. Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included below. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 – 05 February 2018 Action Items: 1) CQ Options: Agreement for Option 1: Compile existing info regarding questions and CQs (what was done for PIRR); but doesn't preclude other options; consider survey question for the survey of applicants in option 5. 2) RSSAC paper: Clarifying question -- Ask the RSSAC to provide clarify on what it meant re: 5%. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: No updates. 2. Review of Technical Services suggestions for additional technical criteria (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58735969) Slide 5: Responses from Technical Services -- 8 recommendations regarding Registry System Testing and 3 regarding Application Evaluation. -- RST recommendations mostly linked to Registry Service Provider (RSP) program -- sync with WT1 and/or full WG. -- 1 Application Evaluation recommendation linked to RSP. -- 1 Application Evaluation recommendation about using RSEP for Registry Services Evaluation. -- Other Application Recommendation about 0-1 scoring instead of 0-1-2 from Program Implementation Review Report (PIRR) and accepted by WT4. 3. Review of Operations responses for request on CQs (also available at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58735969) Slides 6-7: Responses from Operations -- As for full text of CQs and answers for the questions with published answers and counts of CAs and answers for questions without published answers. Slide 8: Possible Ways Forward -- Insist on initial request but allow for redaction of content that mixes public and private responses. -- Pick either option 2 (staff review) or 3 (3rd party review). -- Other options? -- Continue working on known issues such as 0-1-2 scoring, Q30b (Security Policy) and Financial Evaluation. Discussion: -- Difficult to get additional funds in the budget, so precludes 2 and 4. -- Combine 1 with a survey of applicants. -- Change option 5 to survey of new registries. -- Possible option: Select options but in addition the bullet on slide 8 about requesting that during implementation other studies might be needed. -- What policy question are we trying to answer? Need to know which problems need policy decisions. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: My recommendation was combining 1 and 5 Jeff Neuman: ok. I thought a combo of 1 and 5 was the way to go which cost the least amount of money Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): 5. might not work - it was quite long ago (many applicants were consultants and have no contract since then) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): combination options can be discussed and proposed of course Rubens Kuhl: Any combination is fine, any new option is fine too. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so .5 might be changed to survey of new Registries Jeff Neuman: @maxim - true, but they still have email addresses on file. If they dont work, then they dont work Jeff Neuman: I think we should try to reach out to the failed ones. In some ways, their feedback would be more valuable. Jeff Neuman: There were not too many failed applications Kurt Pritz: You can ignore this if it will drag us backward; what policy question are we trying to answer by reading the CQs? The answer to that would govern which option is selected Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff, if applicant is not equal to Registry - most probably they might have no real life info from the current registry Jeff Neuman: Kurt - Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to make recommendations that will improve the questions asked in the previous round so as to make the questions more clear and to provide the information that was actually sought by the evaluators. It is hoped that this would reduce the number of CQs the next time Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point @Steve Jeff Neuman: For example, if the same CQ was asked to 80% of the applicants, chances are that the problem was in the question and not the answers Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly @Jeff Trang Nguyen: If the goal is to understand what the issues were with questions, Option 1 would provide the most direct answer. Org published advisories on the issues that were encountered most frequently by applicants. That together with statistics on the number of CQs could help to identify the issues. Jeff Neuman: @Trang - Agree that we need option 1 and I believe option 5 will also help. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): COI related questions were good example of wrong ones (where all companies had to change their letters of credit few times) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): 1 as a priority and 5 as. following recommendation? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Could we update .5 with - ask the Registry - if it is Ok to ask Applicant or them ? Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, option 5 could be useful as well. It hadn't occurred to me before, but now thinking about it, doing 5 during implementation may be even more impactful. Any changes to the questions based on policy recs could be made, then published for public comment, during which we could ask whether any formulation of the questions need clarification. Martin Sutton: @Trang - agree that 1 is a sensible option, with option 5 to add more context to CQs they may have responded to. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): certainly could @Maxim Martin Sutton: @maxim - I recall COI triggering the most CQs, which was mainly as a result of inadequate instructions provided in the first place. 4. Review of responses for delegation rate and maximum number of TLDs (available at https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability) Slide 10: ICANN Org -- Mostly discussed application processing limits, not root zone scaling. -- Mentioned a relevant change: the increasing use of root zone replication to resolvers (RFC 7706) -- also applies to RFC 7816 (DNS query minimization) -- Says determining scaling capacity would require significant effort that might not be worthwhile since application processing limitations will likely be reached before any limitation becomes an issue. -- No response to root zone size question. Slide 11: SSAC -- ICANN should continue developing the monitoring and early warning capability with respect to root zone scaling. -- ICANN should focus on the rate of change for the root zone, rather than the total number of delegated strings for a given calendar year. -- ICANN should structure its obligations to new gTLD registries so that it can delay their addition to the root zone in case of DNS service instabilities. -- ICANN should investigate and catalog the long term obligations of maintaining a larger root zone. Slide 12: RSSAC -- Confirmed deployment of root zone system monitoring. -- Suggested adopting a monthly thinking instead of per annum. -- Recommended 5% per month growth rate (target, not ceiling). -- Strong recommendation on keeping allowed DNS records at root zone to a minimum (not related to TLS zone contents). -- Suggests possiblity of delaing or removing delegations. -- On zone size, is more concerned of possible TLDs becoming as popular ast .com/.net/.org than zone size, although unsure of effects for flattening DNS namespace. -- 3 non-technical questions referred to full WG and/or other WTs. Slide 13: Recommendations not incompatible with GNSO policy or each other -- Monitoring and early warning of the root zone system (RSSAC & SSAC). -- Delaying or removing delegations that cause instability (SSAC & RSSAC). -- More focus on change rate over smaller time periods than annually (SSAC and RSSAC). -- 5% monthly growth rate target (RSSAC). -- Maintain conservative approach to DNS records in the root zone (RSSAC). Slide 14: Recommendations incompatible with GNSO policy or each other -- Application processing limitations will already avoid issues (ICANN Org x SSAC and RSSAC). -- Investigate long term obligations of larger root zone prior to new delegations. Discussion: -- These are opinions not based on research; they are conservative. From a risk management perspective that is not necessarily a bad thing. -- Discuss further the 5% monthly growth rate face-to-face with representatives with RSSAC and SSAC. >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what was the justification for 5%? any ? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Martin, the requirements changes over the time - which is not good Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *changed Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): why not 7% or 10%? Jeff Neuman: This may be a stupid question, but is gorwth rate strictly limited to adding new TLDs, or does it include adding new records (like DNSSEC records)? If so, according to some rudimentary calculations on a spread sheet, it would take only 5 years to delegate 25,000 new TLDs at a growth rate of 5% per month Christa Taylor: +1 Jeff Christa Taylor: This would have some significant impacts to the delegation of new gTLDs Kurt Pritz: I did some rough calculations that are close but not exact: if the 5% requirement was imposed inthe 2012 round, some TLDs would have been delayed a year beyond the date when they were actually delegated and the backlog created (as compared to the actual delegations) would have taken 3 years to clear Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and 5% gives 50 per month and 790 per year ... which is lower than 1000 , and thus it is not correct from perspective of 1000 per year is ok Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *per first year Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *ofr the first year :) Jeff Neuman: @maxim, the 5% is cumulative Jeff Neuman: If you start at 1200 and increase 5% per month, it would take 62 months to delegte 25,000 new gTLDs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff, my point that this number is not based on a research Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it is just "we think 5% should be safe" - which is an opinion and not something calculated Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Could we request from RSSAC the method they used to calculate this particular threshold? Jeff Neuman: at 6%, it would be take 53 months Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): 5% will detoriate the speed of delegation from 1000per year Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and that 1000 was not properly justified too Jeff Neuman: at 7% per month, that would take 48 months for 25000 TLDs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff I am afraid that they meant 5% of the starting amount (not cumulative)... Jeff Neuman: I interpreted it at 5% per month Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I read as a " from now on" point as well @Rubens Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so it is not 1.05*1.05 but simply 1*1.05 Jeff Neuman: 5% from original amount is less than 1000 per ye Jeff Neuman: Look at the chart on page 7 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *risk Kurt Pritz: I am with Maxim about asking for the methodology to arrive at this number. If there is a methodology, then the number is a starting point for discussion, as Cheryl says. If it is an opinion without basis, then it is not a starting point Jeff Neuman: of the RSSAC paper Steve Chan: @Maxim, the RSSAC paper is available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735967/RSSAC031%20FINAL.… Kurt Pritz: In the 2012 round 35-40% was acceptable in the first month of delegations Rubens Kuhl: Do the resolution mentioned what would happen with the current work in progress at SSAC, asked by the board at November 2017 ? Rubens Kuhl: The graph on the appendix of the RSSAC suggestion makes clear which interpretation it is, which is (1+5%) to the power of number of months. Christa Taylor: Maxim +1 - s/b linear 5. AOB: Board decision on .corp, .home, and .mail -- not to be delegated in a next round and deposits will be refunded. Staff will provide links to the resolution when available. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Do the resolution mentioned what would happen with the current work in progress at SSAC, asked by the board at November 2017 ? Rubens Kuhl: (on home/corp/mail)

1 0

Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input
by Jeff Neuman Feb. 5, 2018

Feb. 5, 2018

Just in from the RSSAC. We will add the questions asked of us to the appropriate Work Tracks. Although some of the, may naturally fit in Work Track 4, others may be overall questions to the Working Group. If you have any thoughts on responses, please do not hesitate to weigh in and we will start keeping track on a Google Doc. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude USA / Valideus USA 1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 600 McLean, VA 22102 Jeff.Neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com> +1 (202) 549-5079 Begin forwarded message: From: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org>> Date: February 2, 2018 at 8:49:36 AM EST To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, avri doria <avri(a)apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "rssac(a)icann.org<mailto:rssac@icann.org>" <rssac(a)icann.org<mailto:rssac@icann.org>> Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Dear Jeff and Avri, Per your request on 14 September 2017, attached please find RSSAC’s response on root scaling. In addition to its formal advice, the RSSAC raises the following questions for the wider community (including GNSO) to consider. These questions go beyond the specifics of operations of DNS, the IANA functions, and the root server system, to broader issues of the costs and benefits of aggressive expansion of the root zone: * Independent of expanding the commercial buoyancy of the DNS industry, how does the addition of many thousands of new gTLDs to the root zone make the Internet better for the people who use it, aside from the addition of IDNs for language and culture? * Using concepts from the disciplines of library and cognitive science, what number of TLDs results in their loss of memorability and significance? * Is adding a significantly large number of TLDs (e.g., more than 100,000) to the root zone, and presumably augmenting the business interests in the addressing system, a sustainable model for the DNS? At what point might this model fail. What next steps for naming system innovation are required, and when? Best Regards Steve Sheng on behalf of Tripti Sinha and Brad Verd Co-Chairs, Root Server System Advisory Committee

4 6

WT4 Call #23
by Rubens Kuhl Feb. 4, 2018

Feb. 4, 2018

Dear WT4 members, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place for 60 minutes on Monday, 05 February 2018 at 20:00 UTC, 21:00 Brussels, 20:00 London, 12:00 Los Angeles, 15:00 Washington DC; Tuesday, 06 February 2018 04:00 Singapore, 05:00 Tokyo, 07:00 Sydney. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome, SOI updates 2. Review of Technical Services suggestions for additional technical criteria (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58735969 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58735969>) 3. Review of Operations responses for request on CQs (also available at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58735969 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58735969>) 4. Review of responses for delegation rate and maximum number of TLDs (available at https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability>) 5. AOB All of the response reviews will include assessment of WG agreement or disagreement, and can lead to tentative consensus calls. Prior reading of the responses is strongly recommended. 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 is sent in the calendar invitation. Best, CLO & Rubens

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input
by Jeff Neuman Feb. 2, 2018

Feb. 2, 2018

We haven’t created the Google Doc yet since no comments have been received. We will create one and then send the link around a little later today / Monday. For now, lets just use e-mail and we will make sure to put in the Google Doc. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Jean Guillon [mailto:jean@guillon.com] Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 9:28 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Do you have the link on Google Docs ? On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Just in from the RSSAC. We will add the questions asked of us to the appropriate Work Tracks. Although some of the, may naturally fit in Work Track 4, others may be overall questions to the Working Group. If you have any thoughts on responses, please do not hesitate to weigh in and we will start keeping track on a Google Doc. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude USA / Valideus USA 1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 600 McLean, VA 22102 Jeff.Neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com> +1 (202) 549-5079<tel:+1%20202-549-5079> Begin forwarded message: From: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org>> Date: February 2, 2018 at 8:49:36 AM EST To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, avri doria <avri(a)apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "rssac(a)icann.org<mailto:rssac@icann.org>" <rssac(a)icann.org<mailto:rssac@icann.org>> Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Dear Jeff and Avri, Per your request on 14 September 2017, attached please find RSSAC’s response on root scaling. In addition to its formal advice, the RSSAC raises the following questions for the wider community (including GNSO) to consider. These questions go beyond the specifics of operations of DNS, the IANA functions, and the root server system, to broader issues of the costs and benefits of aggressive expansion of the root zone: * Independent of expanding the commercial buoyancy of the DNS industry, how does the addition of many thousands of new gTLDs to the root zone make the Internet better for the people who use it, aside from the addition of IDNs for language and culture? * Using concepts from the disciplines of library and cognitive science, what number of TLDs results in their loss of memorability and significance? * Is adding a significantly large number of TLDs (e.g., more than 100,000) to the root zone, and presumably augmenting the business interests in the addressing system, a sustainable model for the DNS? At what point might this model fail. What next steps for naming system innovation are required, and when? Best Regards Steve Sheng on behalf of Tripti Sinha and Brad Verd Co-Chairs, Root Server System Advisory Committee _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Jean Guillon 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France Phone: +33.631109837 Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon Web: www.guillon.com<https://www.guillon.com>

2 1

ICANN Org Response to WT4 CQ Data Request
by Steve Chan Feb. 1, 2018

Feb. 1, 2018

Dear WT4 Members, In response to a request made from Work Track 4 to obtain information related to clarifying questions (CQs), please see the attached response from ICANN Org. The response focuses on providing various options to address WT4’s request and then also providing an assessment of feasibility from ICANN Org’s perspective. If you have any questions, concerns, or wish to discuss any of these options in further detail with ICANN Org, please let us know. The attached response is available on the Wiki for the specific topic here https://community.icann.org/x/YT2AAw and on the WG’s correspondence page here https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Jan. 22, 2018

Jan. 22, 2018

Rubens, Please excuse the delay in my reply as I have been traveling. I do not understand why you would require that I duplicate effort at a later stage of the subgroup’s deliberations. The call was characterized as a “rough consensus” call and the slides state “Consensus Re” throughout. There were no objections on the call to the language I suggested and Kurt supported one change very vocally. Cheryl specifically asked for suggested language changes during the call and these were provided in chat. In order for the work of the Subgroup to be “up to date” and to clearly present the issues discussed, I must request once again that the slides be revised in accordance with the call transcript and that the most current work product of the group be posted to the wiki. Hopefully this third written request will not be ignored by Leadership. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D379AB.E391AD60] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person Importance: High Anne, Since your request was directed to WG co-chairs I can't answer on it specifically, but regardless of what happens regarding the meeting #21 slides, I suggest that you table the changes you meant for specific topics for meetings that happen in the future so these positions have consideration at some point, and they are either incorporated into proposed languages or considered but not incorporated. When we have meetings for those topics I doubt people will look at the slide archive, but they will definitely join the call, listen to recording or read transcripts. Rubens Em 13 de dez de 2017, à(s) 16:25:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escreveu: Cheryl and Jeff, Rubens says there will be no changes to the slides even though I was asked during the call to suggest language and even though the understanding was changes would be made to the slides since the items were noted as “consensus re”. I must strongly object to Rubens’ refusal to revise the slides in accordance with the transcript from the call, including Kurt Pritz’ very vocal support for one of the changes and no objections from others to the other requested changes. As written, the slides are not reflective of the last call. If Rubens refuses to revise the slides, then please ask staff to do so based on the language that was typed into chat and agreed in the recording. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 5:33 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person Importance: High On 12 Dec 2017, at 20:31, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Cheryl and Rubens, There were consistent references to “rough consensus” in the discussion during this meeting. As was mentioned right when the meeting started, it wasn't a meeting to decide anything, so no any mention was a reference to previous meetings when decisions were made. In addition, there were several changes to the slides which were recommended and agreed. These changes do not appear in the slides at this time. When may we expect them? We won't rewrite history and pretend something different than actually presented had happened. It was a recap, so anything that might require change has to be decided during meetings that actually decide any of the topics where you can suggest changes to actual decisions. Rubens ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.

3 8

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 11 January 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance, AC Chat and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations call held on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track4-11jan18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track4-11jan18-en.mp3> Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p117x1m54kr/ 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-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/cx1yB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0