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

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 11 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 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 – 11 January 2018 Action Item: Continue the discussion on the Financial Evaluation Straw Models on the list. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: No updates. 2. Review of Financial Evaluation Straw Models Slide 5: Background on Where We Are -- Recommendation 8: Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and organizational operational capability. -- 90% of applications received Clarifying Questions (costs, funding/revenue, and especially COI). -- Can financial capabilities be determined in a better way. Four Different Models: Slide 6: Straw Mushin -- COI discussion @WT2; once WT2 defines how this registrant protection plays out, WT4 or the full WG can go back to address it. Slide 7: Straw Mushin Draft Language -- Applicant will certify funding. -- ICANN Org will provide sample financial spreadsheets. -- ICANN Org will provide non-exhaustive list before application process. -- Self-certification process Slide 8: Straw Bee -- Compromise model would be to ask for financial statements bu not for a financial model. Slide 9: Straw Bee Draft Language -- Applicant will certify funding. -- ICANN Org will provide sample financial spreadsheets. -- Financial documentation such as spreadsheets will be requested. Slide 10: Straw Beetle -- Possibility of third-party certification. -- What else would make an evaluation model simpler than 2012 but still good enough? Slide 11: Straw Beetle Draft Language -- Applicant will obtain credible third-party certification. -- ICANN Org will provide sample financial spreadsheets. -- Financial document such as statements will be provided. Slide 12: Financial Evaluation Depth -- Financial statement does not usually extend beyond a 1-year timeframe. -- 2012-round registries revenues are less that projected, while costs are higher than projected. -- For Open TLDs there was an increased level of supply without an associated increase in demand. -- 2012-round applicants had no comparable data to establish projects and evaluators to pass judgment on them. -- We have had at least 1 finanical failure -- .wed -- which defaulted on RSP payments, causing the first EBERO transition. Slide 13: Straw Cookie Monster -- Two different templates -- 1) no expectation of revenue; 2) projected revenue endorsed by auditor. -- Stress-test tools. -- Consolidated view of multiple applications. -- Planning for when revenue goals aren't met, exceeding expenses, or funding shortfalls. -- Checks to make sure all direct expenses are foreseen. Slide 14: Models Decision Tree -- If a stricter financial evaluation model is to be applied, Straw Cookie Monsters is the only one satisfying this criteria. -- Among the 3 simpler models Straw Mushin is the only one with no financial evaluation. -- Between the 2 remaining models -- Straw Bee and Straw Beetle -- are very similar, but differ on whether applicants self-certify or obtain third-party certification. Discussion: -- On slides where it says that ICANN Org will provide sample spreadsheets -- that seems impossible. Could provide sample registry costs. -- Could simplify by dividing applicants into two categories: 1) ongoing/operating for years 2) start ups. -- Was there a post-mortem report from the evaluators? -- ICANN Org providing business models was kind of a wreck. Bifurcation could be good, such as public versus non-public. Should get some kind of financial report from a reputable accounting firm. -- Wonder if we might want to look at the bifurcation aspect in two ways: Startup versus non-startup may also be between public/listed and non-public. -- On ICANN Org providing financial spreadsheets, this would be only a model spreadsheet for calculations. -- On startups, sometimes companies' financials are in the red to start with, but they could still operate registries. -- On the Financial Evaluation improvement, most people agree that the model should be changed. Passing or failing an evaluation didn't correlate with whether a company could operate a registry. -- We need to distinguish between checking for financial fitness rather than likely financial success or business models. Financial fitness should have strict criteria, such as by certification by a third party. ICANN shouldn't be evaluating business models. -- Nobody used the model they provided to ICANN since costs changed. Not a lot of value in using models that are not applicable or sharing them. -- Add a placeholder about the cost of EBERO and also the letter of credit. -- Slide 11: Straw Beetle -- second paragraph -- not in favor of ICANN Org providing spreadsheets of common models. Take out that notion, but in order to get that third-party certification the applicant would need to provide information on what it intended to do with its TLD, including whether it would be open or closed. -- The Co-Chairs are trying to work with ICANN staff to try to get information on the Clarifying Questions to help us to revise the questions on the application form to avoid have so many Clarifying Questions in the future. The information is stored by ICANN but not in a way where it would be easy to extract that information. Quite expensive to get the information. Would need to get permission from the applicants to release even the questions that were asked and this was denied. >From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: so review the Financial Criteria run two (1) *types* of 'processes' on that is more suitable for start ups and the other for "going concerns" Noted Kurt Phil Buckingham: I would envisage a different type of financial evalaution/ due diligence for each different type of "category " - to be defined Steve Chan: The GDD's Program Implementation Review Report suggested that a 3rd party Steve Chan: And the report also acknowledges the challenges of reviewing each applications individually. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Steve, does it have to be an independent 3rd party certification or can that be provided by the applicants accountants?certification should be explored. You can see this mentioned first on page 86: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf Christopher Wilkinson: Agree with Kurt and Jeff. Some financial data is necessary. We need measures that do not discriminate agaoinst start-ups. Steve Chan: @Donna, I don't believe that suggestion from GDD was intended to be prescriptive. Rather, it's an idea to be explored. Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: Yes Steve one of the advantages we would no doubt see with any changes made to Finanical Eval in the future *should* be an aim to lower the time and other challenges caused by individual evaluations approach Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): If the Applicant's Chief Financial Officer certifies the financial statements and is somehow subject to professional discipline in his/her country of practice, then that would be a good check on the numbers. Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: And the "Can" provide funding (as oopssed to having it "in the bank" may apply to some starte ups as well as entities alreadt 'trading' Jeff Neuman: I would not be in favor of ICANN providing cost models of registries even as templates. They do not have the experience or expertise to do this. Kurt Pritz: One of my oints is that there is someone sitting at KPMG or E&Y, having evaluated 1000 applications, thinking, "I know how to make that process half as onerous and just as (or more) effective." Have we asked them? Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): @Jeff, +1 Jeff Neuman: ICANN tried to do it for the last round and because of other unrelated issues, it was a disaster Jeff Neuman: and way off Jeff Neuman: Thus the proposed business models were WAY off by a huge factor Phil Buckingham: totally agree Jeff . Jeff Neuman: We need to accept the fact that there will be business failures of registries...that is ok Jeff Neuman: But that does not mean we should turn a blind eye if we see warning signes during the application process that a registry will not be succesful Jeff Neuman: [All of this is my personal opinion] Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Maxim - thank you - I just meant in the "real world", would professional accounting firms evaluate non-profits' financial stability in the same manner. @jeff - should we consider some contracts that are shorter than ten years in order to decrease barriers to entry and risk taking? Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): de we know the real EBERO costs for .wed? Jeff Neuman: @Anne - a shorter term contract with ICANN could have the opposite effect that we want; namely, it could become tougher for registries to get the funding that they need if investors believe that they will not have a lng enough time to recoup their investment Jeff Neuman: So, I would not be in favor of shorter terms. Jeff Neuman: @Maxim - that is a good question. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): OK understood Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): but some brand might use franchise with paid registrations, for example (for it's business partners) Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): @Jeff, answer to that will change lots of things (including amounts on COI) Jeff Neuman: I do agree that there should be separate criteria for registries dependent on selling third party registrations and those that intend to use registries internally. I am purposely not using terms like open and brand as I think that is too limiting Jeff Neuman: But the separate crietria should be for evaluating financial fitness NOT for evaluating models Phil Buckingham: Agreed Jeff , there should no evaluation of the business model . Forecasts are meaningless two years out. Rubens Kuhl: ICANN established RAA 2013 requirement after application, and that invalidated all business models proposed. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I hope we do not lose Kurt's point that there are financial professionals who would be best equipped to help develop the litmus tests we need. As Jeff points out, ICANN does not have and should not be expected to have the expertise to put forth these models. Phil Buckingham: Agreed Jeff - by its very nature every single business model is different . We cant standardise any model Jeff Neuman: And every model changes. Those that launched 3 or 4 years after they applied went through lots of changes between application time and lauch time Rubens Kuhl: Start-up lingo for those changes is "pivoting" Phil Buckingham: exactly Cheryl , the overidding requirement here is innovation. Jeff Neuman: @Cheryl - true. But organizations had 3 or 4 years of ICANN csused delay during which time staff had to be maintained, resources kept, etc. THose costs cannot be ignored Jeff Neuman: and the many years delay / costs directly resulted in business models changing to recoup (or attempt to recoup) those costs Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): REgistries are not in business of supporting models, just DNS services Jeff Neuman: @Marttin - yes that is part of it...that it only focused on what ICANN considered critical functions was an issue as well. Phil Buckingham: We need to go much further than the straw cookie monster . Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think it is important to note that ICANN's internal review suggested third party certification per Steve's reference to page 86 of that review. Will try to reread that later today.

1 0

WT4 Agenda and Reading Materials
by Rubens Kuhl Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 2018

Dear WT4 members, Today's (or tomorrow depending on timezone) call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place January 11, 1500 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome/Introduction/SOIs 2. Review of Financial Evaluation Straw Models 3. AOB In order to facilitate discussions and incorporate received feedback, two documents follow attached: a description of the problem background and of the 4 straw-models, and a position paper by Christa Taylor on financial evaluation in general. Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option that was sent in the calendar invitation. Best, CLO & Rubens

1 0

FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Related to the Maximum Delegation Rate for New gTLDs
by Emily Barabas Jan. 10, 2018

Jan. 10, 2018

Dear Working Group members and Work Track 4 members, Please see the attached response from the SSAC to the Working Group’s request for input on root zone scaling. This document is also posted on the correspondence page of the Working Group wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB . Kind regards, Emily From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 22 December 2017 at 16:46 To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, avri doria <avri(a)apc.org>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Andrew Mcconachie <andrew.mcconachie(a)icann.org>, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Related to the Maximum Delegation Rate for New gTLDs Dear Steve, On behalf of Patrik Fältström, SSAC Chair, please see the attached response from the SSAC concerning your request below. We wish you all a wonderful holiday and a very Happy New Year. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support From: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 8:00 PM To: "paf(a)frobbit.se" <paf(a)frobbit.se> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, avri doria <avri(a)apc.org>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Related to the Maximum Delegation Rate for New gTLDs ** Sent on behalf of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Co-chairs, Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman. The co-leaders of Work Track 4, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Rubens Kuhl, are copied on this message. ** Dear Patrik, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is seeking input from the community in regards to the maximum delegation rate of 1,000 TLDs per year. Please see the attached letter for details. As the letter notes, the WG co-chairs welcome your feedback and are available to answer any questions you may have about this request. 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/

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Dec. 13, 2017

Dec. 13, 2017

Hi all, Were the revised slides from last Thursday's call relative to "rough consensus" sent out? Admittedly my inbox is quite full but a search on Work Track 4 did not reveal new slides. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _______________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 5:49 PM To: Rubens Kuhl; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person Rubens, what GNSO Policy are you referring to? The only one I am aware of is the RSEP. Although public consultation is not specified in the policy, the implementation of the policy publishes the RSEP requests and has included an opportunity for public input during the 15 day evaluation process. Alan At 31/08/2017 07:28 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >Not including the community in registry services reviews is how current >GNSO policy is. This WG is not chartered to review it. > > >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.

2 5

RSEP and Registry Services
by Rubens Kuhl Dec. 1, 2017

Dec. 1, 2017

Hi there. Unfortunately voice quality degradation and background noise both peaked at the same during today's WT4 Registry Services discussion, so let me write here what I would like to have commented during the call. 1) RSEP is an acronym that sometimes is used to refer to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy, sometimes to the Registry Services Evaluation Process. The later is part of the first, but since an applicant is not a registry at time of application to a gTLD, what would be used to evaluate the proposed registry service is the Registry Services Evaluation Process, not the policy. Due to acronym collision, it seems that using only the full form of those two entities would be in order in writing the language. 2) It's good though to remember that there is a consensus policy, and that is not in the SubPro charter to review that policy; so we can't prevent any applicant that has not indicated a proposed registry service in its application to apply to provide it using RSEP in the minute it signs a contract with ICANN and becomes a registry. That's an option we don't need to enumerate in SubPro, because it already exists and will continue to exist. 3) While there are some intermediate steps in RSEP the policy specifying 15-day for the security, stability and competition check, the end-to-end targets that ICANN is aiming at is 20 days for an already existing service and 35 days for a new service. That can be factored both in the decision of application processing and in the applicant decision process of delineating a new service in the application or applying to it afterwards. Rubens

1 0

Attendance, Recording, AC recording, & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Nov. 30, 2017

Nov. 30, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations call held on Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7hr371pmkm/<https://participate.icann.org/p7hr371pmkm/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=c5dc117acd7d7b4d…> 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/s5lEB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 30 November 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):sometimes Skype to toll free US number works (also for free) Julie Hedlund:Unsynced. Jessica Hooper:The phone ending in 2801 is mine. JHooper with Verisign. Thanks. Julie Bisland:Thank you, Jessica Rubens Kuhl:Consenus as stated in GNSO guidelines, which is rough consensus. Rubens Kuhl:Rough consensus is how IETF prefer calling it. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):It is the morning time of bird calls here soI will have a different noisy background but we can choose :-) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): GNSO Working Group Guidelines specify several different levels of consensus. These include Minority Statement where applicable. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):what kind of specific situations for 1-char IDN TLDs we forsee? Does Unicode Character 'BEER MUG' (U+1F37A) count as one? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):After today as we review we will then put together a more detailedtime line for what we need to still deal with and settle where possible before the publication of the Preliminary Report in March Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Maxim wouldn't that be an emoji? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):not an IDN Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):a single item describing the concept, I am not sure we will not have enoji TLDs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):similar to hyerogliphs e.t.c. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Internationalized Domain Names Languages have to date only referred to 'official Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):thanks for the clarification Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):' languages and scripts but I do not beleive Symbols per se Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):But I am not an expert in this Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):6 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so far IANA IDN tables have hyeroglyps https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iana.org_domains_i… for example. and as I understand all current TLD's IDNs are to be allowed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Anne see your hand this is foe slide 7 Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):YES - re first bullet point Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):OK Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):hoped I hadn't missed it on 6 ;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Thanks Anne Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Anne fresh hand? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I am sorry I cannot understand Rubens at all at this time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): the audio is choppy Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Thanks Kurt that is very clear to me Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):My proposal for the friendly amendment refers to the fact that aggregating should be (consistent with order of priority to be determined by Work Track ___ recommendations). Agree with Kurt that innovative proposals should not be disadvantaged. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):can we have some proposed language typed into the chat then? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):so we can capture properly Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Anne we hit send at the same time ;=) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):slide 8 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):currently RSEP for Registries seems to be broken Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Sorry if my AC responses are slow the connectivity is orange to red in my AC room today Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Per Kurt's comment, we should add a second bullet point "Innovative proposals requiring further technical evaluation should not be disadvantaged in terms of order of processing applications". Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Noted Anne Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Slide 9 Actually Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):So are we going to modify Slide 7 in accordance with the comments or not? (Again, I cannot understand what Rubens is saying.) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):There is too much background noise. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Yes Anne we will Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Cheryl Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):audio is breaking Julie Bisland:@Rubens, you're line is cutting in and out Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Rubens is thre yet another location you can try? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):the audio is now dropping in and out Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I do not hear Rubens now Julie Bisland:@Rubens. we are losing you Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Stop please Rubens Julie Bisland:should i mute Rubens? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Rubens, we lost a minute of two of your speech Rubens Kuhl:Ok Cheryl. Rubens Kuhl:Ok Cheryl Rubens Kuhl:On bridge now but let's move on with Cheryl Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):we will mute his line Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):RSEP currently has no predicted finish time Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):"whether a new gTLD application should be required to disclose new services at the time of application" Rubens Kuhl:Rubens Kuhl: "Whether applicants need to specify which pre-approved services will be provided" Rubens Kuhl:That's bullet 1, it's already there. Rubens Kuhl:Yes, there was support to change the policy. Jeff Neuman:Actually RSEP was always how new registry services is evaluated Rubens Kuhl:Consensus is not unanimity. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):The RSEP only for the Registries (who have Registry Agreement), and might not be so for Applicants Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):at least the policy itself is older than the therm Applicant Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*term Rubens Kuhl:That's the question posed at bullet 1. Rubens Kuhl:Services that are not pre-approved already require being disclosed in application, if applicant wants it being evaluated. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):he was muted Julie Bisland:try now, Rubens Jeff Neuman:I think that is right Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):are we on page 9? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):or 11? Julie Hedlund:We were on Financial Evaluation, but Anne is speaking to slide 11, it appears. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I was picking up from 9 again Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):but Anne is on 11 Rubens Kuhl:Anne, I believe we are still in Financial Evaluation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):SO when she finishes we will move to 10 Julie Bisland:Please note: Rubens will be able to chat only unless he states otherwise Julie Hedlund:@Anne: The notes, for the most part, echo the slides so that the slide text can be seen in relation to the discussion points as they arise. Sorry for any confusion. Julie Hedlund:As there is a lot to type staff tries to get a little ahead if possible so that all is covered. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):legacy TLDs have different contracts then new gTLDs , so Name Collisions are not applicable Rubens Kuhl:Means ICANN would do the controlled interruption, not the registries Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there were talks about 90 days and 120 days , as I remember Rubens Kuhl:About the length, it would be the same as 2012, since there was no consensus to change it. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ok Rubens Kuhl:ICANN always use contractors, they rarely do anything themselves. But they operate DNS servers, so they could do it if they feel like it. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):do we know how much time name collisions lists calculation takes next time? a year like last time? Rubens Kuhl:That means than an applicant could mention whether they believe the string is low risk, aggravated risk, or high risk. And if one of the later two, they can suggest a framework in the application. Nathaniel Edwards:Wouldn't applicants always claim there isn't a collision risk? Rubens Kuhl:Note those slides are recap, they are not tentative language. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):No doubt Rubens Kuhl:No they were not. Rubens Kuhl:Note that no decision was supposed to happen in this call. And indeed none was taken. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it would be great to send the deck with the notification of the call Jeff Neuman:The slides will be sent out and we can comment on the e-mail Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):is it possible to use numbers instead of bullets? (will be simpler to follow, like 9.1 for the first bullet on p.9) Rubens Kuhl:Nothing to add, thanks Cheryl for running the later part of the meeting. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):military style throat phone :) might be a solution Julie Bisland:NEXT CALL: Thursday, 14 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):birds sound nice Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you Cheryl. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Bye everyone ... Thank you

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 30 November 2017
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 30, 2017

Nov. 30, 2017

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. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 – 30 November 2017 1. SOIs: None. 2. Recap of pending issues: Slide 5 -- IDNs Consensus so far: -- Supporting continuing having IDN TLDs. -- Support allowing 1-char IDN TLDs in specific situations. -- Use then-current version of RZ-LGR (RZ-LGR-2 at this point). -- Automate RZ-LGR compliance checking as much as feasible (algorithmically) in the application system. -- Support IDN Variant TLDs if operated by same RO -- still pending: policy requirements. -- NOTE: All consensus cals on this topic still require confirmation of language. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Consenus as stated in GNSO guidelines, which is rough consensus. Rubens Kuhl: Rough consensus is how IETF prefer calling it. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): GNSO Working Group Guidelines specify several different levels of consensus. These include Minority Statement where applicable. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what kind of specific situations for 1-char IDN TLDs we forsee? Does Unicode Character 'BEER MUG' (U+1F37A) count as one? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): After today as we review we will then put together a more detailedtime line for what we need to still deal with and settle where possible before the publication of the Preliminary Report in March Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Maxim wouldn't that be an emoji? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): not an IDN Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): a single item describing the concept, I am not sure we will not have enoji TLDs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): similar to hyerogliphs e.t.c. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Internationalized Domain Names Languages have to date only referred to 'official Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): thanks for the clarification Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): ' languages and scripts but I do not beleive Symbols per se Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): But I am not an expert in this Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): 6 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so far IANA IDN tables have hyeroglyps https://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables/tables/accenture_egyp_2.5.txt for example. and as I understand all current TLD's IDNs are to be allowed Slide 6 -- Universal Acceptance Consensus so far: -- Support mentioning UASG to applicants. -- Not create additional requirements regarding UA. -- Consensus calls on this topic still require confirmration of language. Slide 7 -- Technical Evaluation Consensus so far: -- Support aggregating technical evaluation as much as feasible -- including between procedrues, which enables the RSP Program. -- Support staff recommendation for technical questions only being pass or fail, not 0-1-2 points in some cases. -- Drill down int CQs still pending information from GDD -- number of CQs at 2012 deemed excessive, suggesting improvements to questions language. -- Other than language and scoring improvements, Technical Evaluation model deemed to be used by SubPro, probably as RSP Program Criteria. Discussion: -- Friendly amendment with respect to the first bullet re: "as much as feasible" we need to also say "(and consistent was policy as to the order of processing to be determined by [Work Track X])". -- Until the time comes for the order of that applicant to be released -- the order of the processing and publishing comes from the other Work Track. -- Could be even a little stronger. We thought that additional technical evaluation shouldn't slow down those applications -- they should retain their place in queue. They shouldn't be penalized from a timing statement. Concerned about a statement that says "as much as feasible" since that is vague. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): My proposal for the friendly amendment refers to the fact that aggregating should be (consistent with order of priority to be determined by Work Track ___ recommendations). Agree with Kurt that innovative proposals should not be disadvantaged. Slide 8 -- Registry Services Consensus so far: -- Support a list of pre-approved services. -- Define RSEP as the tool to evaluate new registry services. Still to define: -- Whether applicants need to specify which pre-approved services would be provided. -- Pre-approved services list, or a minimum list and a process to expand such list in implementation. -- Processing of applications suggesting new registry services. Discussion: -- There is an issue that isn't clearly defined: when we say processing of applications I think we are talking about the order of processing. The point that is missing is whether or not a TLD registry application is required to disclose new registry services, which is the policy in the AGB. ap We know it can do something later and use RSEP. -- Reframe it slightly? Any changes to existing requirements for disclosing new registry services? -- Bullet point 2 implies that we are changing the policy -- define RSEP as the tool to evaluate new registry services. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): "whether a new gTLD application should be required to disclose new services at the time of application" Jeff Neuman: Actually RSEP was always how new registry services is evaluated Rubens Kuhl: Consensus is not unanimity. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): The RSEP only for the Registries (who have Registry Agreement), and might not be so for Applicants Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): at least the policy itself is older than the therm Applicant Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *term Slide 9 -- Financial Evaluation Consensus so far: -- Rebuild it from scratch. -- No to evaluate business-model but look into "marketplace health". -- Nuanced interpretation of how 2012 evaluation was not a business-model evaluation -- still pending. -- 2 straw models already presented, 2 new straw models yet to be presented. -- Consideration of whether to include third-party certification. Slide 10 -- Name Collisions in legacy and 2012 gTLDs -- Consensus on keeping the procedures for 2012-round gTLDs as they are. -- Discussions on name collisions in legacy gTLDs still pending. >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): legacy TLDs have different contracts then new gTLDs , so Name Collisions are not applicable Slide 11 -- Name collisions for subsequent procedures Consensus so far: -- On expanding 2012 Framework with categorization of low, aggravated, and high risk. -- On elaborating "do not apply" and "exercise care" lists. -- On keeping readiness requirement for life-threatening collisions. -- For low-risk strings, consensus on starting controlled interruption ASAP and delegate execution to ICANN. Still pending: -- Guidelines, or guidance to make guidelines, for categorization and list creation, including possible applicant opionion and collision framework. -- Definition of SLA for collision readiness. -- Integration with Board-requested SSAC guidance. Discussion: -- Thought we had consensus on the "do not apply" and "exercise care" lists that this has to be an early evaluation. -- What does "delegate execution to ICANN" mean in the 4th bullet? Suggest new wording to make it more clear. -- If an applicant believed there wouldn't be a collision risk they could state that. -- Might help to use the word "proposal" from the applicant. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Means ICANN would do the controlled interruption, not the registries Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): there were talks about 90 days and 120 days , as I remember Rubens Kuhl: About the length, it would be the same as 2012, since there was no consensus to change it. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): ok Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): do we know how much time name collisions lists calculation takes next time? a year like last time? Rubens Kuhl: That means than an applicant could mention whether they believe the string is low risk, aggravated risk, or high risk. And if one of the later two, they can suggest a framework in the application. Nathaniel Edwards: Wouldn't applicants always claim there isn't a collision risk? Rubens Kuhl: Note those slides are recap, they are not tentative language. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): No doubt Slide 12 -- Root Zone Scaling -- Consultation sent to SSAC, RSSAC, and OCTO. -- Consensus on separating application processing and contracting capacity from root zone scalability. -- WT apparently leaning towards removing hard ceilings, replacing with continued monitoring.

1 0

WT4 Call Agenda
by Rubens Kuhl Nov. 30, 2017

Nov. 30, 2017

Dear WT4 members, Today's (or tomorrow depending on timezone) call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place November 31, 2000 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome/Introduction/SOIs 2. Recap of pending issues 3. AOB Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ <https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/> You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option that was sent in the calendar invitation. Best, CLO & Rubens

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 16, 2017

Oct. 16, 2017

Thanks for clarifying that Kristina. The home page for the DNS-OARC does not make a distinction as to the particular entity: https://www.dns-oarc.net/ Nevertheless, mentioning applicants for a frozen TLD was apparently a major “faux pas” on my part and I apologize. To be clear, I personally have a very high regard for both Amazon and Google and their representatives at ICANN and believe they operate at the highest level of integrity. I only mentioned this funding status because several have commented that any new name collision framework could also be applied to applications that were not permitted to go forward in 2012 due to name collision issues. The Board received a letter from some other applicants about this back in August of 2016: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/home-registry-inc-et-a… The Board responded as follows to that letter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-home-regist… So it’s easy to see why the Board would want to consider applying the new Name Collision Framework recommended by the GNSO Sub Pro PDP (and presumably to be adopted by the GNSO in a recommendation to the Board) to 2012 round applications that are frozen and still pending (per the public record). For anyone in the subgroup who does not know, the current status of .home, .corp, and .mail is listed at the ICANN website as “CONTENTION SET ON HOLD PENDING NAME COLLISION FRAMEWORK FINALIZATION”. Please see public records pasted below. For existing Framework provisions discussing why these names are frozen, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul1… ). Once again, I would recommend that the subgroup contract for paid independent technical advice on the proposed new name collision framework as was the case in connection with the names that were frozen in the 2012 round. I do not know why we are further delaying in this regard, especially since we apparently want to adopt three categories of risk – low, medium, and high. This will definitely require professional, paid, and independent technical advice in my opinion. [cid:image005.png@01D34384.71E0AC50] [cid:image003.png@01D34385.3B55DAB0] [cid:image001.png@01D3437B.B6A26210] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image007.png@01D3438F.68770050] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:rosettek@amazon.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 7:36 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Rubens Kuhl' Cc: 'gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 For the record, neither Amazon EU Sarl (the applicant for .MAIL) nor Amazon Registry Services, Inc. (the Registry Operator) is the Amazon entity that is the Bronze member of DNS-OARC. Any suggestion to the contrary has no factual basis. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:57 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: 'gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 P.S. I only point out Google and Amazon as members of the organization mentioned in 3.(c) below because both are applicants for the .mail TLD (now “on hold” and frozen due to name collision issues). For anyone who does not know, our firm represents the United States Postal Service. 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> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D3437F.E6832BA0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:33 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 1. Yes – that is what I meant when I said “consider as an alternative’. 2. Separately, could you please remind me what we said in Work Track 4 re registry rights in relation to idn equivalents to English TLDs owned by that registry? (This came up in Work Track 3 as to string similarity issues.) 3. Also, do we have any responses yet as to the request for input on revising the name collision framework (high risk, medium risk, low risk categories) as sent to (a) IETF (b) Ripe Labs (c) DNS Operations Analysis and Research Center (We note that Google is a Platinum Member and Amazon is a Bronze member) Anne 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@01D3437F.E6832BA0] 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, October 11, 2017 12:21 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 On Oct 11, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Rubens, Are you saying that staff recommended stick with current policy and current AGB language in Question 23 as an alternative? Nope, Staff alerted us that all 3 proposals are not that much different among each other and from current implementation, so they suggested it to also be considered in the whole process. Policy staff has a tradition of keeping a neutral standing and I would be surprised if they ever took position on anything, and they didn't in this case. I just tried to give credit were credit's due, since it was them that realised that. That said, I believe that moving forward comparing to current implementation will make sense for a good number of WT4 discussion topics, so this is likely to appear at some topics ahead. And looking ahead for the full WG Draft Report, I would be in favor in doing for the majority of themes, in fact. 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.

2 6

Attendance, Recording, AC recording, & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6m7d2hlucb/<https://participate.icann.org/p6m7d2hlucb/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ba32205baa7d5c6f…> 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/uYJEB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 October 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Martin Sutton:Good morning/evening! Julie Bisland:Welcome, Martin :) Jeff Neuman:1,2,3 good Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Wow - attendance is not very good. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@staff- the 520 number is Anne. Julie Bisland:thank you, Anne Trang Nguyen:One additional note is that if a RSP program will exist in subsequent rounds, new registry services would have to be applied for by the RSP. Jeff Neuman:@trang - why Trang Nguyen:The RSP would be the one delivering the registry service. So if an applicant's business model necessitates a registry service that a RSP is not already approved for, the RSP would apply for the registry service. Trang Nguyen:sorry, i'm not on audio. Trang Nguyen:I can see how it could depend on how the service is proposed to be delivered. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: just to clarify, Jeff, are you saying Registry operator can offer a new service and it would not be the backend provider of registry services who applies? Trang Nguyen:@Rubens, yes. Jeff Neuman:yes. Not all Registry Services must be provided by the RSP Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):That seems right to me. Jeff Neuman:P.S. it is BTAPPA, not BTPPA :) Jeff Neuman:Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition Jeff Neuman:I am soooo sorry for naming the first one that. Did not expect that name to stick Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):okay thank you Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Jeff - we can't hear you Julie Bisland:Jeff, no audio Jeff Neuman:sorry, Jeff Neuman:it says i am speaking Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - What slide are you on? Jeff Neuman:or you could say "but may extend the contract negotiation process" Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Sorry for delay joinung, as the telco tried to fix my line to the house, they discinnected the INTERNET line!!!! Cheryl Langdon-Orr:GRRR here now irritated but here Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Ouch Cheryl - glad you got "connected". Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Phew indeed Anne Martin Sutton:Agree Jeff, thx. Rubens Kuhl:Yes. Jeff Neuman:yes Rubens Kuhl:Just a comment: the parenthesis is not contained in AGB. Rubens Kuhl:This is a quote from AGB... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):yes - but we don't have Question 23 and that is policy Jeff Neuman:Provide name and full description of all theRegistry Services to be provided. Descriptionsshould include both technical and businesscomponents of each proposed service, andaddress any potential security or stabilityconcerns.The following registry services are customaryservices offered by a registry operator:A. Receipt of data from registrars concerningregistration of domain names and nameservers.B. Dissemination of TLD zone files.C. Dissemination of contact or otherinformation concerning domain nameregistrations (e.g., port-43 WHOIS, Web-based Whois, RESTful Whois service).D. Internationalized Domain Names, whereoffered.E. DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC).The applicant must describe whether any ofthese registry services are intended to be offeredin a manner unique to the TLD.Additional proposed registry services that areunique to the registry must also be described. Jeff Neuman:Sorry for bad formatting Rubens Kuhl:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.or… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you Jeff. I think this is a good question as it stands. But it's possible we should have pre-approved services - they would have to be desribed in detail as a "safe harbor". Rubens Kuhl:Page 2-24 and on. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I hope I managed not to hash it too badly Jeff Jeff Neuman:i am not saying that Rubens Kuhl:Anne, it's not that... what's in SP4 is a direct quote of AGB.. Rubens Kuhl:But it's the part that explains the procedures. Rubens Kuhl:2.2.3 "Registry Services Reviews" Rubens Kuhl:Even in 2012, Registry Services was a non-scored question. So one could fail due to failing that review, but not get any points for passin it. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: I did not realize Jeff's comment related only to pre-approved services. I still think Question 23 would have to stay in if the registry is proposing new services. Rubens Kuhl:Anne, current implementation guideline is what is in the evaluation procedures... the question text is how that guideline was implemented. Jeff Neuman:IF there are new services, then yes we would need something that asks what those new services are and how they would implement it Rubens Kuhl:SP4 doesn't have pre-approved services... even though 2012 AGB listed customary services, it gave no pre-approval status to them. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Rubens - I think we are talking about developing pre-approved services. Rubens Kuhl:Anne, we are. SP1, 2 and 3 all suggest pre-approved services. And that's a change from current implementation. Jeff Neuman:To me SP3 seems to make the most sense....but that is a personal opinion Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, I believe the decision matrix will make it easier to pick individual decisions instead of an specific SP. Jeff Neuman:ok..i will withdraw my personal opinion until then :) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Re last point on slide 11 - "last bullet point" - change "additional" to "new" in describing requirement to describe "new services" Rubens Kuhl:Anne, since it's only a comparison instead of specific language I believe we just need to agree on the understanding, which is indeed "new" like you mentioned. Rubens Kuhl:We can come to that conclusion in the next few slides. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Certainly agree with that Cheryl. Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, I believe so, yes. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff - that's a good clarification question. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Not by my understanding Jeff Correct me if I am wrong Rubens Kuhl:Slide 14 will give more clarity on that, if we get to that. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Would there be a pre-approved manner of delivering DNSSEC as a "safe harbor" and only describe if you are doing it differently or uniquely Cheryl Langdon-Orr:were avoiding evoking the words Qualifying Questions Anne ;-) Martin Sutton:good point Anne, seems sensible to explore Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff so Applicant msut describe HOW it will deliver pre-approved services then Rubens Kuhl:In DNSSSEC: NSECxNSEC3, use or not use an HSM, supported algorithms etc. Quoc Pham:a little off trace, I would like to just to make a statement that regardless of the straw-person that we put forward, applications should not be prioritised based on their listed registry services Quoc Pham:*little off track Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Quoc - very relevant and not at all off track Rubens Kuhl:Quoc, that's what question 3. Timing is all about. Jeff Neuman:So, @Anne I am not sure there is a way to streamline all aspects of evaluating how one operationalizes those services that may have common protocols Quoc Pham:@right, thanks Rubens that wasn't clear to me Quoc Pham:@Rubens Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think for the list, the questions would have to be longer and more detailed than portrayed in the matrix. Jeff Neuman:On slide 14, I think 1, 2 and 4 should be pre-approved Jeff Neuman:but 3 seems too broad Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ Cheryl - sorry but I really must go - thanks so much! Jeff Neuman:Thanks! Rubens Kuhl:Thanks all! Martin Sutton:thanks all, bye Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye avri doria:bye

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 12 October 2017
by Steve Chan Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 2017

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/uYJEB. Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 12 October 2017 NOTES/ACTION ITEMS: 1. None 2. Registry Services Slide 5 -- Recollection of past discussions. E.g., means of collecting info to build Exhibit A, may have less value if done in bulk/incorported into RSP Program. Undergoing discussions might streamline registry service adoption. Possible source of innovation. Trang Nguyen: One additional note is that if a RSP program will exist in subsequent rounds, new registry services would have to be applied for by the RSP. -- Q: Why? Registry services can be unique to a TLD/RO. Seems like it would be submitted by the RO. Jeff not certain that it's correct statement. - A: Trang Nguyen: The RSP would be the one delivering the registry service. So if an applicant's business model necessitates a registry service that a RSP is not already approved for, the RSP would apply for the registry service. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: just to clarify, Jeff, are you saying Registry operator can offer a new service and it would not be the backend provider of registry services who applies? A: Jeff Neuman: yes. Not all Registry Services must be provided by the RSP Slide 6 - SP#1 -- Reading slide Slide 7 - SP#2 -- Reading slide -- Believes bottom paragraph is already contained in Q23. Would not need to provide details for pre-approved services. -- Last paragraph only reviews non-pre-approved services, so this is a change. Jeff Neuman: P.S. it is BTAPPA, not BTPPA :) Jeff Neuman: Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition Slide 8 - SP#3 -- Reading slide -- Should remove contract negotiation process element in last sentence. Or change it to say that it may extend contract negotation (since RSEP possibly envisioned during contracting) -- RSEP envisioned at contracting time, which would likely extend timeline. -- Does this structure discourage disclosure of registry services at application time? If no new services proposed, does this speed up application processing? Anne in favor of disclosure at submission time. Some say having to disclose at submission time discourages innovation though. --Many will say that RSEP is much more painful than during application evaluation. For RSEP, if there is a security and stability issue, does go through public comment. Also possible if there is a contractual ammendment. Many do not want to disclose as it may impact first mover advantage with innovative service. Slide 9 - SP#4 (current implementation) -- Reading slide (Note - Registry services were reviewed in context of technical and financial questions) -- Should Q23 be viewed here as well for full context? -- Reading Q23... -- The following questions ask in detail (e.g., Q24, 25, etc.). Q23 is the big picture and not scored. -- Is the suggestion to remove Q23? Maybe not needed if there is only pre-approved services. How implemented, following questions, would still be needed. If you have the how, maybe you don't need the list. -- Maybe a separate conversation neeeded to see where duplicative questions could be be removed. -- Wasn't aware that Q23 removal would be in response to having a list of pre-approved services. Rubens Kuhl: Anne, it's not that... what's in SP4 is a direct quote of AGB.. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thank you Jeff. I think this is a good question as it stands. But it's possible we should have pre-approved services - they would have to be desribed in detail as a "safe harbor". Jeff Neuman: IF there are new services, then yes we would need something that asks what those new services are and how they would implement it Rubens Kuhl: SP4 doesn't have pre-approved services... even though 2012 AGB listed customary services, it gave no pre-approval status to them. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Rubens - I think we are talking about developing pre-approved services. Rubens Kuhl: Anne, we are. SP1, 2 and 3 all suggest pre-approved services. And that's a change from current implementation. Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, I believe the decision matrix will make it easier to pick individual decisions instead of an specific SP. Slide 10/11 -- Reading slide -- #1 and #3 only requires applicant to inform about registry services that are not in the pre-approved list while #2 requires all services to be informed, although #2 only requires naming pre-approved services and to describe only additional services in detail. -- #1 incorporates a list of pre-approved services by reference, although mentioning some, while #2 and #3 explicitly names a list -- Is this a distinction without a difference? How different is by reference versus explicit list? -- Whether or not an explicit list is needed would need to be taken to the list. -- What does a list of pre-approved services mean? The how would still need to be provided and evaluated? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Would there be a pre-approved manner of delivering DNSSEC as a "safe harbor" and only describe if you are doing it differently or uniquely -- There are certain protocol needs to implement DNSSEC, but the specifics of how are widely varying. Rubens Kuhl: In DNSSSEC: NSECxNSEC3, use or not use an HSM, supported algorithms etc. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Re last point on slide 11 - "last bullet point" - change "additional" to "new" in describing requirement to describe "new services" Rubens Kuhl: Anne, since it's only a comparison instead of specific language I believe we just need to agree on the understanding, which is indeed "new" like you mentioned. Slide 12 -- Pre-approved services -- 2+ track -- Timing Slide 13 (with pre-approved services -- Pre-approved services -- 2+ track -- Timing Slide 14 (if there are pre-approved services) -- Base Exhibit A services -- IDN services following ICANN IDN guidelines -- Non-mandatory block-type RPMs -- BTAPPA ("Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition) Quoc Pham: a little off trace, I would like to just to make a statement that regardless of the straw-person that we put forward, applications should not be prioritised based on their listed registry services Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Quoc - very relevant and not at all off track Rubens Kuhl: Quoc, that's what question 3. Timing is all about. Jeff Neuman: So, @Anne I am not sure there is a way to streamline all aspects of evaluating how one operationalizes those services that may have common protocols Pre-approved services by reference -- 6 yes Take questions to list, especially since next call is cancelled. 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/

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

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. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 1. Name Collisions: Source data from GDD Technical Services, that acts as the basis for the information being presented by Rubens, is available on the Name Collisions Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Yz2AAw Slide 5: What's in today's agenda and what's still ahead: -- Results from GDD inquiry on reported collisions -- Whether 2012-round gTLD should keep readiness after 2 years of delegation -- Whether SubPro gTLDs should have readiness or not, and length of such readiness. Slide 6: Report collisions from 2012-round: -- No life-threatening collisions; -- 18 unique TLDs represented in 34 occurences -- Median of 3 occurences per TLD -- Median of 22 days between delegation and report -- 23 cases reported as service disruption, etc. Slide 7: Reported collisions from 2012-round (cont.): -- In 24 cases the registry was not contacted -- determined by ICANN Org that it was not necessary. -- In 5 the registry was put in contact with the reporter, in 1 registry stopped controlled interruption, in 1 no action. -- Few data on outcomes -- all 5 known outcomes the network was updated. Slide 8: Two-year readiness for current new gTLDs: All 2012-round gTLDs were required to pass a controlled interruption period and be able to respond within two hours for life-threatening reports for first 2 years of delegation. Options: a) 2012-gTLDs should extend readiness beyond the 2-year period b) 2012-gTLDs should only have such readiness in those 2 years as currently foreseen in the framework b) 1 year Poll: Option a: No one. Option b: 6 in favor Option c: 1 in favor >From the chat: Sarah L Verisign: Rubens can we get back to you on this later this week rather than saying now? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): Sarah this is a temp taking not deffinative pol Jon Nevett: we should do a cost differential before voting Sarah L Verisign: I understand but I need to discuss this with other folks before making even a temp position Jon Nevett: what is the cost of the readiness -- if not a lot, not big deal Jon Nevett: if it is a lot, then it gets passed on Alan Greenberg: Cost is lower for orgs that have multiple TLDs, since cost of readiness for 10 is no larger than 1 and TLDs come on line at different times. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Alan that every new gTLD is different. Initial evaluations on name collision risk could make a big difference here. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): thus my 'personal' comfort with the status quo on this at 2y Alan Greenberg: My intervention was really in relation to THIS question, not just the 2012 gTLDs. Slide 9: Framework -- Two-year readiness for SubPro gTLDs: Question: Should gTLDs in subsequent procedures be subject for such 2-year readiness for life-threatening collisions? Options: a) Same 2-hour for life-threatening collisions readiness for first -- years. (Assume keeping 2 years.) b) No need for readiness. c) SubPro gTLDs should have readiness covering more conditions with -- hours/days SLA Poll: Option a: 4 in favor Option b: 1 in favor; 3 against Option c: None -- Should there be different responses for different types of TLDs? >From the chat: Dietmar Lenden - Valideus: 2 years would appear fair for all applicants past and present 2. Registry Services: ACTION: Send slides 12-16 to the list and ask the list to consider and discuss on the list the three straw-persons, contrasts, and slide 16. Take up this conversation at this point in the agenda next week. Slide 12: Straw-person #1 Slide 13: Straw-person #2 Slide 14: Straw-person #3 Discussion on Straw-person #1: -- Change in SP#1: When registry services are proposed that is when the community has the opportunity to comment and provide input. You don't know the impact that the services may have. Don't want to discourge proposals for new services. -- On the registry services policy -- they don't have to get input from the community except when ICANN makes a finding that a concern has to be evaluated. Then the community comments on that concern via the report of the RSEP panel. We can go beyond that for new gTLDs. -- With respect to input on new gTLD applications, the community doesn't have a formal process but many of us review the applications. There are informal methods and if there is an irregularity there are ways in ICANN to raise an issue. -- If an applicant knows that if an applicant specifies a registry service and that it will go through more evaluation, that is a disincentive to provide that registry service early on. Then after signing the contract they will file an RSEP.

3 7

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] CANCELLED MEETING / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations
by Rubens Kuhl Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

Folks, Just to be clear that the call that has been cancelled is not our next call in a few hours, but the one at October 24th. Rubens > On Oct 11, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> wrote: > > THIS CALL HAS BEEN CANCELLED, please make sure to remove it from your calendars. > > The PDP leadership team has decided to cancel this call because many participants will already be in transit to ICANN60 and unable to attend. > > Dear All, > > The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 24 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. > 13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 21:00 London BST, 22:00 Paris CEST > For other times: http://tinyurl.com/ybxghqbu[tinyurl.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_ybxghqbu&d=…> > > 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 below (also sent in the calendar invitation). > > Kind regards, > > Michelle DeSmyter > > You're Invited. > You've been invited to a GlobalMeet® phone only meeting. > Have the meeting call you. > Click the Connect Me link below. No need to dial-in. > Connect Me [toolbar.conferencinghub.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__toolbar.conferencinghu…> > Not at your computer? > You can join by dialing one of the access numbers below. > Mobile: > tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825# <tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825> > Access Number: > 1-605-475-5604 > Guest Passcode: > 8650457825 > Additional Access: > USA: > 1-605-475-5604 > USA: > 1-712-770-4203 > USA: > 1-719-457-6209 > Canada, Calgary: > +1 403 407 5793 > Canada, Montreal: > +1 514 669 5928 > Canada, Toronto: > +1 647 426 9172 > Canada, Vancouver: > +1 604 222 7836 > Argentina, Buenos Aires: > +54 (0) 11 5172 6003 > Argentina (toll free): > 0800 800 1223 > Australia, Sydney: > +61 (0) 2 8017 6064 > Australia, Melbourne: > +61 (0) 3 8687 0553 > Australia, Brisbane: > +61 (0) 7 3015 0535 > Australia (toll free): > 1 800 804 786 > Austria, Vienna: > +43 (0) 1 25302 1785 > Austria (toll free): > 0800 8866 3413 > Bahrain, Manama: > +973 1619 8739 > Bahrain (toll free): > 800 04212 > Belarus (toll free): > 8 820 0011 0341 > Belgium, Brussels: > +32 (0) 2 400 6928 > Belgium (toll free): > 0800 39279 > Brazil, Sao Paulo: > +55 11 4935 7169 > Brazil, Rio de Janeiro: > +55 21 4560 0072 > Brazil (toll free): > 0800 887 0233 > Bulgaria, Sofia: > +359 (0) 2 491 6045 > Bulgaria (toll free): > 00800 111 4950 > Cambodia, Phnom Penh: > +855 23 965 723 > Canada (toll free): > 1 855 950 3717 > Chile, Santiago: > +56 (0) 2 2666 0696 > Chile (toll free): > 171 800 835 783 > China (national): > +400 613 8103 > China, Beijing: > +86 10 5667 0003 > China, Shanghai: > +86 21 2039 7081 > Colombia, Bogota: > +57 1 508 8137 > Colombia (toll free): > 01 800 755 0102 > Costa Rica (toll free): > 800 542 5328 > Croatia (toll free): > 0800 805 940 > Cyprus (toll free): > 800 97424 > Czech Republic, Prague: > +420 225 986 554 > Czech Republic (toll free): > 800 701 532 > Denmark, Copenhagen: > +45 32 72 78 10 > Denmark (toll free): > 80 70 35 86 > Egypt (toll free): > 0800 000 0593 > Estonia, Tallinn: > +372 622 6551 > Estonia (toll free): > 800 011 1589 > Fiji (toll free): > 00800 3322 > Finland, Helsinki: > +358 (0) 9 2310 1677 > Finland (toll free): > 0800 772 236 > France, Paris: > +33 (0) 1 70 37 16 56 > France (toll free): > 0800 946 531 > France (national): > 0811 655 100 > France (national): > 0821 231 671 > Georgia, Tbilisi: > +995 32 2 050 778 > Germany, Frankfurt: > +49 (0) 69 2222 10612 > Germany, Munich: > +49 (0) 89 2030 31207 > Germany (national): > 01801 003 899 > Germany (toll free): > 0800 588 9170 > Greece, Athens: > +30 211 181 3824 > Greece (toll free): > 00800 128 913 > Hong Kong: > +852 3018 9111 > Hong Kong (toll free): > 800 901 787 > Hungary, Budapest: > +36 1408 8953 > Hungary (toll free): > 068 001 9673 > Iceland (toll free): > 800 9847 > India, Delhi: > +91 (0) 11 6641 1394 > India, Bangalore: > +91 (0) 80 6127 6710 > India, Mumbai: > +91 (0)22 6187 5028 > India, Chennai: > +91 (0)44 6688 6061 > India (toll free): > 1800 200 9415 > Indonesia, Jakarta: > +62 21 2188 9084 > Indonesia (toll free): > 007 803 321 8927 > Ireland, Dublin: > +353 (0) 1 526 9421 > Ireland (national): > 0818 270 271 > Ireland (toll free): > 1800 937 649 > Ireland (national): > 1890 907 630 > Israel, Tel Aviv: > +972 (0)3 721 7943 > Israel (toll free): > 1809 213 168 > Italy, Milan: > +39 02 3600 8006 > Italy, Rome: > +39 06 8750 0676 > Italy (toll free): > 800 146 094 > Japan, Tokyo: > +81 (0) 3 4560 1270 > Japan, Osaka: > +81 (0) 6 4560 2410 > Japan (toll free): > 0120 305 211 > Japan (mobile): > 0120 632 611 > Japan (national): > 0570 085 744 > Kazakhstan (toll free): > 8800 333 7554 > Kenya, Nairobi: > +254 (0)20 529 3581 > South Korea, Seoul: > +82 (0) 2 6007 0079 > South Korea (toll free): > 00798 6136 1454 > Latvia, Riga: > +371 6601 3627 > Latvia (toll free): > 8000 4418 > Lithuania, Vilnius: > +370 5205 5468 > Lithuania (toll free): > 8800 31449 > Luxembourg: > +352 2088 1749 > Luxembourg (toll free): > 800 28433 > Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur: > +60 (0) 3 7724 8010 > Malaysia (toll free): > 1 800 816 152 > Mexico, Guadalajara: > +52 33 4162 4504 > Mexico, Mexico City: > +52 55 8421 0326 > Mexico, Monterrey: > +52 81 4162 5648 > Mexico (toll free): > 01 800 733 4102 > Morocco, Casablanca: > +212 (0) 520 48 0022 > Morocco (toll free): > 0800 091 296 > Netherlands, Amsterdam: > +31 (0) 20 716 8345 > Netherlands (toll free): > 0800 020 2597 > New Zealand, Christchurch: > +64 (0) 3 974 2596 > New Zealand, Wellington: > +64 (0) 4 909 4674 > New Zealand, Auckland: > +64 (0) 9 929 1825 > New Zealand (toll free): > 0800 452 947 > Nigeria, Lagos: > +234 1 277 3944 > Norway, Oslo: > +47 21 00 48 15 > Norway (toll free): > 800 56081 > Oman (toll free): > 800 77265 > Panama, Panama City: > +507 8 335 913 > Panama (toll free): > 00800 223 1390 > Peru, Lima: > +51 (0) 1 700 9571 > Peru (toll free): > 0800 78102 > Philippines, Manila: > +63 (0)2 395 3426 > Philippines (toll free): > 1 800 111 013 99 > Poland, Warsaw: > +48 22 295 3570 > Poland (toll free): > 00 800 121 4356 > Portugal, Lisbon: > +351 21 316 4093 > Portugal (toll free): > 800 784 442 > Qatar (toll free): > 00 800 100 491 > Romania, Bucharest: > +40 (0) 21 529 3992 > Romania (toll free): > 0800 801 035 > Russia, Moscow: > +7 495 646 9181 > Russia (toll free): > 8 800 500 9241 > Saudi Arabia (toll free): > 800 844 6641 > Saudi Arabia (toll free): > 800 850 0219 > Serbia (toll free): > 0800 190 712 > Singapore: > +65 6622 1957 > Singapore (toll free): > 800 616 3192 > Slovakia, Bratislava: > +421 (0)2 3321 5498 > Slovakia (toll free): > 0800 002 002 > Slovenia, Ljubljana: > +386 1600 8695 > Slovenia (toll free): > 0800 81193 > South Africa, Johannesburg: > +27 (0)11 589 8321 > South Africa (toll free): > 0800 999 434 > Spain, Madrid: > +34 91 114 6653 > Spain, Barcelona: > +34 93 800 1946 > Spain (toll free): > 900 828 035 > Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka: > +94 720 910 333 > Sweden, Stockholm: > +46 (0) 8 5065 3956 > Sweden (toll free): > 0200 125 588 > Switzerland, Geneva: > +41 (0) 22 595 4795 > Switzerland, Zurich: > +41 (0) 44 580 7207 > Switzerland (toll free): > 0800 740 360 > Taiwan, Taipei: > +886 (0) 2 2650 7329 > Taiwan (toll free): > 0800 666 596 > Thailand, Bangkok: > +66 (0) 2104 0761 > Thailand (toll free): > 001 800 6136 1473 > Tunisia, Tunis: > +216 31 378 101 > Turkey, Istanbul: > +90 212 375 50 49 > Turkey (toll free): > 00800 4488 26642 > Ukraine (toll free): > 0800 500 896 > UAE (toll free): > 8000 3570 2662 > UK (03): > +44 (0)330 336 6002 > UK (toll free): > 0800 358 6385 > UK (national): > 0844 473 5010 > UK (national): > 0845 545 0015 > USA /Canada (toll free): > 1-866-398-2885 > Uruguay (toll free): > 0004 019 0152 > Venezuela, Caracas: > +58 212 720 2164 > Venezuela (toll free): > 0 800 162 7451 > Vietnam, Hanoi: > +84 4 4458 3312 > Vietnam (toll free): > 1800 9226 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list > Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4>

1 0

In Preparation for our next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 12 October 2017 Your input and action is requested.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

Further to the material recently distributed by Julie, from our WT4 call (see below) Rubens and I would like this list to consider, react and prepare for next weeks call, with regards to the important matters being discussed on Registry Services. If you can, please review the notes and recording from this call, tthe topic should start about 35-39 mins into the recoding as well as slides 12, 13, 14 and 15 from the slide deck. In our meeting we managed to do a brief run through of the 3 presented 'Strawperson' options outlined in slides 12,13 and 14, then begin but not complete our more detailed discussion around option 1. This is where we will take up our main Agenda items for next weeks WT4 call on Oct 12 at 0300 UTC. The intention is to continue on with our review, discussion and 'compare and contrast' of the various options, tabled to date. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful contributions, and we look forward to many of you joining us on Oct 12th. Kindest regards, Rubens and Cheryl (CLO) On Oct 6, 2017 09:05, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> wrote: 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. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------- *Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017* *1. Name Collisions:* Source data from GDD Technical Services, that acts as the basis for the information being presented by Rubens, is available on the Name Collisions Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Yz2AAw *Slide 5: What's in today's agenda and what's still ahead:* -- Results from GDD inquiry on reported collisions -- Whether 2012-round gTLD should keep readiness after 2 years of delegation -- Whether SubPro gTLDs should have readiness or not, and length of such readiness. *Slide 6: Report collisions from 2012-round:* -- No life-threatening collisions; -- 18 unique TLDs represented in 34 occurences -- Median of 3 occurences per TLD -- Median of 22 days between delegation and report -- 23 cases reported as service disruption, etc. *Slide 7: Reported collisions from 2012-round (cont.):* -- In 24 cases the registry was not contacted -- determined by ICANN Org that it was not necessary. -- In 5 the registry was put in contact with the reporter, in 1 registry stopped controlled interruption, in 1 no action. -- Few data on outcomes -- all 5 known outcomes the network was updated. *Slide 8: Two-year readiness for current new gTLDs:* All 2012-round gTLDs were required to pass a controlled interruption period and be able to respond within two hours for life-threatening reports for first 2 years of delegation. Options: a) 2012-gTLDs should extend readiness beyond the 2-year period b) 2012-gTLDs should only have such readiness in those 2 years as currently foreseen in the framework b) 1 year Poll: Option a: No one. Option b: 6 in favor Option c: 1 in favor >From the chat: Sarah L Verisign: Rubens can we get back to you on this later this week rather than saying now? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): Sarah this is a temp taking not deffinative pol Jon Nevett: we should do a cost differential before voting Sarah L Verisign: I understand but I need to discuss this with other folks before making even a temp position Jon Nevett: what is the cost of the readiness -- if not a lot, not big deal Jon Nevett: if it is a lot, then it gets passed on Alan Greenberg: Cost is lower for orgs that have multiple TLDs, since cost of readiness for 10 is no larger than 1 and TLDs come on line at different times. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Alan that every new gTLD is different. Initial evaluations on name collision risk could make a big difference here. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): thus my 'personal' comfort with the status quo on this at 2y Alan Greenberg: My intervention was really in relation to THIS question, not just the 2012 gTLDs. *Slide 9: Framework -- Two-year readiness for SubPro gTLDs:* Question: Should gTLDs in subsequent procedures be subject for such 2-year readiness for life-threatening collisions? Options: a) Same 2-hour for life-threatening collisions readiness for first -- years. (Assume keeping 2 years.) b) No need for readiness. c) SubPro gTLDs should have readiness covering more conditions with -- hours/days SLA Poll: Option a: 4 in favor Option b: 1 in favor; 3 against Option c: None -- Should there be different responses for different types of TLDs? >From the chat: Dietmar Lenden - Valideus: 2 years would appear fair for all applicants past and present *2. Registry Services:* ACTION: Send slides 12-16 to the list and ask the list to consider and discuss on the list the three straw-persons, contrasts, and slide 16. Take up this conversation at this point in the agenda next week. Slide 12: Straw-person #1 Slide 13: Straw-person #2 Slide 14: Straw-person #3 Discussion on Straw-person #1: -- Change in SP#1: When registry services are proposed that is when the community has the opportunity to comment and provide input. You don't know the impact that the services may have. Don't want to discourge proposals for new services. -- On the registry services policy -- they don't have to get input from the community except when ICANN makes a finding that a concern has to be evaluated. Then the community comments on that concern via the report of the RSEP panel. We can go beyond that for new gTLDs. -- With respect to input on new gTLD applications, the community doesn't have a formal process but many of us review the applications. There are informal methods and if there is an irregularity there are ways in ICANN to raise an issue. -- If an applicant knows that if an applicant specifies a registry service and that it will go through more evaluation, that is a disincentive to provide that registry service early on. Then after signing the contract they will file an RSEP. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4

1 0

Attendance, Recording, AC recording, & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 05 October 2017
by Terri Agnew Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 05 October 2017 at 19:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p5rd5talvr7/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=0555d3b4d0c723a6 443ff49bfca3e762f690bbacbaefaf5bc7f0e0b28a3e10d0> https://participate.icann.org/p5rd5talvr7/ 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/iIdEB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 05 October 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations on Thursday, 05 October 2017 at 19:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_i IdEB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ iIdEB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ESy_XKXUShi-NGOB_yivJuvH4s6_47v3AtNWshkXqdg &s=-gCuaUVRfKPHRpw_r-z88vI91SufWhIBTEpkwaojnl8&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ESy_XKXUShi-NGOB_yivJuvH4s6_47v3AtNWshkXqdg&s=-g CuaUVRfKPHRpw_r-z88vI91SufWhIBTEpkwaojnl8&e= Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):ahh I thought that was just me.. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Could I get a dial out to 520-629-4428? Terri Agnew:@Anne dialing out Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Sound is better now. Rubens Kuhl:How is it now Terri ? Rubens Kuhl:I'm muted on my phone. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Cheryl - we all see fit and are happy about it. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):thanks Anne Steve Chan:FYI, the source data from GDD Technical Services, that acts as the basis for the information being presented by Rubens, is available on the Name Collisions Wiki page here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Y z2AAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ Yz2AAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ESy_XKXUShi-NGOB_yivJuvH4s6_47v3AtNWshkXqd g&s=hQrONrrREUIHKvzUbrCcqu6hJeizEZeGLtxxv22ptzU&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ESy_XKXUShi-NGOB_yivJuvH4s6_47v3AtNWshkXqdg&s=hQ rONrrREUIHKvzUbrCcqu6hJeizEZeGLtxxv22ptzU&e= Alan Greenberg:slide no? Rubens Kuhl:8 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):poll 2 y or longer 1st. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):NP Alan Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:yes to option b no green mark on my mobile connection Jon Nevett:1 year? Sarah L Verisign:Rubens can we get back to you on this later this week rather than saying now? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):poll Lpt c. 1year.. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):Sarah this is a temp taking not deffinative pol Jon Nevett:we should do a cost differential before voting Sarah L Verisign:I understand but I need to discuss this with other folks before making even a temp position Jon Nevett:what is the cost of the readiness -- if not a lot, not big deal Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):understand Sarah bring the datain whenever you have it... Jon Nevett:if it is a lot, then it gets passed on Sarah L Verisign:thank you cheryl Alan Greenberg:Cost is lower for orgs that have multiple TLDs, since cost of readiness for 10 is no larger than 1 and TLDs come on line at different times. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Alan that every new gTLD is different. Initial evaluations on name collision risk could make a big difference here. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):thus my 'personal' comfort with the status quo on this at 2y Alan Greenberg:My intervention was really in relation to THIS question, not just the 2012 gTLDs. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:option a is a good idea Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think Rubens said - keep same period - is that what he said? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):thatbis the current assumption Anne, will be reviewed if needs be Rubens Kuhl:1 Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:2 years would appear fair for all applicants past and present Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Good idea Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):don't rush Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):thank you. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):LOL Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Re the last poin on page 15, we could still have a list of pre-approved services as long as it does not leave too much wiggle room Terri Agnew:next meeting: the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Cheryl and Rubens. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Bye everyone. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:thanks all. have a great evening

1 0

Registry Service Strawman
by Langstone, Sarah Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Folks I am unable to make the next call (on a plane) but wanted to give my 0.02 I am warmer on Strawman 2 - caveat being that both tracks are adequately resourced to ensure that those that require additional approvals are not held up particularly as increasing/encouraging innovation was a principle behind the program. S

2 1

Ongoing name collision incident
by Rubens Kuhl Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Nothing like real life experience to base policy discussions: there is an ongoing name collision incident in a legacy gTLD. D-Link routers have a default parameter given to local networks the suffix domain.name ; so, names without a full domain name get appended domain.name for its queries. Microsoft operating systems query for the string "wpad" to determine local proxy servers of an organisation. .name is a registry where a domain is required to be first.last.name , with two labels. So... someone registered wpad.domain.name and is now taking over browsing traffic for the affected users, which can be in the order of millions but are least in the thousands. For live view of the redirection process: https://gwhois.org/wpad.domain.name+dns <https://gwhois.org/wpad.domain.name+dns> http://wpad.domain.name/wpad.dat <http://wpad.domain.name/wpad.dat> will return the list of proxy servers under attacker control. (It currently returns this: function FindProxyForURL(url, host) { return 'PROXY 185.82.212.95:8080; DIRECT'; } ) Policy question for the item "name collisions in legacy gTLDs" is whether contracted parties should be obliged to act in a certain way under similar circumstances. Rubens

3 2

WT4 call - October 5 1900 UTC
by Rubens Kuhl Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Dear WT4 members, Next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on October 5, 1900 UTC (less than a day from now), after being rescheduled from last week. The proposed agenda is as follows, continuing themes related to Application Evaluation: 1. Welcome and SOI updates 2. Name Collisions 3. Registry Services 4. AOB Thanks, CLO & Rubens

1 0

- Data Request Response: Name Collision Reports Information
by Steve Chan Oct. 4, 2017

Oct. 4, 2017

Dear WT4 Members, If you’ll recall, WT4 requested additional information for reports of name collisions. Below, please see the requested data elements. Date of report to ICANN Type of TLD where the collision occurred (Single-registrant, Brand, Geo, IDN, Open/Generic, Open/Niche) When and how reporting person detected the collision Affected system (Corporate network, Mobile Application, Web Application, Other-Specify) Registry response (If available) Outcome (to the best of ICANN's knowledge) Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response (and available near the bottom of the Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Yz2AAw) 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 4

.internal and name collisions
by Rubens Kuhl Oct. 1, 2017

Oct. 1, 2017

Presentation made today (Sep 30) at DNS-OARC, suggesting a new reserved TLD, .internal; some mentions to name collisions, some mentions to other TLDs like .home/.corp/.mail/.localdomain and a suggestion to refer the matter to a PDP during the questions part of the presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX9FGeCWbTY&feature=youtu.be&t=23m00s <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX9FGeCWbTY&feature=youtu.be&t=23m00s> http://slides.com/wkumari/deck-f68ee558-abac-4af2-9357-5669734d3445-6/fulls… <http://slides.com/wkumari/deck-f68ee558-abac-4af2-9357-5669734d3445-6/fulls…> Rubens

1 0

Fwd: ICANN Compliance x Name Collisions
by Rubens Kuhl Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Steve, Emily, Julie; (sent via WT4 list) Can we ask compliance to drill down the 45 TLDs where they found controlled interruption wildcards still in place per registry service provider ? Not mentioning names of RSPs or ROs, just something like RSP 1 - 32 TLDs RSP 2 - 10 TLDs RSP 3 - 3 TLDs Thanks, Rubens > >> Início da mensagem encaminhada: >> >> De: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br> >> Assunto: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] ICANN Compliance x Name Collisions >> Data: 12 de setembro de 2017 21:07:21 BRT >> Para: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/compliance-update-jun17-en.pdf >> >> At the end of page 3: >> "This quarter, the ICANN Contractual Compliance team also processed referrals from ICANN Technical Services regarding controlled interruption wildcard record violations. Approximately 45 TLDs were found to have activated names (other than nic.tld) in the DNS, while controlled interruption wildcard records continued to exist in their zone file." >> >> It seems a high number of TLDs are still having issues with the 2012-round Name Collision Framework, long after delegation. This specific data point suggests that one of the suggested modifications, having ICANN or an ICANN contractor run the process before the TLD is delegated to the approved applicant, would not only address the time-to-market problem seen by registries but also improve compliance with the framework as designed. >> >> We should note though that this report doesn't mention distribution by registry service provider; all 45 TLDs could share a single back-end for all we know. >> >> >> Rubens >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 >

3 3

Attendance, Recording, AC recording, & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 14 September 2017
by Julie Bisland Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p93vvmmwizf/<https://participate.icann.org/p93vvmmwizf/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=00c812ada3468bdb…> 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/ERohB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):of course 40kg+ "puppies have to play wrestle *at* your feet Jon Nevett:Quick question -- why is the IDNs/Technical & Operations WG looking at financial issues? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):As an Evluation Question it falls to us and WT2 Jon Nevett:ok -- thanks Steve Chan:@Jon, I think the name for the WT could probably be a bit more broad. Here is the Wiki page for this subject: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Steve Chan:@Trang, I have the PIRR extract if you have any desire to share. Jeff Neuman:Work Track 4 looks at all of the questions in the application Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Which would mean perhaps an even L O N G E R name for this WT ;-) Alan Greenberg:What slide are we on? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bless you Rubens Kuhl:5 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):slide 5 Steve Chan:If anyone is interested in reviewing the Program Implementation Review Report, Financial Capability Evaluation section, there is an extract here on the Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):perfect timing STeve ;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thank You Trang Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):slide 6 Jeff Neuman:what is it about the financial statements that caused failures? Jeff Neuman:Is it just related to proposed business cases? Jeff Neuman:yes Phil Buckingham:jeff - there was no due diligence . It was ticking boxes according to a " balancing templated model " The template didnt balance . It was standardised for ALL applicants Phil Buckingham:how did they ( evaluators ) deteremine when the application ( rather than the applicant ) was a (not) a going concern Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):it is not a viability or "health" check... Phil Buckingham:exactly Jeff . No applicant could project revenues 5 years out in a brand new market place back in 2012 ! Jeff Neuman:yes Jeff Neuman:thanks Jeff Neuman:So we have to go back to the original 2007 policy which states: Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and organisational operational capability. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):In applicant support situations , support may even be required to present in appropriate language and form , business planning and financials etc. Phil Buckingham:so if there is no financial evaluation then the overall mission statement ( q18) needs to be points scored in terms of financial , technical , operationally capability . This would need to be points scored on an annual basis to check if there are any material changes . Trang Nguyen:or obtaining a certified statement from an auditor... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):there is a risk of being too US or EU centric on all this though Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we always base things on our own experience set of course Phil Buckingham:any certified statement would need to in complaince with US GAAP , since ICANN is a US corporation . This could prove to be very problematic to (say) an African NGO applicant Jeff Neuman:But what is the remification of not passing any of these checks? Jeff Neuman:Of course "passing the checks" has to be defined Jeff Neuman:So you can be awarded the TLD, but not sign a contract? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):it was a hypothetical small island state of course ;-) Rubens Kuhl:Credit scores are very jurisdiction-dependent... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):"credit score of [....] or ratifyable alternate" perhaps Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ergh typos sorry Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):time check Jeff Neuman:But personally agree that the existing questions and answers did not really assess what it was meant to assess/ Rubens Kuhl:Thanks Trang for joining us today! avri doria:bye. very informative, thanks Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Phil Buckingham:+1 Rubens it might work in 1 st world countries . I cant see how this would work in 3 rd world ( potentially more riskier / corrupt ) countries Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):corruption can be a stable financial system Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye all

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 14 September 2017
by Emily Barabas Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 2017

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. Kind regards, Emily ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 2. SOIs -- No updates 3. Financial Evaluation -- Program Review feedback: -- "Consider whether an alternative approach to the Financial Capability evaluation would be worthwhile." -- CC2 comments are in agreement with this feedback - "Review Financial Capability CQs and responses to determine whether improvements to the application questions can be made." -- From the slides -- if the approach to financial evaluation changes, 2012 questions won't be of much use -- Feedback from ICANN org: -- Financial evaluation from 2012 - -- Criteria didn't recognize different business models, one set of questions for all -- No differences in criteria for TLDs that were cost centers vs. revenue generating TLDs -- Something for the WT to consider - what is the purpose of financial evaluations? -- Set of criteria to see if the applicant understood what evaluators would check financially based on the technical approach proposed. -- Significant number of CQs in the 2012 round that followed up on financial questions -- Did the applicants really understand the financial questions? From the chat: Steve Chan: If anyone is interested in reviewing the Program Implementation Review Report, Financial Capability Evaluation section, there is an extract here on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735969/PIRR_2.7%20Financ…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…> - Threats being addressed: insolvent registry, lack of market performance, parent company extinction or business fine closure, unwillingness to provide financial stantements to contract due diligence, applying for more TLDs than a company can handle - In what other ways can we address those threats: current financials, stock exchange listed companies (but some companies are not profitable, what about startups?) - Another group of applicants that struggled with meeting financial criteria: large orgs that are not publicly traded. They were not comfortable providing financial statements. ICANN had to have a lot of discussions to help them understand the requirements. - All applications passed financial evaluation, but 25 failed the initial evaluation: 2 failed multiple financial and technical questions, 18 failed question 45 (financial statements), 2 open TLDs and 1 brand TLD failed question 50 (contingency planning), 1 geoTLD failed question 48 (funding and revenue). From the chat: Jeff Neuman: what is it about the financial statements that caused failures? Jeff Neuman: Is it just related to proposed business cases? - There are a number of those 25 applicants that failed due to question 45, and eventually decided they did not want to share confidential information in evaluation and felt more comfortable going to extended eval (primarily large companies that are not publicly traded) - Some didn't provide financial statements for the correct period. - Some did not take into acount methodology for evaluating applications, but this is a small number - What did ICANN actually do with those financial statements? Was it a box checking exercise, or did they evaluate the financial health of the applicant? - Q45 criteria - asked for audited financial statement, if no financial history, gave options for other info to provide. Evaluators checked that the criteria for question 45 were met (provision of cash flow, balance sheet, etc for the correct period). - What if the company provided the requested information, they follow correct accounting practices, but it showed poor financial health. Would this be evaluated? - If there is a concern that was flagged by the auditor, this would trigger a clarifying question. - Audited financials do reflect if the company could take on the additional business. There was not evaluation to see if the company was stable enough to handle a new gTLD. Is that accurate? Yes. There was not financial due diligence. Financial evaluation does not evaluate business models. From the chat: Phil Buckingham: jeff - there was no due diligence . It was ticking boxes according to a " balancing templated model " The template didnt balance . It was standardised for ALL applicants Phil Buckingham: how did they ( evaluators ) deteremine when the application ( rather than the applicant ) was a (not) a going concern - There was no evaluation of projections in Q46, and whether those align with the business model. - Funding and cost questions looked at projections template to see if there was adequate projected funding to align with proposed technical infrastructure provided. - Question 46 - What guide did evaluators use to evaluate whether applicant can cover costs? Is it just based on the information the applicant provides? - In the technical section of the application, the applicant provided information about the infrastructure they planned to use. Evaluation checked that there is alignment betweeen financial calculations and infrastructure proposed. - Evaluators were taking the projections on registrations the applicant expected to generate and made sure that it aligned with other information provided in the application on costs and funding. - Straw person proposal: "No need to do any financial evaluation as part of the application process. ICANN Org would be allowed to evaluate any financial information deemed appropriate as required by usual corporate governance before contract signing (like OFAC regulations and credit reports). Applicants will be provided in AGB a non-exhausive list of likely documents to be required as part of the contracting process, if they succeed in their applications." From the chat: Jeff Neuman: So we have to go back to the original 2007 policy which states: Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and organisational operational capability. - The straw person would be a change to the 2007 policy. - By not evaluating financials, we don't deliver on a mentioned goal of potentially blocking speculation through financial analysis, but was it possible to implement this in the first place? - But we do streamline the process and provide fairness among applications. - There is a precedent for self-assessment in other industries. - Could this decision suggest an application fee floor or applicant support design when WT1 and WT4 proposals are combined? From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): In applicant support situations , support may even be required to present in appropriate language and form , business planning and financials etc. Phil Buckingham: so if there is no financial evaluation then the overall mission statement ( q18) needs to be points scored in terms of financial , technical , operationally capability . This would need to be points scored on an annual basis to check if there are any material changes . - Eliminating financial evaluation may not be accepted by some members of the community. Are there alternatives that we could propose? Ususally there are ways to ensure that the group you are doing business with is financially stable –such as credit reports, financial/credit evaluation firms, and other measures. To what extent are these tools the same/different in different countries. The idea of eliminating financial evaluation completely is difficult to swallow. Getting rid of the 2007 policy completely will likely not be acceptable to many. From the chat: Trang Nguyen: or obtaining a certified statement from an auditor... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): there is a risk of being too US or EU centric on all this though Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we always base things on our own experience set of course - Straw person does not prevent ICANN from asking for information, such as credit checks, but this would not be part of the application and evaluation process. From the chat: Phil Buckingham: any certified statement would need to in complaince with US GAAP , since ICANN is a US corporation . This could prove to be very problematic to (say) an African NGO applicant Jeff Neuman: But what is the remification of not passing any of these checks? -Ramification would be not getting a contract. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Of course "passing the checks" has to be defined Jeff Neuman: So you can be awarded the TLD, but not sign a contract? - We need to look at something allows appropriate flexibility and meaningful results while supporting stability. - ICANN regional hubs may be able to provide information about local norms. It would be good to allow greater flexibility in terms of the information provided to accomodate different norms. - If ICANN is going to look at credit reports, they should state it up front in the AGB along with the standard it is going to apply to make its determination. Not convinced that ICANN shouldn't ask for this info in the evaluation process if this is going to be part of the process, even if it is just a box-checking exercise. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Credit scores are very jurisdiction-dependent... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): "credit score of [....] or ratifyable alternate" perhaps Jeff Jeff Neuman: But personally agree that the existing questions and answers did not really assess what it was meant to assess Phil Buckingham: +1 Rubens it might work in 1 st world countries . I cant see how this would work in 3 rd world ( potentially more riskier / corrupt ) countries 5. AOB -- None

1 0

Registry Services straw-person
by Rubens Kuhl Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 2017

Hi all. Based on our call today, this is a new straw-person to base our discussion on Q23 (Registry Services): "Applicants will be allowed but not required to specify additional registry services. List of previously approved registry services (IDN Languages, GPML, BTPPA) to be included by reference in AGB and contract. If applicant informs additional registry services, applicant will specify whether it wants it evaluated thru RSEP at evaluation time, contracting time or after contract signing, acknowledging that exception processing in evaluation or contracting could incur additional application fees. If applicant has not informed additional registry services, RSEP will only be available after contract signing. " Rubens

7 33

Apologies
by Martin Sutton Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 2017

Unfortunately, Thursday’s clash with my evening college course, so I will be unable to join today’s call. Please accept my apologies. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>

2 1