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

Letter from Akram to New gTLD Applications for .HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL
by Martin Sutton March 7, 2017

March 7, 2017

Hi all, My apologies for not being able to make yesterdays WT4 meeting. As part of the groups discussions on name collisions, the following letter from Akram to applicants of .home, .corp and .mail may be of interest. It doesn’t say much other than the Board continues to review this but they remain in limbo for now - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-home-regist…: Thank you for your letter of 24 August 2016, regarding name collisions and their impact on the new gTLD applications for .HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL.1 As you are aware, on 30 July 2014, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) adopted the “Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework” and indefinitely deferred the delegation of the strings identified within the framework as high risk (.HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL).2 The applications for these strings have been “On-Hold” as a result of this resolution since 2014. We acknowledge your request that the “Board take formal action to commission an examination of mitigation measures that will enable the release of .HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL.” Please note that the topic of name collision continues to be considered by the ICANN Board. For updates regarding Board activity, please visit the 2017 Board Meetings page on the ICANN website (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/2017-board-meetings) We will update affected applicants if there is activity that directly impacts their application. Please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of Global Domains Division leadership with any questions. Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>

1 0

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call
by Terri Agnew March 6, 2017

March 6, 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 Monday, 06 March 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p8g4vybqlx9/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=7e0ccb1022a76ce8 90b1778dd68a33f6205fe03fa936ef8a9e4a9505817aa362> https://participate.icann.org/p8g4vybqlx9/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/75LRAw> https://community.icann.org/x/75LRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 06 March 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations on Monday, 06 March 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:meeting agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_7 5LRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ 75LRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=dNAm14jWXIQFuTVPrw5k-YsDT0mNppfZCkgkNgJIuT g&s=cHET_xmV-_vSVtW4nuI3unv-DSB6SVC1NVmH4yA0dIQ&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=dNAm14jWXIQFuTVPrw5k-YsDT0mNppfZCkgkNgJIuTg&s=cH ET_xmV-_vSVtW4nuI3unv-DSB6SVC1NVmH4yA0dIQ&e= Rubens Kuhl:We can create Chebens, the name collision between Cheryl and Rubens Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):lol Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):has a nice ring to it though Jeff Neuman:Can Rubens turn up his mic? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Rubens your voice is a bit quiet Jeff Neuman:By policy changes, are we saying the policy as promulgated by the NGPC Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:status quo Jeff Neuman:the burden right now to take down a site because of a collission is pretty high. To anyone's knowledge has any name actually been taken down Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:not aware of any names being taken down (at least not publically mentioned) Jeff Neuman:Should we cover the fainl recommendations of the JAS report Jeff Neuman:I think we have had several decades of living with expired domain deletions and expired registrations without much data on name collision causing any significant issues Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:indeed Jeff Jeff Neuman:So given that, I agree that no policy changes at this time from us are warranted Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:+1 Jeff Edmon:i feel perhaps we should say this is not a new gTLD specific issue Edmon:rather than we have no view Trang Nguyen:I don't Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Edmonton, recommendation that we do not see the current need for Policy Development, but rather to continue with the status quo, is not "no opinion" IMO, but yes we could note that this is not specifically a *New* gTLD issue Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:sorry "no view" Edmon:thanks for the clarification cheryl Edmon:sorry have toddlers sleeping right beside me and am using text :-P Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:ahh I know that very well with my youngest Granddaughter Edmonton Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:not on my side Jeff Neuman:Please come :) Jeff Neuman:Saturday morning Trang Nguyen:Thanks, All! Bye Edmon:bye Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Bye Rubens Kuhl:Thanks @all, safe travels! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:bye talk soon safe travels to those who are attending CPH

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 06 March
by Julie Hedlund March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 06 March. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Note also that the referenced slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 06 March 1. Full WG Update -- short update -- Call later today at 20:00 UTC to finish going over the first reading of the CC2 questions. Also a full group call tomorrow at 20:00 UTC. -- Public comment will go through the month of April. -- Also Work Track 3 call tomorrow at 1500 UTC. 2. Name Collisions in Legacy gTLDs -- Not related to collisions in future TLDs, but in already delegated TLDs (Slide 6) Situation 1: use of a previously unregistered domain and Situation 2: use of DNS suffix list Work Track discussion: -- One option: Contracted Parties should be forced or could be allowed to take collision domains away from users. Or could provide a contractual option for how to deal with a collision. -- Second option: Agree or disagree with this statement? "Possible threats do not warrant policy changes." -- When we say no policy changes, we currently have no policy -- correct? So we accept the policy NGPC? Yes, the status quo. -- Agree that there is no policy, but allow expedited requests at registrar's discretion. -- So we specifically say that we do not bring forward the NGPC policy from the previous round. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: By policy changes, are we saying the policy as promulgated by the NGPC Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: status quo Jeff Neuman: the burden right now to take down a site because of a collission is pretty high. To anyone's knowledge has any name actually been taken down. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd: not aware of any names being taken down (at least not publically mentioned). Situation 3: Previously registered domain (slide 7) Work Track Discussion: -- Expired Domain Deletion and Expired Registration Recovery policies should be revised - or - possible threats do not warrant policy changes. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Should we cover the final recommendations of the JAS report? I think we have had several decades of living with expired domain deletions and expired registrations without much data on name collision causing any significant issues. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: indeed Jeff. Jeff Neuman: So given that, I agree that no policy changes at this time from us are warranted. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd: +1 Jeff. Edmon: i feel perhaps we should say this is not a new gTLD specific issue, rather than we have no view. Trang Nguyen: I don't. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: Edmon, recommendation that we do not see the current need for Policy Development, but rather to continue with the status quo, is not "no opinion" IMO, but yes we could note that this is not specifically a *New* gTLD issue. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: sorry "no view" (different situation from the 2012 round -- and discussion below). Edmon: thanks for the clarification cheryl 3. Name collisions in 2012 Round gTLDs -- Name collision framework in 2012 round (slide 9) -- Required to pass a controlled interruption period and be able to respond within two hours for life-threatening collision reports, for the first two years of delegation. -- Current number of collision reports is XXX occurrences report to ICANN, of which 0 were life-threatening. Work Track Discussion: -- 2012 round registries should extend such support beyond the 2-year period - or - occurrence experience does not warrant creation of policy to override what is in the agreements. [Three WT members agreeing with the second option -- no new policy.] -- Continue discussion on the mailing list. 4. Currently ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes (slides 10-16) -- Review and continue discussion in Copenhagen.

1 0

WT4 Meeting Agenda
by Rubens Kuhl March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

Dear WT4 members, Today's (March 6 2017) call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place at 15:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update (if any) 4. Name collisions in legacy gTLDs 5. Name collisions in 2012-round gTLDs 6. 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

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 23 February
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 23, 2017

Feb. 23, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 23 February. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Note also that the referenced slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 23 February 1. Full Work Update: Next meeting Monday, 27 February at 1500 UTC. 2. CC2 Questions: -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… -- Discussion of questions. -- Question 4.1 is accepted as written, from this call. 3. Universal Acceptance (See slides): -- UA in a Nutshell (Slide2) -- Key Points (Slide 3) Q&A: Next Round of TLDs: -- Question: In the AGB would be good to use a requirement for UA. Compliance with best practices. -- Answer: Could be in the AGB. We are more in the banking, social media, e-commerce, to be UA ready. Could be a good practice, but not a requirement. -- Question: Some people believe that ICANN should be warning people about gTLD issues (UA). -- Answer: We get pretty high acceptance rate for names that are short, and as they get longer they get longer. Wouldn't say that people should be warned. We are getting more applications to be ready. -- When you talk about UA I don't see how it applies to the next round. -- Not sure how it would apply. Registries might want to know about it. This has been an issue since 2001. -- Not just IDNs having IDN problems. -- What can an applicant do? The contract is subject to the IDN guarantee and the language tables? A lot is out of applicants' hands. What can a registry operator do? -- Make sure that non-IDN strings get picked up in Universal Acceptance. -- Leaning more towards a light touch. >From the chat room: Rubens Kuhl: Currently, AGB states that "Applicants must further demonstrate that they have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the encoded IDN string does not cause any rendering or operational problems. " But the follow-up example is of a tone higher than UA, mentioning mixed scripts. But the follow-up example is of a tone higher than UA, mentioning mixed scripts. From registry agreement: "1.2 Technical Feasibility of String. While ICANN has encouraged and will continue to encourage universal acceptance of all top-level domain strings across the Internet, certain top-level domain strings may encounter difficulty in acceptance by ISPs and webhosters and/or validation by web applications. Registry Operator shall be responsible for ensuring to its satisfaction the technical feasibility of the TLD string prior to entering into this Agreement." 4. CC2 Questions: -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… Application Evaluation: (4.3 Https://community.icann.org/x/YT2AAw) -- Technical evaluation: 4.3.1: Is consolidation desirable? -- 4.3.2: Financial evaluation (reading questions)

1 0

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call
by Terri Agnew Feb. 23, 2017

Feb. 23, 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, 09 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p2xa02sm6zt/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3301ff0f1fff3dfc 78bdba634380b2dc21423ab6ed922f1b623118fc8ae11f01> https://participate.icann.org/p2xa02sm6zt/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/bbTDAw> https://community.icann.org/x/bbTDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 09 February 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations onThursday, 09 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_b bTDAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ bbTDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33Os U&s=HP5Heuorhzki8vQGIYxVZAvdZs570DMn-7J7-kSbU6w&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=HP 5Heuorhzki8vQGIYxVZAvdZs570DMn-7J7-kSbU6w&e= Christa Taylor:Awesome slide!! Terri Agnew:Thank you Christa Steve Chan:Here is the sign-up sheet: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen t_d_1g-2DOoBec-5FQ6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh62SYo_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume nt_d_1g-2DOoBec-5FQ6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh62SYo_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d =DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFz L7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=7wGq H97g3LM8USjIuYefru8c3dpqrDErX9UivCUwbIY&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=7w GqH97g3LM8USjIuYefru8c3dpqrDErX9UivCUwbIY&e= Jeff Neuman:Who is doing the work on whether and how vairiants can be used at the top level? Jeff Neuman:Would a TLD pass PDT today if it did not follow the reference LGRs? What did .se use to pass TLD applicants through PDT Jeff Neuman:In 2012, registries were prohibited from applying for single-character IDNs at the top level. Do you see any reasons, policy or technical, why we should or should not continue this ban on a going forward basis? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):makes sense Jeff Rubens Kuhl:Also known as IIS Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we need to note that yes Rubens Kuhl:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_s ystem_files_files_sac-2D052-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPS S6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b 1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=GN59cjAdg-hOgul6DcrnS9qMKEHYbA1NdY35nbS-Kz Q&e= avri doria:But SSAC is just advice and their comclusions might need verification an discussion Trang Nguyen:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en _system_files_files_sac-2D052-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkb PSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp7 2b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=GN59cjAdg-hOgul6DcrnS9qMKEHYbA1NdY35nbS- KzQ&e= Rubens Kuhl:The SSAC makes two recommendations:1. Given the potential for user confusion and the currently unfinished work on stringsimilarity and IDN variants, the SSAC recommends a very conservative approachto the delegation of single-character IDN top-level domains. In particular, ICANNshould disallow by default the delegation of all single-character IDN TLDs in allscripts; exceptions are possible, but only after careful consideration of eachindividual case.2. Because important relevant work on string similarity, IDN variant issues, andTLD label syntax is currently underway within ICANN, the Internet EngineeringTask Force (IETF), and other bodies, ICANN should review the Findings of thisreport, and any policies that it adopts in response to recommendations made inthis document, no later than one year after the three work items mentioned abovehave been completed. Rubens Kuhl:Citing this advice is a circular reference: it just said that AT THAT TIME the work was not ready. Kurt Pritz:Some single-charactier IDNs are very similar to single-character ASCII: for example, è. The community found no way to parse between Latin-character IDNS and Pictographs (if that is the right term) such as Chinese. Kurt Pritz:But it seems we could white-list scripts wher esingle characters are allowed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):well worth considering @Kurt Jeff Neuman:should probably add SSAC to last bullet Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed @Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):all the more reason to coordinate with them in my view Jeff Neuman:I think the Board would never contradict SSAC advice, so going it alone is not a viable option Kurt Pritz:I would change the third bullet to creating a white list based upon being a ideograph and a that a committee has paased on them somehow Jeff Neuman:@CLO, i agree that coordination with the SSAC should start ASAP on this. Even if it is a letter from us that states that we are considering whether the ban on single character IDN TLDs should be lifted. It has been seven years since SSAC 52, and we request that the SSAC re-evaluate the notion of allowing single-character IDNs at the top-level. avri doria:i would argue against that, in a longer string the bogus character can hide better. Kurt Pritz:Right, which are more confusing: a vs e; or dictionary vs dictionery Jeff Neuman:Good example Kurt Kurt Pritz:I agree with Sarmad (if I understood the point correctly) on defining what is an ideograph and that leading to confusion Jeff Neuman:Just because things may be more likely to be confusing does not mean we should disallow it completely Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):True Jeff Jeff Neuman:could we add something to the end that makes this recommendation pending any findings by the SSAC that the delegation of variant TLDs do not cause issues of security or stability Jeff Neuman:and do any of those 3 implementations cause technical problems? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that would work for me Jeff avri doria:it may be sufficnet that there are set of possible solution to enable the policy discussion. we do not necessarily have to require a specific solution. Julie Hedlund:Time check: We are 6 minutes past the end of the call. Steve Chan:I was just going to note what Julie said... Julie Hedlund:Some staff may need to join other calls. Jeff Neuman:Really good session. Jeff Neuman:we will continue this next time Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Martin Sutton:Thank you Sarmad Jeff Neuman:thanks!! Trang Nguyen:Thanks, all. Bye. Sarmad Hussain:thank you Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:have a great day all Christa Taylor:Thanks. avri doria:bye Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye

1 1

WT4 Meeting Agenda
by Rubens Kuhl Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 2017

Dear WT4 members, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 03:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update (if any) 4. Universal Acceptance 5. AOB *This meeting will feature a special guest: Don Hollander, Universal Acceptance Initiative Head. 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

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 09 February
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 9, 2017

Feb. 9, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 09 February. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Note also that the referenced slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 09 February 1. Full WG Update: -- Call for volunteers for three drafting teams: - Volunteer on the link to the sign-up sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-OoBec_Q6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh6… 1) Different TLD Types -- see: https://community.icann.org/x/Nz2AAw 2) Predictability/Community Engagement -- see: https://community.icann.org/x/Nz2AAw and https://community.icann.org/x/IT2AAw 3) Applications Assessed in Rounds – see: https://community.icann.org/x/Jz2AAw 2. IDN Program Update (see slides from Sarmad Hussain: IDN Program Update – WT4.pdf) Overview of Projects (slide 2) -- IDNs at Top Level: IDN TLD Program: Label Generation Rules, LGR Toolset, IDN Variant TLD implementation, etc. IDN TLD Program (slide 3) -- Phase 1 -- Case Studies -- Phase 2 -- Integrated Issues Report -- Phase 3 -- Projects: P1, P2.1, P6 -- Phase 4 -- Projects: P1, P2.2, P7 Root Zone LGR Procedure (slide 4) -- One Generation Panel per script or writing system -- Generation Panel flows into Integration Panel -- Integration Panel flows into rules Status of Root Zone LGR (slide 5) -- work in progress Status of Generation Panels (slide 6) -- 28+ scripts; 19+ GPs LGR Specification and Toolset (beta) (slide 7) -- Online beta deployment at: https://lgrtool.icann.org/ -- Open source license IDN Variant TLD Implementation (slide 8) -- applications indicate variant TLDs -- 25 September 2010 -- no variants of gTLDs delegated until appropriate variant managements solutions developed -- Integrated Issues Report (2012) -- Solutions: Root zone LGR procedure to define valid labels and variants; determine variant management mechanism. IDN Country Code Top-Level Domains (slide 9) IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process (slide 10) -- Currently under review: issues with EPSRP -- ccNSO reviewed; finalized recommendations and under consideration by the Board. IDN Implementation Guidelines (slide 11) -- Guidelines for IDN registration policies and practices at the second level to address end-user concerns (minimize confusion) -- Contractually binding for registrars and registries -- Recommended for IDN ccTLDs -- GNSO requested updating the guidelines (current is 2011) -- Update is in progress. IDN Guidelines WG Members (slide 12) Summary of Items Covered by the Guidelines (slide 13) -- Detailed text of the recommendations at IDNGWG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/IDN/IDN+implementation+Guidelines. Reference Second Level LGRs (slides 14 & 15) -- Project to develop reference language tables -- Public comments: process for development and maintenance; guidelines for LGR Development; reference second level LGRs published Junee 2016. -- LGRs being developed and published since Oct 2016. Discussion: Q: Why are emoji TLDs not allowed ? A: The code points we can support are from IDNA2008 -- we can't do it independently. Would have to be taken up at the IETF platform. >From the chat room: Jeff Neuman: Q: Who is doing the work on whether and how vairiants can be used at the top level? Should this group be working on this, or is another group? A: What was suggested was that there has to be some technical solutions that need to be evaluated. An internal exercise is to find out what are the issues and what would be possible solutions. Bring solutions back to the community and get guidance. Maybe in the next couple of months. -- Until those come out the prohibition from 2010 should still apply -- right? Yes. Might look to this group as to how the solutions should be adopted into the policy, or what is relevant. Q: Would a TLD pass PDT today if it did not follow the reference LGRs? What did .se (IIS) use to pass TLD applicants through PDT? A: We are separately publishing reference IDN tables for the second level for the root zone LGR. A TLD can use those and if it does it will pass the test, but that does not mean it must follow them and can propose its own solutions, but then security and stability testing would be needed. -- We should probably consider putting that guidance into an AGB. Q: In 2012, registries were prohibited from applying for single-character IDNs at the top level. Do you see any reasons, policy or technical, why we should or should not continue this ban on a going forward basis? A: There is an SSAC advisory that explains why single character IDNs present a risk and suggesting that they should not be allowed. See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-052-en.pdf. We could go back to the SSAC to see if that is a discussion to go back to them. -- Single characters in these languages so now is a really good time to engage in that work to see if there are any technical issues with single-character IDNs. -- That is noted. avri doria: But SSAC is just advice and their conclusions might need verification and discussion. Rubens Kuhl: The SSAC makes two recommendations:1. Given the potential for user confusion and the currently unfinished work on string similarity and IDN variants, the SSAC recommends a very conservative approach o the delegation of single-character IDN top-level domains. In particular, ICANN should disallow by default the delegation of all single-character IDN TLDs in all scripts; exceptions are possible, but only after careful consideration of each individual case.2. Because important relevant work on string similarity, IDN variant issues, and TLD label syntax is currently underway within ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and other bodies, ICANN should review the Findings of this report, and any policies that it adopts in response to recommendations made in this document, no later than one year after the three work items mentioned above have been completed. Rubens Kuhl: Citing this advice is a circular reference: it just said that AT THAT TIME the work was not ready. Kurt Pritz: Some single-character IDNs are very similar to single-character ASCII: for example, è. The community found no way to parse between Latin-character IDNS and Pictographs (if that is the right term) such as Chinese. But it seems we could white-list scripts where single characters are allowed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): well worth considering @Kurt Jeff Neuman: should probably add SSAC to last bullet Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed @Jeff. all the more reason to coordinate with them in my view. Jeff Neuman: I think the Board would never contradict SSAC advice, so going it alone is not a viable option. Kurt Pritz: I would change the third bullet to creating a white list based upon being a ideograph and that a committee has passed on them somehow. (CLO -- Agree to include.) Jeff Neuman: @CLO, i agree that coordination with the SSAC should start ASAP on this. Even if it is a letter from us that states that we are considering whether the ban on single character IDN TLDs should be lifted. It has been seven years since SSAC 52, and we request that the SSAC re-evaluate the notion of allowing single-character IDNs at the top-level. IDNs: Consensus Call on 1-character IDN TLDs (slide 7 from SubPro WT4_9Feb2017.pdf) Possible language: "IDN 1-char gLTDs won't be disallowed for script/language combinations where a character is an ideograph (or ideogram), provided they are not country and/or territory names." Discussion: -- Coordination with ccNSO and GAC consultations [add SSAC?] might be advisable. If and if so, when to start them? -- Ask the plenary for an early start on this matter so it can go in parallel. -- Comments on one-character IDN TLD why it may cause security issue: One of the arguments presented is that the chances of confusability increases if it is a shorter string. Second is that calling out ideographs -- normally they are script based, not language based, so there could be an argument that if they don't have a meaning if a particular script allowed why is another character of another script not allowed (question limit to ideographs). -- If you have a longer string you have a context, but if you have a single character there is no context. -- From a staff perspective we would agree that reaching out to the SSAC is a priority, but I am not sure we have agreed that there is a need for a single character, to perhaps update their existing advice. Staff will consider a proposal on how to reach out to the SSAC and present that the the WT. >From the Chat: avri doria: i would argue against that, in a longer string the bogus character can hide better. Kurt Pritz: Right, which are more confusing: a vs e; or dictionary vs dictionery. Jeff Neuman: Good example Kurt. Kurt Pritz: I agree with Sarmad (if I understood the point correctly) on defining what is an ideograph and that leading to confusion. Jeff Neuman: Just because things may be more likely to be confusing does not mean we should disallow it completely Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): True Jeff IDNs: Consensus Call on Variant TLDs (slide 8) Possible Language: "IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs won't be disallowed provided: (1) they have the same registry operator implementing, by force of agreement, technical bundling (as defined in RSEP 2014012) among the members of the TLD set; (2) top-level LGRs and second-level LGRs already established for the script/language at evaluation time." Discussion: -- I thought Sarmad said they are studing this and until that is done this might be premature. Need guidance on when that study is done. -- In this case if we have arguments based on consensus I see no harm in making them. I am not sure we need to necessarily postpone a first cut, if the group is ready. -- Part of the work we (ICANN) have been doing -- currently the solutions .china ccTLD for example, We have actually seen that there is more than one solution technically. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: Could we add something to the end that makes this recommendation pending any findings by the SSAC that the delegation of variant TLDs do not cause issues of security or stability, and do any of those 3 implementations cause technical problems? avri doria: it may be sufficient that there are set of possible solution to enable the policy discussion. we do not necessarily have to require a specific solution.

1 0

Next WT4 call
by Rubens Kuhl Feb. 9, 2017

Feb. 9, 2017

Dear WT4 members, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC, 12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET. For other times: http://migre.me/w0XQ7 <http://migre.me/vTJup> The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update (if any) 4. IDNs (including but not limited to IDN Variant TLDs*) 5. CC2 questions (if there is interest) 6. List of ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes 7. AOB *This meeting will feature a special guest: Sarmad Hussain, ICANN IDN Programs Director. Considering the previous discussion on IDN Variant TLDs, the goal is to get to a consensus call on the topic, if such a consensus is found to be achievable. 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

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call
by Emily Barabas Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 19 January. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Kind regards, Emily --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update 4. CC2 questions (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…>) 5. WT4 schedule and planning until ICANN 58 6. List of ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes 7. AOB Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Rubens will send revised schedule to the WT Notes: 2. SOIs - No updates 3. Full WG update - Our next meeting is on Monday 30 January at 15:00 UTC - Full group is creating drafting teams, calls will go out at the end of the week - Drafting teams will focus on categorization, rounds vs. other models for subsequent rounds, discussions coming out of WT2 - WTs are working on questions for CC2 - The plan is for CC2 to go out mid- to late- February 4. CC2 questions - Working document for CC2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…> - Regarding IDNs, we may want to consider adding a CC2 question about IDN variants - Jeff Neuman suggested asking about experiences from those that have launched IDN TLDs and challenges they experienced - Rubens was not sure if CC2 was the right place to ask for this input, but agreed it would be useful to have input on this issue From the chat: Jeff Neuman: For technical evaluation: Should the number of TLDs applied for, plus ones they currently run, be taken into consideration in the evaluation. If so, how Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, you are correct. Applications were evaluated on a standalone basis in the 2012 round - Where can we factor in possible limitations in infrastructure? Rubens will propose text for a question on the list - Should other factors be taken into account when someone applies for multiple vs. one TLD (evaluations, launch schedule, architecture, business continuity issues, etc)? - The exact metrics and methods are not yet known, but the volume should be factored in - Evaluation panel did raise this issue to ICANN - There was a reference in the AGB that applications needed to be evaluated on a standalone basis, which is why evaluations occurred this way From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Question for ICANN/Evaluators: Did the evaluators/panelists submit performance improvement reports or other comments on what improvements could be made for subsequent procedures? Jeff Neuman: Was there any post mortem process? Jeff Neuman: If so, can we see those? Trang Nguyen: We had debriefs with the evaluation panels and they provided comments and suggestions, which we took into account when drafting the PIRR. Jeff Neuman: PIRR? Trang Nguyen: Program Implementation Review Report Jeff Neuman: Is it possible to see the original comments? Trang Nguyen: They were provided to ICANN as confidential documents, not for external consumption. Jeff Neuman: Why confidential? Trang Nguyen: We could check with them to see if they would have any issues with releasing them. Jeff Neuman: I can understand redacted portions related to individual applications......but it would be great to see their comments. It may help us to revise questions that were asked of applicants Trang Nguyen: Their comments/suggestions were largely consistent with ICANN's observations as reflected in the PIRR, but we could take an action to ask them whether we can share their reports. 5. WT4 schedule and planning until ICANN 58 - Current plan: focus next call on IDN and UA - Target: produce CC2 questions in WTs by the end of January, full WG will consider all CC2 questions and send out for public comment in mid-February - No objections expressed regarding this timeline 6. List of ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes - "Financial Evaluation must be performed in aggregation of a registry family" - Question to consider: should the financial evaluation be different for certain types of applications? - Trang Nguyen (staff): The financial panel recognized two types of financial models 1. closed model (self supporting) 2. open model (meant to generate revenue). They looked at the applications differently and different thresholds were applied. From the chat: Phil Buckingham: Q should there be a separate financial template for each "type" of business model Jeff Neuman: @Trang. That makes total sense.....We should document that formally and put it into the guidebook Martin Sutton: That would be helpful to have more detail Trang - can that be shared? - If the group can get additional information about the existing models of evaluation, this could be put out for comment as part of CC2. - We are not in the business of evaluating business models. We need to be flexible about the questions we ask in order to ensure sustainability. - Trang: We can't assume that model of the applicant will be the business model forever. Therefore we need to look at the broader picture of the application. From the chat: Martin Sutton: @Trang - good point, but that could be built in to a transition process where checks have to be completed before they switch over - Some of these issues are discussed in the Program Implementation Review Report - One model discussed including a second level in a yearly membership, example of different ways of looking at business model - For future consideration: change of features post-contract - what are the change processes? Do the processes we have now address all the possible changes that could occur? From the chat: Jeff Neuman: @Avri - Changes are right now through RSEP process and that is currently beyond the scope of this PDP Jeff Neuman: Other than accounting for changes in the contracting process, I am not sure we should be delving into how future changes are done. We can recommend a separate PDP for that, but if we go down that path now, we will never finish. Steve Chan: I think it has been discussed in the context of other topics (e.g., different TLD types), but there is not a dedicated topic related to the subject. Jeff Neuman: Plus, that has applicability to existing registries as well as for those for future ones - This WG may want to go deeper into the types of issues that should be considered in evaluations - In the last round, change in business model sometimes occurred during application process or after signing registry agreement. This caused challenges for ICANN staff. Maybe it would be less of an issue if the rounds were shorter. - Jeff: We should probably deal with changes in the application process but not after the contracting phase. We could recommend a separate PDP to address changes later in the process. -If application processing is faster in future rounds, there may be fewer changes to the model during the application process. From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): re change of mode Phil Buckingham: Agree Jeff- cant backtrack . Martin Sutton: Agree with Jeff - recommendation for separate PDP to progress this, as it is a post-application change Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): mode=model yes Jeff agree From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday 19 January 2017 at 17:37 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 19 January 2017 at 15:00 UTC. 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/wLPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 January 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations onThursday, 19 January 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Thanks Terri Terri Agnew:@Jeff audio quality is good at this time Terri Agnew:30 January New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:All hands have been cleared Jeff Neuman:Not sure how to phrase this, but I would love to hear about experiences from those that have launched IDN TLDs Jeff Neuman:What challenges they have had Jeff Neuman:what can be done for improvement Alan Greenberg:I am not seeing anything in the centre pod. Alan Greenberg:oops - now back! Martin Sutton:need to amend the financial question to quote financial Martin Sutton:its done Martin Sutton:thx Jeff Neuman:For technical evaluation: Should the number of TLDs applied for, plus ones they currently run, be taken into consideration in the evaluation. If so, how Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, you are correct. Applications were evaluated on a standalone basis in the 2012 round. Jeff Neuman:Question for ICANN/Evaluators:Did the evaluators/panelists submit performance improvement reports or other comments on what improvements could be made for subsequent procedures? Jeff Neuman:Was there any post mordem process? Jeff Neuman:If so, can we see those? Trang Nguyen:We had debriefs with the evaluation panels and they provided comments and suggestions, which we took into account when drafting the PIRR. Jeff Neuman:PIRR? Trang Nguyen:Program Implementation Review Report Jeff Neuman:Is it possible to see the original comments? Trang Nguyen:They were provided to ICANN as confidential documents, not for external consumption. Jeff Neuman:Why confidential? Trang Nguyen:We could check with them to see if they would have any issues with releasing them. Jeff Neuman:I can understand redacted portions related to individual applications......but it would be great to see their comments. It may help us to revise questions that were asked of applicants Trang Nguyen:Their comments/suggestions were largely consistent with ICANN's observations as reflected in the PIRR, but we could take an action to ask them whether we can share their reports. avri doria:Trang, that would be good to check if you could. Thanks Phil Buckingham:which bullets points do you wish to discuss . Phil Buckingham:Q should there be a separate financial template for each "type" of business model . Jeff Neuman:@Trang. That makes total sense.....We should document that formally and put it into the guidebook Martin Sutton:That would be helpful to have more detail Trang - can that be shared? Martin Sutton:Should there also be some differentiation between self-funded registries where they are the only registrant, i.e. impact on registrants is not relevant? Phil Buckingham:@ Trang , does ICANN have the points scored for each question by application by type of business model ( ie closed / open / IDNs ) . Then possibly we can start to identify the problem questions Martin Sutton:@Trang - good point, but that could be built in to a transition process where checks have to be completed before they switch over Phil Buckingham:@ trang- when an applicant reaches a set number of DUMs ? I thought it was 50K that would trigger a change from closed model to an open one ? Jeff Neuman:@Trang - good questions Jeff Neuman:@Avri - correct. That is being implemented by some TLDs now Jeff Neuman:@Avri - Changes are right now through RSEP process and that is currently beyond the scope of this PDP Phil Buckingham:Exactly Avri - does a change of application status mean new financial evaluation / due diligence Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am not aware of any of our WT s looking at that either Avri so yes we need to catch them Jeff Neuman:Other than accounting for changes in the contracting process, I am not sure we should be delving into how future changes are done. We can recommend a separate PDP for that, but if we go down that path now, we will never finish. Steve Chan:I think it has been discussed in the context of other topics (e.g., different TLD types), but there is not a dedicated topic related to the subject. Jeff Neuman:Plus, that has applicability to existing registries as well as for those for future ones Phil Buckingham:+1 Steve Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):re change of mode Phil Buckingham:Agree Jeff- cant backtrack . Martin Sutton:Agree with Jeff - recommendation for separate PDP to progress this, as it is a post-application change Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):mode=model yes Jeff agree Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 09 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Trang Nguyen:Sorry, i will try to provide answers to questions aked in the chat via the mail list. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:thanks Ruben and the rest avri doria:thanks Trang Nguyen:Thanks, all!

1 0

Next WT4 call
by Rubens Kuhl Jan. 19, 2017

Jan. 19, 2017

Dear WT4 members, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 19 January 2016 at 15:00 UTC, 07:00 PST, 10:00 EST, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET. For other times: http://migre.me/vTJup The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update 4. CC2 questions 5. WT4 schedule and planning until ICANN 58 6. List of ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes 7. AOB 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, Rubens

4 3

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call
by Terri Agnew Jan. 19, 2017

Jan. 19, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 19 January 2017 at 15:00 UTC. 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/wLPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 January 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations onThursday, 19 January 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Thanks Terri Terri Agnew:@Jeff audio quality is good at this time Terri Agnew:30 January New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:All hands have been cleared Jeff Neuman:Not sure how to phrase this, but I would love to hear about experiences from those that have launched IDN TLDs Jeff Neuman:What challenges they have had Jeff Neuman:what can be done for improvement Alan Greenberg:I am not seeing anything in the centre pod. Alan Greenberg:oops - now back! Martin Sutton:need to amend the financial question to quote financial Martin Sutton:its done Martin Sutton:thx Jeff Neuman:For technical evaluation: Should the number of TLDs applied for, plus ones they currently run, be taken into consideration in the evaluation. If so, how Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, you are correct. Applications were evaluated on a standalone basis in the 2012 round. Jeff Neuman:Question for ICANN/Evaluators:Did the evaluators/panelists submit performance improvement reports or other comments on what improvements could be made for subsequent procedures? Jeff Neuman:Was there any post mordem process? Jeff Neuman:If so, can we see those? Trang Nguyen:We had debriefs with the evaluation panels and they provided comments and suggestions, which we took into account when drafting the PIRR. Jeff Neuman:PIRR? Trang Nguyen:Program Implementation Review Report Jeff Neuman:Is it possible to see the original comments? Trang Nguyen:They were provided to ICANN as confidential documents, not for external consumption. Jeff Neuman:Why confidential? Trang Nguyen:We could check with them to see if they would have any issues with releasing them. Jeff Neuman:I can understand redacted portions related to individual applications......but it would be great to see their comments. It may help us to revise questions that were asked of applicants Trang Nguyen:Their comments/suggestions were largely consistent with ICANN's observations as reflected in the PIRR, but we could take an action to ask them whether we can share their reports. avri doria:Trang, that would be good to check if you could. Thanks Phil Buckingham:which bullets points do you wish to discuss . Phil Buckingham:Q should there be a separate financial template for each "type" of business model . Jeff Neuman:@Trang. That makes total sense.....We should document that formally and put it into the guidebook Martin Sutton:That would be helpful to have more detail Trang - can that be shared? Martin Sutton:Should there also be some differentiation between self-funded registries where they are the only registrant, i.e. impact on registrants is not relevant? Phil Buckingham:@ Trang , does ICANN have the points scored for each question by application by type of business model ( ie closed / open / IDNs ) . Then possibly we can start to identify the problem questions Martin Sutton:@Trang - good point, but that could be built in to a transition process where checks have to be completed before they switch over Phil Buckingham:@ trang- when an applicant reaches a set number of DUMs ? I thought it was 50K that would trigger a change from closed model to an open one ? Jeff Neuman:@Trang - good questions Jeff Neuman:@Avri - correct. That is being implemented by some TLDs now Jeff Neuman:@Avri - Changes are right now through RSEP process and that is currently beyond the scope of this PDP Phil Buckingham:Exactly Avri - does a change of application status mean new financial evaluation / due diligence Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am not aware of any of our WT s looking at that either Avri so yes we need to catch them Jeff Neuman:Other than accounting for changes in the contracting process, I am not sure we should be delving into how future changes are done. We can recommend a separate PDP for that, but if we go down that path now, we will never finish. Steve Chan:I think it has been discussed in the context of other topics (e.g., different TLD types), but there is not a dedicated topic related to the subject. Jeff Neuman:Plus, that has applicability to existing registries as well as for those for future ones Phil Buckingham:+1 Steve Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):re change of mode Phil Buckingham:Agree Jeff- cant backtrack . Martin Sutton:Agree with Jeff - recommendation for separate PDP to progress this, as it is a post-application change Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):mode=model yes Jeff agree Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 09 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Trang Nguyen:Sorry, i will try to provide answers to questions aked in the chat via the mail list. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:thanks Ruben and the rest avri doria:thanks Trang Nguyen:Thanks, all!

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Consensus Call 1: Technical Capability to be evaluated after application, before contract signing
by Roger D Carney Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

Good Morning, Just following along with a few of the questions/ideas Jeff raised. Are we trying to create an application process that does not take technical considerations into account until the TLD has been basically “awarded” to a single applicant? I think that would create a situation where many applicants would not understand the technical expertise and/or true costs needed to run a registry until after contention sets have been resolved and they will get to that spot and say “oh that is too hard” or “oh that is too expensive.” I think the technical questions and the discussions with the registry service providers are needed for Registry Operators to understand the true complexities and costs of running a TLD and realistically should be done prior to applying. And it seems like waiting to do this until after contention set resolution could be costly to the applicants and process. Thanks Roger From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 6:20 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Consensus Call 1: Technical Capability to be evaluated after application, before contract signing On Dec 16, 2016, at 9:23 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: The other question I have on the language is on the interaction with contention resolution (assuming there is one or more application windows or rounds). With your change, in theory we could have a situation where a prevailing registry in contention resolution may not pass a technical evaluation. Should there be a time limit on demonstrating its capabilities? It's already specified by ICANN that there is a time limit between being approved and signing a contract. It would fall within that time limit to either secure an approved RSP or get technical evaluation approval, or request an extension to ICANN to get such approval. If it is unable to demonstrate that, what do you do? Can get kind of messy? That's why there was also a question in Hyderabad, reflected in the slides, of what should happen in the case, but people seemed not interested in discussing it. We also have some similar situations right now like applicants not passing background screening, failing to pay the auction bid or simply failing to send the signed agreement to ICANN. I prefer thinking what happens even in corner cases such as this, but in this case the existing mechanism of allowing some time to sign and possibly grant an extension to that seems enough to handle it. Should we state that in the case of contention resolution it needs to be prior to the completion of such contention resolution? . The feedback in Hyderabad was the opposite of that: that only after contention resolution should the quest for technical capability begin, because it was only at that point that the applicant would be sure of having secured the TLD. Otherwise, many applicants have to secure contracts while only one will become a registry. That's exactly the issue this is trying to address. Rubens Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 10:47 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Consensus Call 1: Technical Capability to be evaluated after application, before contract signing Jeff, It would speed-up the process to reach both milestones of contract signing and TLD delegation, since the technical infrastructure won't have to be evaluated and delegation readiness will already be known. It will also allow applicants to choose a Registry Services Provider when they see fit; if they prefer selecting it before applying it would be their choice, if they prefer shopping for a provider after securing the TLD, they could too. It still keeps the freedom to use a completely new infrastructure and have it evaluated, a liberty that can be useful now that there is one open-source gTLD registry system available: http://domainincite.com/21147-google-could-shake-up-the-registry-market-wit… . (Previously, CoCCA had sources available but was not license-free to gTLD registries, only to ccTLD registries). But anticipating something from the implementation phase, I think it will make sense to have technical evaluation charged as a separate cost item for applicants, in order to benefit most of the applicants with the cost reduction potential of the RSP program. But that's a definition not in the table for now, just a side note for us to get back within the IRT for this policy. Rubens On Dec 16, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rubens, If we had a Registry Services Provider pre-approval process, how would that process interact with the policy you have stated below? Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- 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 Rubens Kuhl Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 8:32 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Consensus Call 1: Technical Capability to be evaluated after application, before contract signing Hi All. For those on our call, you know we issued our first consensus call, based on an sensation of consensus on this during the full WG F2F meeting in Hyderabad. No consensus calls are final since they can be changed if new information arises or when it goes to the full WG, but we would like those to be strong guidances for other WTs and the full WG of where are we headed to. Consensus calls will go for at least two readings; considering the non-optimal attendance we will refrain from issuing the 2nd reading for this item for a while so further discussion can arise. The idea is to change one specific recommendation from the original policy, which was Recommendation 7: “Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out. “ Possible changed language: “Applicants must be able demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out, but will only be required to do so at contract-signing time, after passing other criteria and/or approvals and prevailing in contention set(s), if any.” Rationale: In the 2012-rounds applicants were required to contract, or internally develop, technical capability prior to applying. This was a burden for applicants that were required to pay a one-time or recurring fee to get access to such technical capability and in most cases made applicants stick to their originally contracted back-end provider due to time-to-market concerns. 2012-round showed that technical capabilities are somewhat easily contracted in the market for affordable prices. What changed from 2007 that supports the change: It was not foreseen that the registry service provider market would achieve the level of maturity and commoditization that is now seen; only a small percentage (that we can gather and publish in the final version) of applicants used their own internal back-end infrastructure. Portfolio applicants were not really thought of. Possible alternatives: - Keeping the original recommendation as it was - Moving the technical evaluation to some other point in the application lifecycle For discussion, comments, opposition... I will note that a rough consensus doesn't require unanimity, but even a single opposition with a compelling rationale can change a consensus call, so please don't take popularity of lack of thereof as criteria. We want to achieve the best possible result in adding the combined expertise of the group, which includes listening to every opinion. Best, Rubens _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4

2 1

Consensus Call 1: Technical Capability to be evaluated after application, before contract signing
by Rubens Kuhl Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

Hi All. For those on our call, you know we issued our first consensus call, based on an sensation of consensus on this during the full WG F2F meeting in Hyderabad. No consensus calls are final since they can be changed if new information arises or when it goes to the full WG, but we would like those to be strong guidances for other WTs and the full WG of where are we headed to. Consensus calls will go for at least two readings; considering the non-optimal attendance we will refrain from issuing the 2nd reading for this item for a while so further discussion can arise. The idea is to change one specific recommendation from the original policy, which was Recommendation 7: “Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out. “ Possible changed language: “Applicants must be able demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out, but will only be required to do so at contract-signing time, after passing other criteria and/or approvals and prevailing in contention set(s), if any.” Rationale: In the 2012-rounds applicants were required to contract, or internally develop, technical capability prior to applying. This was a burden for applicants that were required to pay a one-time or recurring fee to get access to such technical capability and in most cases made applicants stick to their originally contracted back-end provider due to time-to-market concerns. 2012-round showed that technical capabilities are somewhat easily contracted in the market for affordable prices. What changed from 2007 that supports the change: It was not foreseen that the registry service provider market would achieve the level of maturity and commoditization that is now seen; only a small percentage (that we can gather and publish in the final version) of applicants used their own internal back-end infrastructure. Portfolio applicants were not really thought of. Possible alternatives: - Keeping the original recommendation as it was - Moving the technical evaluation to some other point in the application lifecycle For discussion, comments, opposition... I will note that a rough consensus doesn't require unanimity, but even a single opposition with a compelling rationale can change a consensus call, so please don't take popularity of lack of thereof as criteria. We want to achieve the best possible result in adding the combined expertise of the group, which includes listening to every opinion. Best, Rubens

2 4

Discussion theme: sequence and method for financial evaluation
by Rubens Kuhl Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

• AGB clearly overlooked different business models in 2012-round • Revenue-generating or self-sustainable registry (profit or non-profit) • Cost-center registry (typical of brands, possibly causes) • Besides different financial goals, single-application evaluation overlooked the possibility of an applicant winning so many TLDs to the point of not being able to run them (gaming the system) • Rec. 8: “Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and organisational operational capability.” • Possible Language: “Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and organisational operational capability in tandem for all currently-owned and applied-for TLDs that would be part of a single registry family.” • Financial Evaluation would still be gating and be done prior to contention set resolution

1 0

Discussion theme: Technical Evaluation to be performed as aggregated / consolidated as feasible
by Rubens Kuhl Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Hi All, Besides the consensus call I have already posted, we discussed two themes in the last WT4 call. I'll post them in different messages for easier ongoing discussion. Technical Evaluation to be performed as aggregated / consolidated as feasible • Consolidation is not fully tied with back-end certification, could apply to applications from the same applicant, but can be an enabler • Possible Language: “Technical Evaluation may be aggregated and/or consolidated to the maximum extent possible that generate process efficiencies, including both different applications from the same applicant and different applications sharing a common technical infrastructure” Ideas ? This is a discussion that will likely have some overlap with WT1, but that can be reconciliated by the full WG. The idea is to also explore possibilities that may or may not fall into some kind of registry service provider program (previously known as accreditation or certification). Rubens

1 0

Next WT4 meeting
by Rubens Kuhl Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

(sorry for the incomplete message sent before) Hi there. We had yesterday a WT4 call where even though it was postponed from last week, we still had a somewhat low attendance. Considering next week this could be even harder due to holidays, if you plan to be at the next call please answer the following Doodle poll: http://doodle.com/poll/kdqibbhv74b264bb If you are not attending we will be glad to know that too. Thanks, Rubens WT4 co-chair

1 0

Next WT4 meeting
by Rubens Kuhl Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Hi there. We had yesterday

1 0

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call
by Michelle DeSmyter Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/K6HDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 December 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Julie Hedlund:That sounds fine -- thanks! Phil Buckingham:rubens - you are very faint . Could you speak up avri doria:idoegraphic cs. non ideographic avri doria:? Phil Buckingham:me too - re headphones . but still faint avri doria:might want to consider adding ", if any" at the end of the stmt. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good point Avri avri doria:i think we need two reading, both on calls to close a consensus call. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes the rationale is important on this proposed recommendation Phil Buckingham:this is a catch 22 , since the technical costs/ so contractual relationship with the backend provider will need be incurred and the costs put in the financial model for evaluation . Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx Avri Phil Buckingham:no audio Phil Buckingham:thanks Cheryl avri doria:wee have to learn to speak again on AC. hard to do i know, i almost forgot how. Steve Chan:@Phil, we are happy to provide a dial out if you'd care to join! Phil Buckingham:point taken , Avri Steve Chan:If I recall, part of why every application was considered indivudually overall was related to principles of fairness? Kurt would probably be able to fact check that statement. Kurt Pritz:I have a bad connection. and did not hear the question Kurt Pritz:can you repeat. ? or skip me? Phil Buckingham:Totally agree Kurt. and nobody knew who was going to apply , how many portfolio players would submit multiple applications using the same model Rubens Kuhl:Kurt, that was Steve question from the chat above. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):chat above from Steve Phil Buckingham:the financial model was templated / standardised . It wont work for Round 2 . Each applicant's financial model needs to treat separately , evaluated , due diligence accordingly Phil Buckingham:Agreed Alan . Alot more . Steve Chan:@Rubens, I tried to note that the report acknowledges those challenges to some degree, but apparently i made that point ineffectively Steve Chan:So not just about inefficiency... ************************************************************************************************************************************************** Action Items/Discussion Notes 14 December 1. Hyderabad recap [slide 5 of the slide deck] -- Support for IDN 1-character was pictogram (Japanese or Korean), but opposition was not to Latin and Cyrillic, but use a more generic term. -- Probably would be good to use generic terms for all of them. -- Only those that represent 1 word. -- On support for IDN Variant TLDS -- Staff have had preliminary discussions with Sarmad Hussain on staff. He could provide background or a status update on the program. >From the Chat: avri doria: idoegraphic cs. non ideographic 2. Consensus call 1: Technical capability to be assessed at contract signing time [slide 7 in the slide deck] Possible language: "Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out, but will only be required to do so at contract-signing time, after passing other criteria and/or approvals and prevailing in contention set(s), [if any]." -- If we do a consensus call over email should have the full story documented and presented to be taken into account. -- Today's discussion is just a temperature taking, not a consensus call. -- Explaining why the change is being made is important. Good to lay out those conditions, which will help this make sense. -- The financial model and testing the technical model are two different things. >From the chat: avri doria: might want to consider adding ", if any" at the end of the stmt. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Avri avri doria: i think we need two reading, both on calls to close a consensus call. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes the rationale is important on this proposed recommendation Phil Buckingham: this is a catch 22 , since the technical costs/ so contractual relationship with the backend provider will need be incurred and the costs put in the financial model for evaluation. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thx Avri 3. Discussion: Technical evaluation of applications to be performed as aggregated as feasible [slide 9 from the slide deck] -- During the evaluation process there wasn't a realization of how the market would evolve with respect to backend providers . -- It was thought at the outset that individual applications needed to be evaluated in the absense of knowing that the backend marketplace would be established. Things didn't work out as predicted. >From the Chat: Steve Chan: If I recall, part of why every application was considered indivudually overall was related to principles of fairness? Kurt would probably be able to fact check that statement. Phil Buckingham: Totally agree Kurt. and nobody knew who was going to apply , how many portfolio players would submit multiple applications using the same model 4. Discussion: Timing and method for Financial Evaluation [slide 10 from the slide deck] -- Could have speculative applications. The financial models are going to vary even more if the price goes down. -- Look at the program implementation report that staff produced. There were inefficiencies from treating every application individually. >From the chat: Phil Buckingham: the financial model was templated / standardised . It wont work for Round 2 . Each applicant's financial model needs to treat separately , evaluated , due diligence accordingly Agreed Alan . Alot more . Steve Chan: @Rubens, I tried to note that the report acknowledges those challenges to some degree, but apparently i made that point ineffectively. So not just about inefficiency...

1 0

Meeting starts in 7 minutes
by Rubens Kuhl Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Hi All, Just a reminder that meeting #5 of this work track is starting in 7 minutes, at 2000 UTC. Rubens

3 2

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

Dec. 14, 2016

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

1 0

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

Dec. 13, 2016

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

1 0

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

Oct. 27, 2016

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

1 0

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

Oct. 27, 2016

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

1 0

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

Oct. 27, 2016

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

2 1

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

Oct. 27, 2016

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

1 0

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

Oct. 26, 2016

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

1 0

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

Sept. 30, 2016

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

1 0

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

Sept. 30, 2016

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

1 0

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

Sept. 28, 2016

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

1 0

Namespace collisions
by Rubens Kuhl Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Hi all. During our WT4 meeting today, Cheryl mentioned that the topic currently under consideration for having a detached team looking into it is namespace collisions; in order for WT members to have a better understanding of what's involved in this topic, I've gathered reference materials from different views and moments of the reasoning that ended-up with the controlled interruption mechanism. There is no need to rush in reading the thousands of pages and seeing the hours of videos linked here, but exactly due to the volume and technical deepness of this topic I thought a head start would favor either the discussions or the decision to not engage in this topic. Best, Rubens Interisle report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-02aug13-en.pdf JAS Advisors Report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-mitigation-final… SSAC reports: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-045-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-057-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-062-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-066-en.pdf New gTLD applicants comments: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-name-collision-05aug13/pdfOPzpyE9PtF… https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-name-collision-26feb14/pdfE89TaUkJlR… https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/kuhl-to-namazi-12jun14… TLD Security Forum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By_VUgfT3UE&index=5&list=PLWvDpnCcem1PGSd22… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZT1GfhZcEE&list=PLWvDpnCcem1PGSd22Ro6XtLkw… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs7abO6IoGQ&list=PLWvDpnCcem1PGSd22Ro6XtLkw… Verisign: http://namecollisions.net/program/index.html (this workshop consolidates what Verisign previously published on this topic) http://www.verisign.com/assets/labs/Measuring-the-Leakage-of-Onion-at-the-R… http://www.verisign.com/assets/labs/MitM-Attack-by-Name-Collision-Cause-Ana… US Cert advisory: https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA16-144A ICANN Staff: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 15 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 15 September. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 15 September 1. Working Methods Action Items: 1. Schedule fortnightly meetings for 60 minutes and rotate at 0300, 1500, and 2000 on Thursdays. 2. Sub Team members should review the Work Track 4 wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490781. 3. Use Google Docs for collaboration. 4. When doing a consensus call extend it for two meetings. Discussion Notes: · Fortnightly meeting, but can increase frequency as needed. Stay with that schedule for now. · Call timing is 60 minutes, rotated at 0300, 1500, 2000 UTC. Stay with this rotation for now. · Mailing list for the Sub Team, separate from the full WG list. · Wiki for the Sub Team. Encourage Sub Team members to review the wiki. Sub Team members can post comments to the wiki. · Collaboration tools: Use Google Docs. Can also do polls through Doodle. · Consensus calls, use online tools with confirmation on two calls. · How to operate? Team of only 21. Conduct all work in the Sub Team as a whole. Can break into smaller groups. · Look at prioritizing items and decide whether to run in parallel. · Use pen holders/strawperson docs. 2. Work Items/Tasks Action Items: 1. Staff can inquire about the JAS availability, but need to know specifically what we are asking. 2. Cheryl Langdon-Orr proposes creating a table with each of clarifying questions (see Discussion Notes below) to make sure the Sub Group has answered them. Discussion Notes: · Internationalized Domain Names. · Universal Acceptance: Coordinate with the Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG). · Security and Stability: Stability review, registry services review. Consider whether registry services offered might adversely affect security and stability. · Applicant Guidebook: Technical, operational, financial -- Look at whether this information should be required at application time. · Name Collisions: Review findings of Final Report. Determine whether any changes should be recommended. Check with JAS advisors. · Consider the check list/score cards that were used generally and clarifying questions that were asked. But clarifying questions were not published, so that was a lack of transparency. · Should we review the applications that failed evaluation and assess whether the threshold used was at the right level? Or if they didn't fail was the threshold too low? · We can ask for the actual scoring guidelines that the evaluators used and the list of clarifying questions that were asked. If everyone was asked the same questions, then perhaps the questions need to be updated in the Guidebook 4. Schedule of Work / Grouping of Issues Action Items: 1. The Sub Team will need to draft requests for input from the communities of interest -- SOs and ACs, constituencies, etc. -- on some of these topics. These requests will be handled through Jeff and Avri. Staff will start a Google Doc. 2. Staff will reach out to see if there is someone from the UASG group who can join the next call. 3. Cheryl and Rubens will provide questions, which staff will use to inquire about score carding, etc. Discussion Notes: · These items can run in parallel, possibly with a staggered start in the coming weeks. · In parallel, need to reach out to the USAG, inform them of our work and ask if one of them would like to brief us at a future call. · Start Applicant Guidebook work early, possibly in parallel. · Rubens: Some items from the full WG consultation may be relevant and need to be considered. These questions do not need to be asked again in the Sub Group. · Issue of name collisions can be handled later as there are dependencies. Possible sub-group of the Sub Team could take on this work and draft initial documentation. This will be discussed further later.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC.
by Terri Agnew Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/HQSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 15 September 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/whWsAw Terri Agnew:at this time everyone can scroll the slides themselves Emily Barabas:loud and clear! Rubens Kuhl:Hearing you fine here Cheryl. Terri Agnew:change of plans, hosts will turn slides Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Thanks Ruben Martin Sutton:Sorry for my late arrival, just returned from a business trip. Terri Agnew:Welcome Martn Martin Sutton:Prefer to stay as is for now Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:No - seems good Terri Agnew:currently the next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Rotation is fair and as Cherly says pain is shared Martin Sutton:Agree also, only fair Quoc Pham, Neustar:No complaints from me, decent timing for the Australians Rubens Kuhl:Note that WT leadership is also 11 hours apart, so it's also sunny if you want to discuss WT themes with one of the co-chairs... Rubens Kuhl:(always sunny) Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:That isfine (some companies may not be able to use Google Docs) Martin Sutton:Rubens has hand raised Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Doodle - seems popular Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Semms reasonable Rubens, as people cannot always make calls so an alternaive is great to have Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:*Seems Martin Sutton:Based on size of group we could vote via email or create polls Martin Sutton:don't really mind Jeff Neuman:Online tools with confirmations on calls Jeff Neuman:? Steve Chan:And channelling Avri, confirmed on two calls? Steve Chan:No one can realllly channel Avri... Martin Sutton:Sounds very practicable Rubens Kuhl:+1 Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:+1 Martin Martin Sutton:Sounds really good and clear, thank you Cheryl Terri Agnew:The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group is scheduled to take place on Monday, 19 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Jeff Neuman:Should also talk to the JAS Advisors to get their input Steve Chan:Staff can inquire about their availability generally Steve Chan:JAS Advisors, yes. Steve Chan:But we'll of course need to know specifcally what we are asking Martin Sutton:Should we rview the applications that failed evaluation and assess whether the threshold used was at the right level? Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:You got muffeled at the end there Jeff Jeff Neuman:Sorry.....WE can ask for the actual scoring guidelines that the evaluators used and the list of clarifying questions that were asked. If everyone was asked the same questions, then perhaps the questions need to be updated in the Guidebook Martin Sutton:True Rubens Kuhl:Chat is very good when talking would wake up my toddler at night... Terri Agnew:Track 4 workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/HQSbAw Jeff Neuman:yes Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Thanks all - have a great evening / morning etc Martin Sutton:Thanks, good call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye for Niw THANK everyone

1 0

Agenda for this weeks call #2
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sept. 14, 2016

Sept. 14, 2016

AGENDA SubPro WT 4: IDN / Technical / Operations Meeting #2 1500 UTC 15 September 2016 08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 16:00 London, 17:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/j8tlfc3 Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldsubteams/ 1. Welcome 2. Opening Remarks 3. Call Administration 4. Any update from WG activities 5. Working Methods 6. Work Items / Tasks 7. Schedule of Work / Grouping of Issues 8. AOB 9. Review of any Action Items We welcome you all to join us on this call. Rubens and Cheryl

1 0

Gearing up WT4
by Rubens Kuhl Aug. 25, 2016

Aug. 25, 2016

Hi all, During our first meeting today, I mentioned the review that GDD staff (not policy staff) made of the program implementation, and the comments of it by applicants; here follows the links to those. Staff report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf While the whole of public comments can be seen at https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/, and staff report of the comments is available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-new-gtld-draft-… , I picked a few that are very comprehensive in regard to WT4 themes, usually providing a more critical view than the story as told by staff. https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/pdffIt… (BC) https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/pdf1TO… (RySG) https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/pdfcHo… (AFNIC) Att., Rubens

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 20:00 UTC.
by Terri Agnew Aug. 25, 2016

Aug. 25, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 20:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/HQSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 25 August 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the first call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/3wisAw Terri Agnew:Work Track 4 Members & Mailing List Archives wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ww2bAw Jeff Neuman:Welcome all....giving an extra minute or so Dietmar Lenden - Validues Ltd:no problem Jeff Jeff Neuman:Hoping Rubens will join Jeff Neuman:I know we are hitting the dog days of summer (or winter depending on where you are) Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Yes, just switching over. Avri Doria:hope this meeting is as exctiing as that one was. Dietmar Lenden - Validues Ltd:we can hear you Christa Taylor:Nice and clear! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):great audio Jeff Clear as a crystal Emily Barabas:Rubens SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rubens+Kuhl+SOI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Jeff I am happy to assist Rubens if you like, I served in IDN world a log time Emily Barabas:Cheryl Langdon-Orr SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Cheryl+Langdon-Orr+SOI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):NP Jeff you *can* in fact always through me in the deep end np prep required Terri Agnew:Welcome Ruben Kuhl Rubens Kuhl:Thanks Terri! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Hi Rubens were on slide 9 atm, and I have just stepped up to assist you in the Leadership Rubens Kuhl:Now I got access. The bridge had a bit of delay. Avri Doria:new comer? still? at this point? Avri Doria:i though newcomer rubbed off after 1-2 years max. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Avri Rubens Kuhl:Avri, specifically in regards to new gTLD policy development, when I got here everything was defnined, both in overaching policy and implementation... Rubens Kuhl:Included LGRs for both TLDs and 2nd level. Rubens Kuhl:More like a disclaimer so registries not sue ICANN for lack of UA... Rubens Kuhl:3: .home, .corp and .mail Rubens Kuhl:Some proposed, but none were referred to RSTEP. Avri Doria:also there may be some interaction between this track and track 2 on reserved IDN names - or is all that in Track 2? Rubens Kuhl:Avri, the possible interaction is that if the policy allows 1-char IDN in some languages, the reserved IDN name list might need to be revised. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):there will no doubt need to be some coordination on this Avri Doria:i meant all sort of reserved names Avri Doria:and we can alwasy schedule a joint meeting of two track teams Rubens Kuhl:We have the benefit at 2016 of having LGR (Label Generation Rules) defined for many languages, something not available in 2007. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):very true Rubens, Phil Buckingham:Avri , it is doesnt actually specify IDNs reserved names per se - just "review of the composition of the reserved names list " Terri Agnew:@Jeff, your audio is starting to cut out Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, you are fading in and out. Terri Agnew:much better Julie Hedlund:Better now! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thank Jeff Thnks everyone ! Bye for now Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone Rubens Kuhl:Thanks all, sorry for being late. Dietmar Lenden - Validues Ltd:bye all Avri Doria:bye, thanks Martin Sutton:Thanks Phil Buckingham:thanks Jeff

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 Sub Team Meeting 25 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 25, 2016

Aug. 25, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 25 August. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 25 August 1. Leadership for the Track 4 Sub Team -- See Sub Team participants at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493251.) Action Items: Rubens Kuhl (SOI) and Cheryl Langdon-Orr (SOI) have volunteered, and were accepted, as co-leaders. 2. Sub Team Meeting Scheduling: Discussion Notes: · Meet once per week or once every other week. · 0300, 1500, 2000 UTC time slots (rotating) on Tuesdays or Thursdays. · Start up in early September. 3. Work Items/List of Topics -- See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490781 Discussion Notes: · Identify additional IDN issues. · Coordinate on other ICANN issues, such as variants. · Coordinate between track 2 and track 4 on reserved names and IDNs.

1 0

First Meeting of Work Track 4
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 23, 2016

Aug. 23, 2016

All, As you are aware, the first meeting of Work Track 4 (IDN / Technical) is scheduled for Thursday 25 August at 20:00 UTC. You should have all received an invitation already. The meeting will last 1 hour and as this is the first meeting, The Agenda for this first meeting: 0) Review Agenda 1) Introductions / Statements of Interest (SOIs) - All participants in the group must submit SOI. Most of you have already submitted one as you are members of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures group. But anyone who has not done so is requested to take care of this. 2) Pick Leadership for the Track 4 Sub Team. This can be one person or several who share the responsibilities, it is up to the group. The requirement is for at least one person to take on the task. Responsibilities include: * Coordinating the efforts of the Sub Team * Communicating the status of the Sub Team to the rest of the leadership team and the full WG. This includes participating in a weekly leadership call to keep the work moving and coordinated. * Working with staff and the WG co-chairs as needed to get the work done, which includes developing the content for the full WG meetings and WG reports. * Acting with neutrality toward the Sub Team participants and the issues being dealt with within the group in the effort to help the group come to consensus on preliminary recommendations. All recommendation will be brought to the full group for discussion and possible approval as PDP WG recommendations. It would be great to start this discussion on the mailing list before the meeting on Thursday where anyone who wishes to volunteer speaks up. Also feel free to nominate those who you believe would be good in the role. Note that that 2 co-chairs of the full WG (Avri and I) have disqualified themselves from this role. We will remain involved as needed to assist the leaders and to coordinate with the full working group. A list of Sub Team participants can be found at < https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493251> The decision on Sub Team leadership is the first consensus decision the group needs to make. 3) Discussion on Sub Team meeting schedule. The current plan it to rotate all the Sub Team meetings between two time slots: 15UTC and 20UTC across all 5 days of the week. Each team will be expected to meet at least every other week, but will be able to meet more often if the Sub Team decides it is necessary. While scheduling outside these two time bands is theoretically possible, the current schedule of other meetings makes that challenging. It is also possible to add a third time band or to stick to a single 1 time slot as the Sub Team decides. 4) Walk through the work items for the Sub Team. These are found at < https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490781> Among the first tasks of the Sub Team will be to decide: * how they want to work through the issues, * to look at prioritization of issues * to refine the schedule currently posted for these activities. The current schedule is found at: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001972/Policy%20Developm…> In this first meeting we will only talk through the work items for clarification, the work will start in earnest with the next meeting, but it would be good to keep these issues in mind. 5) AOB - if there is time. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

2 1