October 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

[Gnso-newgtld-lead] - Time Shift Analysis
by Steve Chan Nov. 17, 2016

Nov. 17, 2016

Hello All, I did some basic analysis to try and understand the impact of staying on the same UTC time versus moving 1 hour forward on UTC (e.g., the 1500 UTC would be 1600 UTC). I’d say it’s inconclusive and at least to me, not terribly surprising – it helps in some cases and hurts in others. When there are early meetings, adding an hour to the UTC helps and when it’s evening or middle of the night, it generally makes things worse. Unfortunately, I don’t think this gives us a clear path forward, but it at least lets us see how it affects this particular WG in certain regions of the world. I’ve highlighted the most difficult meetings times in red. Note, this analysis would be as of 7 November, so to the extent that timeanddate.com accurately captures what regions observe daylight savings, that factor should be taken into account. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

11 11

ICANN57: GNSO Remote Participation Details & Organization
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 28, 2016

Oct. 28, 2016

Dear all, In preparation for the GNSO sessions during ICANN57, please find below web and wiki links to attend meetings remotely. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN57 Meeting Schedule<https://icann572016.sched.org/> GNSO Remote Participation details<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Step 1 Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage, and if not done yet, create a log in when prompted. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your calendar inbox. To get a general description of the session, please hover your mouse over the session title and a summary of the session will appear as well as a ³add to my schedule² option. Step 2 Navigate to the right hand side of the main schedule and follow instructions to download the ICANN57 Mobile App. Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule and on the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page) will provide audio streaming. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Glen de St Gery, Terri Agnew and Nathalie Peregrine will be onsite to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team

2 1

- Draft Discussions Questions for ICANN57
by Steve Chan Oct. 28, 2016

Oct. 28, 2016

Dear WG Members, As requested during the WG’s call on 24 October, the draft discussion questions are being distributed for review prior to the face to face session at ICANN57. Note, these questions may continue to be refined leading up to the session, but should be final enough for your consideration, as well as distribution to other interested parties to promote constructive participation during the WG’s session. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 1

DRAFT Competition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Trust Review Team schedule for ICANN57
by Steve Chan Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the DRAFT schedule for the Competition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Trust Review Team (CCT-RT) at ICANN57. Of particular note is an 11:00-12:00 slot on 3 November, the same day as this WG’s face to face, where WG members are encouraged to come listen and participate. The SubPro WG’s co-chairs, Jeff and Avri, will be participating during that segment. A number of the CCT-RT’s sessions are open to observers, so please feel free to join in room or remotely via the details in the attachment. The data they’ve collected and reports they are developing will be important inputs to this WG. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Reports from the CWG on Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs
by Emily Barabas Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

Dear WG Members, Of particular interest to sub team 2 in its work on reserved names, but possibly others as well – The CWG on Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs has released two reports in advance of ICANN57: - A progress report discussing the group’s work to date and outlining recommendations for future work - A draft of the CWG’s Interim Report, which will be subject to public comment before becoming the group’s Final Report Both reports are attached and available at https://community.icann.org/display/CWGOUCNT/Output+and+Draft+Documents . Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 24 October 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 24 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-24oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08sep16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions 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/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Exu4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 24 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 24 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Michelle DeSmyter:Member page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Karen Day:Can barely hear Avri. Christa Taylor:Same here! Steve Chan:Closer to 4 hrs Emily Barabas:For those who will be attending the meeting, there will be lunch just before the session served in the room Jon Nevett:Which day and time again? Susan Payne:thursday 3rd. about 13.45 from recollection Steve Chan:Right Susan, Thursday, November 3 - 13:45 - 18:30 Jon Nevett:Thanks Steve -- could we get a calendar invite? Christa Taylor:In case it helps, https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_… Kurt Pritz:I believe the opening discussion, status and introductions should be very short. The meeting should be a working meeting and not bringing non-participants up to date. We can distribute materials beforehand so people can come up to speed. Steve Chan:Thanks Christa. @Jon, we don't send calendar invites for the f2f sessions. I would recommend utilizing Sched to help manage youre schedule at ICANN57. Jeff Neuman:@Kurt - That's the plan Jon Nevett:ok Rubens Kuhl:I support the idea, Avri. Karen Day:Think that would be good Jeff Neuman:Yes, but we should keep it short Christa Taylor:Also think it would be beneficial Kurt Pritz:Five minutes Christa Taylor:I am here but not on voice Christa Taylor:Once we have the meeting we should be able to direct the conversation to the concerns Kurt Pritz:On question 2: should we include registrants or users? Sara Bockey:Question 2 should read: From RSP Accreditation to Third-Party Certifier – What is the most effective method to meet the needs of RSP, Registry and Registrar? Kurt Pritz:A stable, resilient internet? Lower registration costs? Christa Taylor:Perhaps insight into this will come out of the question Donna Austin, Neustar:I think it should also include applicants as this is one of the problems we're trying to solve. Jeff Neuman:@Kurt - I am not sure that either of those will be directly related to registrants, but yes to applicants Christa Taylor:I definately think applicants should be included Jeff Neuman:We can hear you Michael Phil Buckingham:Avri . I have no dial out. . Michael - we can hear you . Phil Buckingham:Q - do we need more reserved names re the IANA transition Rubens Kuhl:Like PTI ? Annebeth Lange:Question 2, WT2: Since it is differences between RNWG and what was the result in the AGB - especially for geographical names - there is a need to see those two documents in connection Phil Buckingham:Exactly , Rubens Rubens Kuhl:I think only the ICANN community thinks of PTI as the org managing IANA functions... ;-) Jeff Neuman:Annabeth, yes that is one of the differences....also have IGOs. Red Cross, IOC, etc. Jeff Neuman:We also have 2 characters, single character IDNs, etc. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Jeff Annebeth Lange:I agree completely with Susan on that. Phil Buckingham:Q re COI / LOC - we would appreciate feedback from applicant's experiences/ problems Annebeth Lange:On the discussion on 2-letters on first level, that was the only thing we so far has agreed on in the cross-community WG on country & territory names Phil Buckingham:a wish ! Jeff Neuman:@annabeth - We do not yet have a report from the CCWG on country and territory names. Is one going to be forthcoming? Annebeth Lange:Yes, we plan to give you a report in Hyderabad Susan Payne:would it be possible to get a copy of the proposed questions in advance of the meeting - or could you point me to where they are posted please. Some of us may want to gather input from colleagues who may not be there Susan Payne:sorry - was a general comment not specifically WT£ Susan Payne:WT3 Susan Payne:Thanks! Annebeth Lange:We still have discussion on this, and Bart is summing up the last discussions to be presented in Hyderabad. As you know, you have two co-chairs from GNSO, who can give you details. Steve Chan:@Jeff, the CWG-UCTN is aiming to wrap up an Interim Report (aka Initial Report) around the end of this year. Steve Chan:A progress report of sorts is being prepared for ICANN57 discussions. Robin Gross:Thanks, Avri. Happy to join the team! :-) Annebeth Lange:Heather and Carlos Annebeth Lange:I will try to be at the meeting in Hyderabad on Thursday, arriving in the morning Annebeth Lange:I have to leave, see you in Hyderabad avri doria:thanks Jeff Neuman:@Rubens : For #1, do we mean the evaluation process as opposed to application process? Kurt Pritz:If you are going to ask an open-ended question such as #1: you should create some rules about participating in order to manage the discussion, i.e., present you idea and why the change should be made - we will compile all the suggestions for discussion by the group. Christa Taylor:+1 to Kurt's point Phil Buckingham:Absolutely Donna . Jeff Neuman:Good point @kurt Jeff Neuman:yes Jeff Neuman:@Avri - Yes Phil Buckingham:Donna, think categories is key , high priority - everything flow from this ? Steve Chan:Staff can maintain a parking lot" Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good idea Jeff Neuman:Thanks! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Great safe travels all see some of you soon Bye for now Christa Taylor:Thanks! Kiran Malancharuvil:Thank you Alexander Schubert:bye Robin Gross:Thanks, bye! Kavouss Arasteh:Is there any restriction to attend your meeting in Hyderabad Phil Buckingham:thanks

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 24 October 2016
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 24, 2016

Oct. 24, 2016

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 24 October. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 24 October 2016 Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures face-to-face meeting at ICANN57: Thursday, 03 November 13:45-18:30. See: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cxk/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-procedure…. Proposed ICANN57 Agenda – Draft is attached, but subject to revision. 1. Welcome and introductions 2. Current Status (Overarching issues/CC1) 3. Work Track based discussions 1. Overarching issues/CC1: · Work Track 3 -- rounds vs. first-come, first-served process. Everything else we had public discussion in Helsinki. Don't need to go over the overall topics again. Can stick to a status update, but won't go down any of the issues. · Ask liaisons to CCT-RT, RPMs, to provide a brief update. Add as a new number 3 in the agenda. · Work Track based discussions. Asked each WT to provide some teaser questions for community input. 2. Work Track (WT) based discussions WT1: [reading from the draft agenda] · Question 1: Help spur the conversation on the Applicant Support Program. Still looking for input. Question 2: Update based on input from Donna Austin. Question 2 should read: “From RSP Accreditation to Third-Party Certifier – What is the most effective method to meet the needs of RSPs, Registries and Registrars?” · Also include applicants as this is one of the problems we're trying to solve and consider how they might be affected. Don't include if there isn't a specific concern. WT2: [reading from the draft agenda] · Question: Do we need more reserved names re the IANA transition? Such as PTI? · Question 2, WT2: Since it is different between RNWG and what was the result in the AGB - especially for geographical names - there is a need to see those two documents in connection. · Question: on our last call we were talking about top level and second level, for this question I think need to be clear what level we are talking about. · We also have 2 characters, single character IDNs, etc. Also have IGOs. Red Cross, IOC, etc. · Questions re: COI / LOC - we would appreciate feedback from applicant's experiences/ problems. · CWG-UCTN is aiming to wrap up an Interim Report (aka Initial Report) around the end of this year. A progress report of sorts is being prepared for ICANN57 discussions. WT3: 1) Rounds vs. Continuous (first come, first served). Impact on string contention. 2) Do we need an Independent Objector in future? WT4: [reading from the draft agenda] · Currently in consultations with JAS and other Stakeholder Groups. · Change Question #1 -- not application submission process, but the application evaluation process. General question: In the unlikely circumstance that we don't have a very talkative audience does anyone have some backup questions? · If you are going to ask an open-ended question such as #1: you should create some rules about participating in order to manage the discussion, i.e., present you idea and why the change should be made - we will compile all the suggestions for discussion by the group. · Registry agreement categories -- in the overall issues, have more discussion in Hyderabad? Handle in the appropriate track (WT2)? Yes.

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 24 October 2016
by Steve Chan Oct. 21, 2016

Oct. 21, 2016

Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 24 October 2016 at 2000 UTC for 60 minutes. This meeting will be devoted to planning for the WG’s face-to-face session at ICANN57 and is therefore considered optional by the WG’s co-chairs. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. ICANN57 planning 4. AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 17 October 2016
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 17 October. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 17 October 2016 Action Item: Need a volunteer for a Work Track 3 Sub Team co-chair. Discussion Notes: 1. Update from WT Leaders Work Track 1 Sub Team: · Sara Bockey: The next Work Track 1 meeting is on 18 October. Additions have been made to the pros and cons on the accreditation program. The Work Track Sub Team is looking at pros and cons of the applicant support program. Christa and I are looking to meet with someone from that program. Then we will at look at the applicant guidebook. · Avri Doria: I reached out to Rafik, have you? · Sara Bockey: No we have not reached out yet. · Avri Doria: I think Dennis Change was on the staff side and I think Rafik was one of the working group chairs. Work Track 2 Sub Team: Michael Flemming: Reserved names and LOCs. We've looked at the single category base registry agreement. I also contacted the BRG and the Registries, but have not had a discussion yet. We will see the other groups we need to look to, also. In addition, we ooked at the terms and conditions in applying to new gTLDs. Work Track 3 Sub Team: · Karen Day: We are looking for a new co-chair. Our first co-chair has had to step down due to other conflicts. We had a meeting last Tuesday and we dove into limited public interest objections. It was a very lightly utilized objection in the last round. Our next item would be legal rights objections. We are reaching out to anyone involved in the public interest objections. We meet again Tuesday week. · Avri Doria: We would very much like someone to join in this effort as a co-chair. It really is a lot of work, but much better if we have more than one co-chair. · Jeff Neuman: We don't have anyone here from Work Track 4. We will be meeting next week. 2. WG Update/ICANN57 planning · Jeff Neuman: There is a 4-hour session at ICANN57. We will try to make it extremely interactive. The leaders of the Work Tracks have been charged with finding questions that would be interesting to the larger community. There is the concept of rounds. Trying to get feedback from some of the proposals we've received. Each Work Track leader has been asked to come up with teaser proposals. This will be open to the meeting at large. We hope this meeting will be well attended. We are having a meeting on 24 October to talk about Hyderabad planning. It is not mandatory to show up. We are not going to have a call on Monday, the 31st. Many people will be traveling to Hyderabad at the time. · Sara Bockey: One topic is what went wrong with the last round on the applicant support program and second is accreditation. · Michael Flemming: Category for ... also for reserved names at the second level and top level. And continuing operations such as EBERO and whether that is necessary. · Karen Day: The two subjects that I would like to get feedback on: The issue of are we do this again in rounds or in an ongoing first-come, first-served process. This impacts a lot of Work Track 3. The second thing is that we would like to get input on is do we need an independent objector? · Avri Doria: I do want to remind people that the meeting in Hyderabad on Thursday will be open to participants, observers, and anyone else who is there. We will be suspending the rules. Can we have a quick show of hands of those who plan to be in Hyderabad? · Michael Flemming: o For Reserved Names, what is a reserved name and what are the reserved names per the RA? Do any changes need to be made to the reserved names to reflect the changes in recent processes that allow for the release of such reserved names? o In the 2012 round, a Continuing Operations Instrument was required to be submitted in the form of a Letter of Credit to fund an Emergency Back End Registry Operator. That requirement proved to be difficult for a number of registries to meet. What other options are there to fund the EBERO functions? Also, some registries, such as Brand TLDs, consider that a Continuing Operations Instrument is not required due to the nature of their TLD. This spans into the background of EBERO requirements, as well, but would the Continuing Operations Instrument be required for TLDs that would qualify for an exemption to the Code of Conduct for the RA? · Michael Flemming: The above are the 3 topics Work Track 2 is looking at exploring for ICANN57. 3. Continued Discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1. See: https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw. · Jeff Neuman: I will be reading the comments that were submitted, or at least summarizing them. Then doing to number 3, which is on rounds or how to introduce the next application window. [Reading from CC1 Review Tool document.] · Avri Doria: Any questions? · Jeff Neuman: If I interpret GAC content only, if the community did not qualify, then it went to the next contention mechanism, such as to an auction. They are still discussing whether it was appropriate to go to an auction if the applicant didn't have the financial resources. · Tom Dale (GAC Secretariat): I think that is basically correct. Regards to community application experience, there is some research that will be submitted at Hyderabad and I hope the GAC will be able to make that available either during or after Hyderabad. · Martin Sutton: The questions were posed to SO/ACs but many registries are not members of the RySG or other groups, particularly dot Brands, should these questions be sent directly to registry operators? · Jeff Neuman: This group would love to see that paper once it is completed. 2e.R2 · Jeff Neuman: [Reading from CC1 Review Tool document.] Martin -- this was only for community comments. This is not the only time we'll be talking about these topics. If you could assist us in getting comments from more brands, the more feedback the better. There was a round in 2005 that dealt with only sponsored gTLDs. So each of the applicants tried to apply as a sponsored community-based TLDs. Some of them were not what people thought a community-based TLD should be. If we have a brand-only round there is a fear that some applicants would try to fit themselves in. · Avri Doria: If I could add a personal point. It is that there is gaming and a counter claim that the accusations of gaming go beyond a workaround of the rule and that the accusations becomes another form of gaming. We need to define how we think of something as a work around to the rule. This is a really important discussion to have. · Jeff Neuman: Martin -- a question of why some brands are asking for a separate agreement and how you would define that category. That would help the discussion. · Martin Sutton: Agree it could be possible to define restrictions to avoid gaming, particularly for dot Brands and could provide opportunities for ICANN to move ahead with smaller, distinct application rounds to maintain momentum before continuous cycles. · Cecilia Smith: agreed 3a.R1, 3a.R2 and 3a. R3: [Reading responses from the CC1 document.] · Jeff Neuman: If you have a predictable window the problem wouldn't go away. An alternate proposal would be an application window, then evaluations could start in Q3 and have a separate application window. You could have a continuous acceptance of applications, but it would not eliminate the problem of contention sets. I would also note that the CCT-RT is considering this issue of rounds and one action item is to figure out what progress they have made on this issue. · Avri Doria: A personal comment on this: If we started with this sort of procedure would we likely be a unwinding of the pent-up demand? Basically, my question is if we were to start at the beginning would we still see a rush of 10,000 for that first one if people knew they could apply for the next one? My question. if we start from day 1 with this alternate procedure, will that even out the pent up demand or will we still have a first rush of 10k applications? Is there any way to determine this? · Jeff Neuman: It will be great to hear from others on this call. What would be some of the benefits or challenges if we did first come, first served? · Karen Day: I will throw out my perspective. I think that people are worrying a bit too much for worrying about getting access to the same thing. My preference is first come, first served, and that would eliminate a lot of problems from the first round. · Klaus Stoll: In general I think continuous rounds sound most attractive. Maybe the 3 months on, 3 months off would give us some peace and quiet to evaluate applications. · Jeff Neuman: That would help for resources. The GAC said should there be a mechanism that if there is an application for a string should others be notified and for the use of the string. What does everyone think of alerting the world and giving others the opportunity to apply for that same string? · Michael Flemming: I am not sure if applicants if people applied for a TLD that they would want to invite contention via a notification. I am assuming this is a gazette for trademarks. If you are thinking about those terms it would be difficult to devise grounds to oppose. · Jeff Neuman: I think your comments were about a gazette for trademarks -- once the mark has gone through its evaluation the mark is published and others can oppose it on certain grounds. This would be akin to both publishing but not just to object but also apply for it. I think it is interesting and something to consider. We should write it up and go through the pros and cons. I think I might want to stop here because of connectivity issues. · Avri Doria: I think it is a good place. We will stop there and continue at our next meeting. We will probably go through this after Hyderabad. For our Monday, 24 October meeting we should probably plan for how to continue. Once we have finished going through these then the leadership and staff can go through a first cut of a draft report to start to approach a consensus.

1 0

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 17 October 2016 at 3:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17oct16-en.mp3[mailer.…> <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08sep16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions 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/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/4xS4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 17 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Michelle DeSmyter:Member page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Raymond Zylstra - Neustar:heya Raymond Zylstra - Neustar:time zone is great for me Raymond Zylstra - Neustar:2pm Jeff Neuman:We will start in 2 mins Jeff Neuman:Hello Avri Jeff Neuman:You are real quiet Jeff Neuman:Can u increase mic Jeff Neuman:yes avri doria:thanks Jeff Neuman:Ready when you are Christopher Niemi:Updated SOI: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Berry Cobb:WT1 is on 18 Oct @ 15 UTC Jeff Neuman:Dennis Chang Jeff Neuman:ICANN staff Sara Bockey:That would be great! Jeff Neuman:BRG = Brand Registry Group Jeff Neuman:But its fun too ;0 Michael Flemming:Light hands make light work! Michael Flemming:Its also very exciting! Michael Flemming:Loud and clear! Quoc Pham:I am from WT4 :) Emily Barabas:next sub team 4 meeting Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC Steve Chan:The session at ICANN57 runs from 13:45-18:30 local time and you can find details here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_… Sara Bockey:here is the text for the proposed topics: Sara Bockey:What went wrong with the Applicant Support Program in the 2012 round and is there still a need for such a program? Sara Bockey:Some have stated that a Pre-Approval or Accreditation process would be beneficial for registries and registry service providers. Is this an accurate assessment? If so, how should such a process be set up? Michael Flemming:Sorry for being so fast. Here are the topics we are looking at as teaser topics. Justine Chew:Attending remotely Emily Barabas:Doodle poll on ICANN57 attendance: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doodle.com_poll_rhbpwdh… Karen Day:I think it being Sunday evening in the US coupled with the middle of the night in europe our attendance is very light today Emily Barabas:it's not too late to add your response! avri doria:5 am in Central Europe and S. Africa (where i am) Michael Flemming:1. Is a single agreement still suitable for the needs of subsequent procedures? Noting that the 2012 round saw the introduction of TLDs with needs that differ from the standard ICANN model, the idea of different agreements suited to a specific category has seen increased demand. Do we need to consider allowing for category based agreements and what is the justification for such? If yes, in what ways could we consider a "category based agreement"? Or, how should the single base agreement address the various needs of different categories? Michael Flemming:Not in relation to this topics Michael Flemming:topic* Michael Flemming:2. For Reserved Names, what is a reserved name and what are the reserved names per the RA? Do any changes need to be made to the reserved names to reflect the changes in recent processes that allow for the release of such reserved names? Michael Flemming:3. In the 2012 round a Continuing Operations Instrument was required to be submitted in the form of a Letter of Credit to fund an Emergency Back End Registry Operator. That requirement proved to be difficult for a number of registries to meet. What other options are there to fund the EBERO functions? Also, some registries, such as Brand TLDs, consider that a Continuing Operations Instruntment is not required due to the nature of their TLD. This spans into the background of EBERO requirements, as well, but would the Continuing Operations Instrument be required for TLDs that would qualify for an exemption to the Code of Conduct for the RA? Michael Flemming:The above are the 3 topics WT2 is looking at exploring for ICANN57. Martin Sutton:The questions were posed to SO/ACs but many registries are not members of the RySG or other groups, particularly dotBrands, should these questions be sent directly to registry operators? Martin Sutton:more general question. Martin Sutton:Agree it could be possible to define restrictions to avoid gaming, particularly for dotBrands Martin Sutton:and could provide opportunities for ICANN to move ahead with smaller, distinct application rounds to maintain momentum before continuous cycles. Martin Sutton:sure Cecilia Smith:agreed Jeff Neuman:Is everyone losing Avri Justine Chew:I can hear Avri very well Martin Sutton:no avri doria:i can hear you but you can't hear me Karen Day:I heard avri, but not jeff Mary Wong:Some of us lost Avri briefly (or broken up) but all seems to be working now Michael Flemming:I can Mary Wong:Yes Martin Sutton:yes Justine Chew:I can still hear you, Avri Mary Wong:We can hear you Christopher Niemi:I hear Avri Quoc Pham:yes i can hear you Karen Day:I hear Avri Sara Bockey:Avri - you are faint and breaking up on my end Karen Day:Jeff is breaking up Justine Chew:Nope, I'm on Adobe and I can hear both Avri and Jeff Michael Flemming:Everyone is loud and clear Mary Wong:All, please note that, in general, the phone bridge is more stable for audio than AC Mary Wong:Yes Quoc Pham:yes Michelle DeSmyter:yes Justine Chew:Yes, Jeff Martin Sutton:same comment as you Avri - there is still the potential for 10k+ applicants, even with short windows avri doria:my question. if we start from day 1 with this alternate procedure, wll that even out the pent up demand or will we still have a first rush of 10k applications. is there any way to determine this? Martin Sutton:but there could be limits applied, potentially Jeff Neuman:yes Justine Chew:Karen has her hand up Martin Sutton:I am on mute, household is sleeping! Michael Flemming:Lost Karen Justine Chew:Yes, Karen, please carry on avri doria:i am hearing her , though it breaks up. Jeff Neuman:i joined on phone Karen Day:Could we do first come first served w/in the 3 mo window?? Karen Day:No in favor avri doria:my connectivity is bouncing up and down. Michael Flemming:can you hear me? Karen Day:Not* in favor of that proposal Sara Bockey:Yes, hear you avri doria:i can hear Karen Day:We'd make a great Verizon commercial ;-) Michelle DeSmyter:yes Mary Wong:I'm on AC audio and can hear you, Jeff Cecilia Smith:We can hear you, Jeff Sara Bockey:Yes, I hear you from AC avri doria:i can hear but can't seem to talk Martin Sutton:so if an applicant applied for 5000 TLDs immediately, would that be reasonable? or should limits be applied to manage capacity and objection processes avri doria:saw Klauss's hand at one point. Klaus Stoll:Avri, I was able to make my point avri doria:sorry guess it came during one of my dropped moments. avri doria:i can't seem to talk though. Jeff Neuman:Avri, I can take over Michael Flemming:Am I still talking? Klaus Stoll:yes Michael Flemming:Connection is bad avri doria:back at least for a moment Klaus Stoll:No, this connection does no good for communication avri doria:i think other people are waking up in the hotel and starting to share the bandwidth Emily Barabas:Monday, 24 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes -- next meeting Steve Chan:Nothing from me Karen Day:Goodnight, all! Sara Bockey:thanks all Martin Sutton:thank you Avri, Jeff et al Cecilia Smith:Thanks and good night! Justine Chew 2:After 1+hour of good connection, I have completely lost audio now. Sigh, Catch up in Hyderabad remotely then. Christopher Niemi:Thanks Vaibhav Aggarwal:Good bye

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 17 October 2016
by Steve Chan Oct. 14, 2016

Oct. 14, 2016

Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 17 October 2016 at 0300 UTC for 90 minutes. Please note that for some, this meeting will occur on Sunday for your local time. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Update from WT Leaders 4. WG Update/ICANN57 planning 5. Continued discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1 6. AOB The latest version of the CC1 Review Tool is attached and available on the Wiki here https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw. If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

REMINDER: Please RSVP Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Terri Agnew Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANNpolicy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Hyderabad. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * New generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds Drafting Team * Cross-Community Working Group for Framework of Cross-Community Working Group Principles * Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains Community Engagement Team Update: * Community Recognition at ICANN57 and Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017 Process Launch * Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees Work Effort Inventory/Snapshot Update * Policy Staff Support in Community Charter Amendment Processes Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Update * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next-Generation Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) * IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community Update * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * Adaptation of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Processes to the new ICANN Bylaws * Government Advisory Committee Vice-Chairs Elections taking place in Hyderabad * Capacity Building Session for the Asia Pacific Region organized by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Working Group for Underserved Regions * The Government Advisory Committee developing further input for ongoing Policy Development Processes on Registration Directory Services and Future new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be run in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0

Reminder: Poll on ICANN57 participation for New gTLD PDP WG members
by Emily Barabas Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

Dear WG Members, A quick reminder -- If you have not already done so, please take a moment to inform the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG leadership team about your participation in ICANN57: http://doodle.com/poll/rhbpwdhqf2m6u2u4 . Please respond to the poll by our next full group meeting on Monday, October 17 at 3:00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 7 October 2016 at 13:41 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Poll on ICANN57 participation for New gTLD PDP WG members Dear WG Members, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting at ICANN57 is currently scheduled to take place on Thursday, November 3 from 13:45 to 18:30 local time (8:15 UTC - 13:00 UTC). Please take a moment to inform the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG co-chairs about your plans for participation: http://doodle.com/poll/rhbpwdhqf2m6u2u4 . Please fill in your response prior to our next full group meeting on Monday, October 17 at 3:00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

FW: [council] Draft Motion - GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board
by Steve Chan Oct. 11, 2016

Oct. 11, 2016

Dear WG Members, Please find the draft GNSO Council response to the ICANN Board’s letter about the work plan and timeline for this PDP. Note, this letter is still in draft form and is subject to changes by the Council. This letter, or the final version of it, is expected to be discussed and possibly agreed upon for transmission to the Board on the 13 October GNSO Council call. Best, Steve On 10/10/16, 6:56 PM, "Steve Chan" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of steve.chan(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear Councilors, In support of the Motion put forth by Carlos below, please find the draft GNSO Council response to the ICANN Board as prepared by Carlos, Phil, James, Keith, and Stefania. The letter is intended to synthesize the responses received from the community while also noting where common views were identified. This drafting group and staff welcome your comments and suggested edits. Best, Steve On 10/3/16, 6:41 PM, "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of crg(a)isoc-cr.org> wrote: Dear Glen, Dear Councillors I submit this motion to approve during our next call on 13 Oct a response to Chairman Crocker´s letter from August 5th 2016, and ask for secondment: <Text> Motion on the GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Made by: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Seconded by: WHEREAS, On 5 August 2016, the GNSO Council received a letter from Dr. Stephen Crocker seeking an understanding of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group’s (WG) requirements and timing related to advancing a new application process. On 16 August 2016, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the letter and informed the ICANN Board that initial discussions within the GNSO Council and more broadly, within the GNSO community and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, were anticipated. On 12 September 2016, the GNSO Council sent a letter to all of the GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG seeking input to help formulate the Council’s response to the ICANN Board. The GNSO Council received an important number of responses and divergent positions from many different individuals as well a constituencies within the GNSO community, as well as from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG. RESOLVED, The GNSO Council has synthesized the positions received and prepared a response to the ICANN Board. The GNSO Council looks forward to ongoing discussions with the broader community, particularly at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India. The GNSO Council expects to continue to consult with the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG to determine if there are any significant changes to its schedule or scope of work as defined in its charter. <text end> Respectfully Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) Forwarded message: > From: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> > Cc: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, Drazek, Keith > <kdrazek(a)Verisign.com>, James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, > Stefania.Milan(a)EUI.eu <Stefania.Milan(a)EUI.eu>, Emily Barabas > <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, > Paul McGrady <policy(a)paulmcgrady.com> > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to > the ICANN Board > Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:34:18 +0000 > > All, > > Carlos, thank you for your comments. Seeing no volunteers to hold the > pen, staff is happy to prepare an initial draft for your > consideration, especially given the contracted timelines until the > next Council meeting. > > With a vote expected to consider and approve this letter at the 13 > October 2016 GNSO Council meeting, staff has prepared a draft motion, > also for your consideration. Unfortunately, the document and motion > deadline is today – any volunteers to put forth this motion (with > any necessary edits of course)? > > We will try to provide the draft letter as soon as possible, as > ideally, it should be available with the motion, > > Best, > > Steve > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> > Date: Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM > To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> > Cc: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, "Drazek, Keith" > <kdrazek(a)Verisign.com>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, > "Stefania.Milan(a)EUI.eu" <Stefania.Milan(a)EUI.eu>, Emily Barabas > <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, > Paul McGrady <policy(a)paulmcgrady.com> > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to > the ICANN Board > > Thank you vey much Steve for the excellent overview of the comments to > Chairman´s Crocker letter to date. From my personal point of view, I > belong to the group of the subsequent procedures PDP, that wonders > what the (short term vs. long term) context of the question is. And > just because of that, I´m a strong supporter of a very conservative > stance. > > My initial suggestion for a clear formulation of a response at the > Council level, is to structure around the main (contentious) > issues/areas, including its pro and con arguments, instead of listing > the source of all the different positions. From that perspective I see > 4 main areas/chapters for a structure of the response: > > 1. All the pending studies and PDPs that are analyzing the impact or > the 2012 round and will produce related recommendations: RPM, > Subsequent procedures and CCT-RT. (In general it worked well, but it > needs more refinement) > > 2. The question if the 2007 ¨policy¨ is strong enough for subsequent > procedures without any mayor changes. > > 2.a including the policy equal treatment of all applications (without > any categorization), as compared to restrictions over certain groups > of possible new TLDs (Geographic names, Communities, etc.) > > 3. if the AGB is strong enough as a ¨predictable application > process¨ for subsequent procedures, and if not, which type of > revisions it needs > > 3.a including the question of global fairness (or underserved areas) > > 4. if the ¨implementation/delegation¨ of new gTLDs of the last round > was good enough, or there are few lessons that should be carefully > analyzed and improvements introduced before new delegations > > After reading the summary document I see how a general consensus gets > more and more difficult, as we go down the list here proposed. Then it > should be pretty obvious that the Boards main question should be > answered with a pretty clear ¨NO shortcuts¨. > > But I also want to hear what the other members of the team think. > > Carlos Raúl > > El 30 sept 2016, a las 16:20, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> > escribió: > > <Input - ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - 27 > Sept 2016.docx>

1 0

Poll on ICANN57 participation for New gTLD PDP WG members
by Emily Barabas Oct. 7, 2016

Oct. 7, 2016

Dear WG Members, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting at ICANN57 is currently scheduled to take place on Thursday, November 3 from 13:45 to 18:30 local time (8:15 UTC - 13:00 UTC). Please take a moment to inform the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG co-chairs about your plans for participation: http://doodle.com/poll/rhbpwdhqf2m6u2u4 . Please fill in your response prior to our next full group meeting on Monday, October 17 at 3:00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Please RSVP Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Please RSVP via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANNpolicy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Hyderabad. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * New generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds Drafting Team * Cross-Community Working Group for Framework of Cross-Community Working Group Principles * Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains Community Engagement Team Update: * Community Recognition at ICANN57 and Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017 Process Launch * Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees Work Effort Inventory/Snapshot Update * Policy Staff Support in Community Charter Amendment Processes Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Update * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next-Generation Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) * IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community Update * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * Adaptation of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Processes to the new ICANN Bylaws * Government Advisory Committee Vice-Chairs Elections taking place in Hyderabad * Capacity Building Session for the Asia Pacific Region organized by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Working Group for Underserved Regions * The Government Advisory Committee developing further input for ongoing Policy Development Processes on Registration Directory Services and Future new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be run in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available here[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 03 October 2016
by Emily Barabas Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear All, Please find below notes and Actions Items from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 03 October 2016. Kind regards, Emily ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Update from WT Leaders 4. GNSO Council letter - Update on GNSO Council call 5. Continued discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1 6. Work Track Coordination 7. AOB Notes and Action Items: 1. Kavouss Arasteh: Expressed appreciation to the CWG and everyone involved in the IANA Transition. 2. Steve Coates has an updated SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stephen+Jadie+Coates+SOI 3. Update from WT Leaders - Sara Bockey (WT1) - Initial discussions have been taking place around accreditation. Support for applicants from developing countries will be addressed in the upcoming call. - Michael Flemming (WT2) - The group has started discussing the base registry agreement, and has started looking at pros and cons for single agreement vs. agreements by category. The next topic will be terms and conditions. - Karen Day (WT3) - The group is starting to discuss objections. The next meeting will be a deep dive into limited public interest objections. - Rubens Kuhl (WT4) – The group is in an information discovery phase. They are seeking to interface with UASG, hoping to get information from ICANN staff on 2012 round, but ICANN staff has not been forthcoming with information. The group has started working on outreach questions and will likely continue working on developing those questions next week. 4. GNSO Council letter - Update on GNSO Council call- Many SG/Cs responded directly to the Council. This working group also sent a letter to the Council explaining that the group did not reach consensus on the topic. - This was a big agenda item, but there was very little time for it to be discussed on the GNSO Council call. - Resolution: a small group from the Council will compile all statement that will be sent to the Board. - The goal is to finalize the letter for the next meeting to send to the Board. - Summary of input received: https://community.icann.org/x/owu4Aw - Kavouss Arasteh: Will the small group response reflect that the Subsequent Procedures PGP WG has not reached consensus on this issue? - Mary Wong (staff): The small group will synthesize all of the feedback received and reflect this in its response to the Board. 5. Continued discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1 - Sections 2b and 2c: These question address which categories should or should not be included in the list. - Question raised by the IPC: if we have types, is there something distinctive about the way each type will be handled? - Donna Austin: It’s critical to understand: What's the consequence of defining categories? How do we move forward if we define categories? A brand has not been defined in terms of policy. Is this something the group needs to address, regarding whether Specification 13 still holds? We already have 1500 applicants that have gone through an initial process. What disparities are we creating by introducing categories at this point? How much of the conversation from the 2012 round do we reopen again? This is a complicated issue, and we need to understand the consequences and determine a path forward. - Jeff Neuman: It is complicated, but if we all accept the fact that there are categories, we can develop a checklist to use as we go through the different issues to identify where there are differences that we need to consider and what the consequences will be. There are categories and they are not going away. 1500 applications in the first round shouldn't dissuade us from making a change going forward. (Kavouss agreed) - Donna Austin: What is the benefit? Challenge: how do we define categories? Maybe is useful to review previous discussions on categories and see what information is still relevant. Do we need to have the category discussion before we have a substantive discussion about registry agreements in sub team 3? - Martin Sutton: With the process and agreement modeled around traditional open registry, selling domains, this causes barriers to new entrants. It also causes extreme issues in the post-application process for those that have ventured forth. - Avri Doria: In 2012, a list of possible categories came up, but we waited to see what emerged in practice. She sees at least four that we have to deal with (standard, community, geographical, brand). The closed generic ended up emerging as an issue-based category. Sensitive strings and highly regulated emerged in the context of PICs. Closed generics also emerged. As we walk through the issues, we should walk through the impact around those possible categories, without making a final determination on categories. If they didn't emerge in the last round, we shouldn't create them. Jeff Neuman: There was an IGO category as well Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, it applied to both governmental and intergovernmental organizations. As long as it's governmental, they would have a different contract. Jeff Neuman: right....so in the last round we had generic, geographic, brand, community, governmental Rubens Kuhl: What had an specific IGO angle were LROs (Legal Right Objections), where IGOs got automatic eligibility for filing a objection when though not having a trademark Rubens Kuhl: And the governmental could be generic, geographic, brand or exclusive use... it's a matrix. - Jeff Neuman: There was GAC advice sensitive strings. Certain applicants had to accept PICs. No policy process has looked at whether that was the appropriate way to address the issue, and whether this is an appropriate category. We owe it to the GAC and the Board to weigh in on this issue. - Jorge Cancio: Perhaps we should look at the different elements a category may mean: 1) a specific purpose; 2) a set of specific requirements for the applicant; 3) specific procedures to go through; 4) specific conditions in the registry agreement; etc. - Tom Dale: ALAC had asked the Board to examine the PICs. The Board responded that this PDP group is considering the PICs along with the CCT-RT. This would be a logical part of our work. - Avri Doria: There is a segment of the community that is unhappy with the PICs and feel that PICs were forced on people. Another question to address: to what extent are PICs enforceable? There is a whole set of issues that need to be discussed under PICs. This is somewhat separate from the discussion of categories itself. - Jeff Neuman: PICs will be addressed in WT 2 and 3: WT 2 will address the topic from the agreement and enforcement perspective, WT 3 from a dispute resolution perspective. It’s for us to consider whether there is this extra category of sensitive strings, and if so, how and where is this category treated differently. - Tom Dale: Just to add on PICs, it would be useful to check what the CCT Review Team has looked at in terms of consumer protection/safeguards. - Donna Austin: If we determine if the PICs are unenforceable, what is the consequence for registries that already have PICs from the last round. - Jeff Neuman: I think the question is not whether PICs are enforceable but who can enforce and how. Obviously, ICANN can enforce, but are third party actions appropriate. Another question is about time-based PICs. - Avri Doria: Yes, it is about how PICs are enforced, and also if a PIC is content related, how does that work? PICs never went through a policy process. It will go through one here. There are many issues, especially in the context of the new bylaws. - Kavouss Arasteh: Suggested moving the discussion forward because time is limited. - Avri Doria: Avri is not worried about spending extra time on this issue because it is important to address. Seven possible categories emerged during the 2012 round that we definitely need to look at more closely: standard, community, geographical, brand, closed generic, sensitive strings, highly regulated. Do we have more than 7 possible categories going forward in our discussions? Not sure about validated, IGO, and non-profit as special types. These did not emerge in the last round but that we included in CC1 questions. Do we work with 7 or 10? - Jorge Cancio: I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input. - Donna Austin: 7 it's a smaller number - Jorge Cancio: I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input - Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, that depends if such classification gets any kind of priority, like community TLDs. If it doesn't translate into different agreement or different contention set resolution, that it's definitely not to be looked at. - Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references? - Kristina Rosette: If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references? - Donna Austin: @Kristina, defining each category will be the challenge. - Kristina Rosette: @Donna: That's my point. But I don't see the value in using each category as a framework if we can't define them in a way that is clear, certain, and predictable - Avri Doria: There appears to be agreement to start with a list of 10. Section 2d: - Avri Doria: All three responses feed into the matrix approach, listing categories, issues distinct to those categories. - Kristina Rosette: Concern about where we are going and how long and it will take there if we discuss categories before defining them. We seem to be moving forward with discussing broadly defined categories. Need to define what they are and what they are not. - Avri Doria: This seems reasonable. - Karen Day: Wouldn't step 1 of the matrix by necessity be the definition? - Berry Cobb: Meta-tags may be a better way to consider possible strings rather than just looking at categories. Using the word categories is a difficult place to start, because strings may belong to more than one type. - Kavouss Arasteh: The use of or reference to category seems fundamental. - Jorge Cancio: some "categories" may indeed add up: a string could be a generic term, that describes a highly regulated industry and be presented as a community string. - Rubens Kuhl: A TLD can be governmental, geographic and community, like .barcelona. Or non-governmental, geographic and community like .osaka, or governmental and geographic but not community like .rio. - Avri Doria: We need to come some with some definitions, we have 10 categories/meta-tags, we have a column for aspects of application process, then we can come back to this in a more structured way. [Action Item: Staff will do an initial draft the groupings in the matrix and begin defining groups (Steve Chan)] Section 2e: - Avri Doria: There are a range of responses on this topic, ranging from all applications going through at the same time to allowing certain types of applications to go first. - Jeff Neuman: This has been discussed in other fora regarding the brand only round. There are arguments on both sides (pro/con) that should be aired in this group. - Avri Doria: There have also been proposals for rounds/windows only for developing economies or only IDNs. - Jorge Cancio: As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated. - Donna Austin: This is another place where category definitions are needed before we can move forward with substantive discussion. Concern with moving forward with a specific category round: there might me a sense that some of the demand had been alleviated and therefore no hurry for additional procedures. If there was a targeted round, there would need to be a commitment that the rest would follow shortly thereafter. - Avri Doria: There is also a concern that if there is a targeted round, will everyone try to squeeze their application into the type in this round? This feeds into the question from the Board. Agrees that it makes sense to revisit after we have done further work defining the categories. - Jorge Cancio: As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated. - Vanda: from mround y study from lac region with mostly brands interested in next round i do believe it will be positive a separate. - Rubens Kuhl: Most strings can have multiple meanings like brand and generic. Apple is both a fruit and a computer company... any limitated application on one type excludes the other types. - Martin Sutton: Given the unpredictable length of time before new applications may be opened, it could be an opportunity for ICANN to consider maintaining some momentum by looking at low-risk options, by opening up applications to those with less contention experienced in 2012 round, such as brands. It would be important to have a well-defined category. 6. Work Track Coordination - WT leads are coordinating on issues of overlap between the sub teams - The group should try to coordinate CC2 questions into a single request for input, so that four sets of questions don’t go out separately. [Action Item: Staff will send poll regarding this group’s attendance (in-person and remote) for Hyderbad] From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 4 October 2016 at 03:36 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 03 October 2016 Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-03oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-03oct16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions 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/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_we4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 03 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter: Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/_we4Aw Michelle DeSmyter: Member page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ogp1Aw Carlos Raul Gutierrez: please mute the mics Jeff Neuman: we will kick off in a few minutes Carlos Raul Gutierrez: CLO: the new Room has not recognized you VIP status yet........ Carlos Raul Gutierrez: :) Carlos Raul Gutierrez: yes Carlos Raul Gutierrez: echo is clear and loud Jeff Neuman: I am waiting for an operator at the moment Michelle DeSmyter: thanks Jeff - I just gave them the heads up also Karen Day: terrible echo on staff Phil Buckingham: +++++1 Kavouss and all other CCWG participants jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): we are wildly in agreement :-) Steve Coates: I have an updated SOI - https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stephen+Jadie+Coates+SOI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes doing work tht wuld be good kavouss arasteh: Secretariat, kavouss arasteh: Pls correct I did refer to CWG AND NOT CCWG avri: Yes CCWG goes on and one Sara Bockey: CCT avri: ... and on Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): So true Avri :-) Mary Wong: 13 October Mary Wong: (next Council meeting) Mary Wong: @Jeff, that is corrrect. Philip Corwin: That is correct, Jeff. Council established a small subgroup of which I am one member. Steve Chan: @ Carlos, full dosclosure: Emily prepared it. Philip Corwin: As is Carlos Steve Chan: https://community.icann.org/x/owu4Aw Donna Austin: I think its just a compilation Mary Wong: Synthesize, is the word used during the Council meeting. Steve Chan: You can find all responses that the GNSO Council received, plus the draft staff/compilation summary. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: exactly Rubens Kuhl: Draft is the operative word here... Carlos Raul Gutierrez: I recommend looking at staffs compilation Carlos Raul Gutierrez: o comments Philip Corwin: We shall try to synthesize some widely divergent views, but it shall be a challenge. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: including the ones by this PDPs leaderhsip Carlos Raul Gutierrez: @Phil just emphasize divergence Emily Barabas: Avri -- we finished 2a in the previous call, so we still need to cover 2b today Jeff Neuman: Together makes sense Donna Austin: I think that's critical to understand. What's the consequence of defining categories. Jeff Neuman: There was an IGO category as well Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, it applied to both governmental and intergovernmental organizations. As long as it's governmental, they would have a different contract. Jeff Neuman: right....so in the last round we had generic, geographic, brand, community, governmental Rubens Kuhl: What had an specific IGO angle were LROs (Legal Right Objections), where IGOs got automatic eligibility for filing a objection when though not having a trademark Rubens Kuhl: And the governmental could be generic, geographic, brand or exclusive use... it's a matrix. Rubens Kuhl: (even though not having a TM) kavouss arasteh: Jeff+1 jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I'm losing time and again my connection jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): But just to recall the GAC input where the usefulness of categories was stressed kavouss arasteh: Jorge1+1 Martin Sutton: With the process and agreement modeled around traditional open registry, selling domains, this causes barriers to new entrants. It also causes extreme issues in the post-application process for those that have ventured forth. Rubens Kuhl: Categories and multiple agreements are indeed connected. Jeff Neuman: Its also connected to application criteria jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): perhaps we should look at the different elements a category may mean: 1) a specific purpose; 2) a set of specific requirements for the applicant; 3) specific procedures to go through; 4) specific conditions in the registry agreement; etc. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Jeff Neuman: And connected to objections, etc. Jeff Neuman: That is why it is an overarching issue :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Donna Austin: geographic had a specific definitiation in the guidebook Jeff Neuman: @Donna - that definition came after it was decided to create that category jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @staff: my audio is so bad that I cannot intervene, but please take up my points in the notes - thanks! Jeff Neuman: which is sort of what we are doing now. Should we formally recognize other categories Rubens Kuhl: One curious thing is that Geographic contracts have not carried the part of terms and conditions where ICANN was allowed to redelegate the contract due to opposition from the government that authorized it at application time. Rubens Kuhl: So it's yet to be seen what happens in a Geo TLD redelegation. Phil Buckingham: dont think we should categorise for profit and not for profit . this distinction should be dealt thro/ in the financial model / evaluation /application / capability tests and fee charged Martin Sutton: The latest round experiences should be used to improve the process and encourage competition. Lessons learnt would indicate that ignoring some of the complex issues could continue to create more protracted problems post application. Steve Chan: @Jorge, we will make sure your comment is raised jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @Steve: thanks! vanda: makes sense Avri. Rubens Kuhl: Or even if those PICs actually address GAC advice or not... Donna Austin: @Rubens, and what if they don't? Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, we either decide that GAC Policy Advice is not to be accepted, and maintain status quo, or decide to accept that advice, and make the changes required to actually fulfil that advice. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Tom e need ot address Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): to address Rubens Kuhl: PICs were forced down people's throats. Phil Buckingham: @ Tom PICs currently in WT2 Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): @Phil Indeed, thanks. kavouss arasteh: We certauinly need to maintain the notion of category but not having an extended list of categories kavouss arasteh: Ingac terms, we have highly sensitive and sensitive strings which we need to maintain the bnotion of category Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense to me Avri Rubens Kuhl: Category, type, group, class... pick a word on move on. Donna Austin: Isn't that the PIC DDDRP? Rubens Kuhl: There is the PIC DRP and there is the PDDRP. Rubens Kuhl: PDDRP is oriented towards TM RPMs, PIC DRP is generic of PICs. Jeff Neuman: @Avri - Should get Becky Burr's view of PICs in relation to the Bylaws as she definately addressed them Donna Austin: and the PIC DRP is being discussed by the RPM WG isn't it> Susan Payne: hi donna, no, RPMs are dealing with PDDRP but not PICDRP Donna Austin: thanks Susan Steve Chan: @Donna, this WG will also cover RRDRP Donna Austin: the validation is more a business model decision rather than a category, or is it? Jeff Neuman: @Donna - perhaps Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Business model decision, in our view. Jeff Neuman: BUT, we could discuss whether they should have preference over non-validated in contention Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): Just to add on PICs, it would be useful to check what the CCT Review Team has looked at in terms of consumer protection/safeguards. Phil Buckingham: + 1 Donna + Kristina Jeff Neuman: Sort of like community Gg Levine (NABP): Any thoughts on what if an applicant fits into more than one category? Donna Austin: 7 it's a smaller number jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, that depends if such classification gets any kind of priority, like community TLDs. If it doesn't translate into different agreement or different contention set resolution, that it's definitely not to be looked at. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references? Donna Austin: @ Rubens and its a highly regulated string Philip Corwin: Confirming that RPM WG is only looking at PDDRP, not PICDRD Donna Austin: @Kristina, defining the each category will be the challenge jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): and defining what the effect of being categorized... Karen Day: Agree start to look at 10 Christa Taylor: 10 and moving downwards makes the most sense Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): May as well Martin Sutton: Agree start with 10 then remove if necessary Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @ Donna: That's my point. But I don't see the value in using each category as a framework if we can't define them in a way that is clear, certain, and predictable Rubens Kuhl: HIghly regulated gets different agreement, like what happened in 2012 having different PICs than other TLDs... possibly. Kevin Kreuser: agree w/ Kristina Donna Austin: I agree with you Kristina. Berry Cobb: The group may wish to consider assigning "meta-tags" to strings as opposed to calling them categories. As Kristina points out it may be difficult to properly defined a category and even more difficult to assing a string to one category especially since it could be assigned to more than one. For example a generic string might also be a sensitive string or perhaps a closed TLD. This aligns with the frameworking of building a matrix. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Berry Karen Day: Wouldn't step 1 of the Matrix by neccesity be the definition? Rubens Kuhl: Berry, attributes would be a word for it, perhaps ? Rubens Kuhl: Non-mutually exclusive comes to mind in such definitions. Phil Buckingham: so the questions asked on application are by each TLDs "attributes " ? kavouss arasteh: The use of or reference to category seems fundamental jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): some "categories" may indeed add up: a string could be a generic term, that describes a highly regulated industry and be presented as a community string... Rubens Kuhl: A TLD can be governmental, geographic and community, like .barcelona. Or non-governmental, geographic and community like .osaka, or governmental and geographic but not community like .rio. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Like the "tags" idea. Makes the new gTLD searchable jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): right - there may be multiple combinations... Carlos Raul Gutierrez: multiple tags jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): yes vanda: yes clear kavouss arasteh: Jorge, yes to what ? to multiple tag? kavouss arasteh: yes, tks jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated... vanda: from mround y study from lac region with mostly brands interested in next round i do believe it will be positive a separate Rubens Kuhl: Most strings can have multiple meanings like brand and generic. Apple is both a fruit and a computer company... any limitated application on one type excludes the other types. Martin Sutton: Given the unpredictable length of time before new applications may be opened, it could be an opportunity for ICANN to consider maintaining some momentum by looking at low-risk options, by opening up applications to those with less contention experienced in 2012 round, such as brands. Martin Sutton: It would be important to have a well-defined category. Donna Austin: sorry Avri, we seem to have some time delay Donna Austin: @Martin, brands needs to be defined Rubens Kuhl: To quote an example of the type of gaming that can occur, the dubious trademarks registered for the .eu sunrise is still a good example. Susan Payne: Will the WTs also have sessions? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Staff: Does this morning's announcement about the damaged equipment affect the abilty of folks to participate remotely (not in hubs)? Phil Buckingham: Isnt there a problem with RP ? Fire on ship Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): thank you. Rubens Kuhl: @Kristina: more of a guess, but it looks to affect more the Public Forum type of activity. Mary Wong: From what we hear, it seems tht remote participation via Adobe Connect should not be affected. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks Everyone...bye for now Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Thanks! Christa Taylor: Thank-you! Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Thank you everyone. Susan Payne: bye Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): talk soon jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): thanks to all and bye! Alexander Schubert: bye Phil Buckingham: Thanks Avri , Jeff

1 0

Call for RSVPs: GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | 10 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | October 10 2016 | 20:00 UTC Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> this form<https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> by 7 October 2016. Are you a new GNSO Working Group Member? Do you have questions you never asked about Adobe Connect or other participation tools that are used to facilitate Working Group deliberations? The upcoming Communication Tools Classroom is the place to look for answers to these and any other questions you may have in relation to Working Group tools. Please join the SO/AC Support team on October 10, 2016 at 20:00 UTC for the Communication Tools Classroom. In an informal setting, new Working Group members will be familiarized with the communication tools they will be using when taking part in GNSO Working Groups. Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Introduction to the SO/AC Support team & Policy Support Staff 3. Where to find relevant information: a. GNSO Master Calendar b. Individual Working Group Wiki pages. 4. Working Group Mailing lists: a. Difference between statuses (Observer/ Member) 5. Working Group Members a. Statements of Interests b. Email invitations c. Calendar invitations 6. Adobe Connect room 7. Questions This session will be recorded and the recordings will be made available on the GNSO Calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>. We look forward to your participation! Please RSVP via this form<https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> by 7 October 2016.

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 03 October 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-03oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-03oct16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions 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/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_we4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 03 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter: Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/_we4Aw Michelle DeSmyter: Member page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ogp1Aw Carlos Raul Gutierrez: please mute the mics Jeff Neuman: we will kick off in a few minutes Carlos Raul Gutierrez: CLO: the new Room has not recognized you VIP status yet........ Carlos Raul Gutierrez: :) Carlos Raul Gutierrez: yes Carlos Raul Gutierrez: echo is clear and loud Jeff Neuman: I am waiting for an operator at the moment Michelle DeSmyter: thanks Jeff - I just gave them the heads up also Karen Day: terrible echo on staff Phil Buckingham: +++++1 Kavouss and all other CCWG participants jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): we are wildly in agreement :-) Steve Coates: I have an updated SOI - https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stephen+Jadie+Coates+SOI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes doing work tht wuld be good kavouss arasteh: Secretariat, kavouss arasteh: Pls correct I did refer to CWG AND NOT CCWG avri: Yes CCWG goes on and one Sara Bockey: CCT avri: ... and on Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): So true Avri :-) Mary Wong: 13 October Mary Wong: (next Council meeting) Mary Wong: @Jeff, that is corrrect. Philip Corwin: That is correct, Jeff. Council established a small subgroup of which I am one member. Steve Chan: @ Carlos, full dosclosure: Emily prepared it. Philip Corwin: As is Carlos Steve Chan: https://community.icann.org/x/owu4Aw Donna Austin: I think its just a compilation Mary Wong: Synthesize, is the word used during the Council meeting. Steve Chan: You can find all responses that the GNSO Council received, plus the draft staff/compilation summary. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: exactly Rubens Kuhl: Draft is the operative word here... Carlos Raul Gutierrez: I recommend looking at staffs compilation Carlos Raul Gutierrez: o comments Philip Corwin: We shall try to synthesize some widely divergent views, but it shall be a challenge. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: including the ones by this PDPs leaderhsip Carlos Raul Gutierrez: @Phil just emphasize divergence Emily Barabas: Avri -- we finished 2a in the previous call, so we still need to cover 2b today Jeff Neuman: Together makes sense Donna Austin: I think that's critical to understand. What's the consequence of defining categories. Jeff Neuman: There was an IGO category as well Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, it applied to both governmental and intergovernmental organizations. As long as it's governmental, they would have a different contract. Jeff Neuman: right....so in the last round we had generic, geographic, brand, community, governmental Rubens Kuhl: What had an specific IGO angle were LROs (Legal Right Objections), where IGOs got automatic eligibility for filing a objection when though not having a trademark Rubens Kuhl: And the governmental could be generic, geographic, brand or exclusive use... it's a matrix. Rubens Kuhl: (even though not having a TM) kavouss arasteh: Jeff+1 jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I'm losing time and again my connection jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): But just to recall the GAC input where the usefulness of categories was stressed kavouss arasteh: Jorge1+1 Martin Sutton: With the process and agreement modeled around traditional open registry, selling domains, this causes barriers to new entrants. It also causes extreme issues in the post-application process for those that have ventured forth. Rubens Kuhl: Categories and multiple agreements are indeed connected. Jeff Neuman: Its also connected to application criteria jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): perhaps we should look at the different elements a category may mean: 1) a specific purpose; 2) a set of specific requirements for the applicant; 3) specific procedures to go through; 4) specific conditions in the registry agreement; etc. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Jeff Neuman: And connected to objections, etc. Jeff Neuman: That is why it is an overarching issue :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Donna Austin: geographic had a specific definitiation in the guidebook Jeff Neuman: @Donna - that definition came after it was decided to create that category jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @staff: my audio is so bad that I cannot intervene, but please take up my points in the notes - thanks! Jeff Neuman: which is sort of what we are doing now. Should we formally recognize other categories Rubens Kuhl: One curious thing is that Geographic contracts have not carried the part of terms and conditions where ICANN was allowed to redelegate the contract due to opposition from the government that authorized it at application time. Rubens Kuhl: So it's yet to be seen what happens in a Geo TLD redelegation. Phil Buckingham: dont think we should categorise for profit and not for profit . this distinction should be dealt thro/ in the financial model / evaluation /application / capability tests and fee charged Martin Sutton: The latest round experiences should be used to improve the process and encourage competition. Lessons learnt would indicate that ignoring some of the complex issues could continue to create more protracted problems post application. Steve Chan: @Jorge, we will make sure your comment is raised jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @Steve: thanks! vanda: makes sense Avri. Rubens Kuhl: Or even if those PICs actually address GAC advice or not... Donna Austin: @Rubens, and what if they don't? Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, we either decide that GAC Policy Advice is not to be accepted, and maintain status quo, or decide to accept that advice, and make the changes required to actually fulfil that advice. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Tom e need ot address Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): to address Rubens Kuhl: PICs were forced down people's throats. Phil Buckingham: @ Tom PICs currently in WT2 Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): @Phil Indeed, thanks. kavouss arasteh: We certauinly need to maintain the notion of category but not having an extended list of categories kavouss arasteh: Ingac terms, we have highly sensitive and sensitive strings which we need to maintain the bnotion of category Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense to me Avri Rubens Kuhl: Category, type, group, class... pick a word on move on. Donna Austin: Isn't that the PIC DDDRP? Rubens Kuhl: There is the PIC DRP and there is the PDDRP. Rubens Kuhl: PDDRP is oriented towards TM RPMs, PIC DRP is generic of PICs. Jeff Neuman: @Avri - Should get Becky Burr's view of PICs in relation to the Bylaws as she definately addressed them Donna Austin: and the PIC DRP is being discussed by the RPM WG isn't it> Susan Payne: hi donna, no, RPMs are dealing with PDDRP but not PICDRP Donna Austin: thanks Susan Steve Chan: @Donna, this WG will also cover RRDRP Donna Austin: the validation is more a business model decision rather than a category, or is it? Jeff Neuman: @Donna - perhaps Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Business model decision, in our view. Jeff Neuman: BUT, we could discuss whether they should have preference over non-validated in contention Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): Just to add on PICs, it would be useful to check what the CCT Review Team has looked at in terms of consumer protection/safeguards. Phil Buckingham: + 1 Donna + Kristina Jeff Neuman: Sort of like community Gg Levine (NABP): Any thoughts on what if an applicant fits into more than one category? Donna Austin: 7 it's a smaller number jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, that depends if such classification gets any kind of priority, like community TLDs. If it doesn't translate into different agreement or different contention set resolution, that it's definitely not to be looked at. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references? Donna Austin: @ Rubens and its a highly regulated string Philip Corwin: Confirming that RPM WG is only looking at PDDRP, not PICDRD Donna Austin: @Kristina, defining the each category will be the challenge jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): and defining what the effect of being categorized... Karen Day: Agree start to look at 10 Christa Taylor: 10 and moving downwards makes the most sense Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): May as well Martin Sutton: Agree start with 10 then remove if necessary Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @ Donna: That's my point. But I don't see the value in using each category as a framework if we can't define them in a way that is clear, certain, and predictable Rubens Kuhl: HIghly regulated gets different agreement, like what happened in 2012 having different PICs than other TLDs... possibly. Kevin Kreuser: agree w/ Kristina Donna Austin: I agree with you Kristina. Berry Cobb: The group may wish to consider assigning "meta-tags" to strings as opposed to calling them categories. As Kristina points out it may be difficult to properly defined a category and even more difficult to assing a string to one category especially since it could be assigned to more than one. For example a generic string might also be a sensitive string or perhaps a closed TLD. This aligns with the frameworking of building a matrix. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Berry Karen Day: Wouldn't step 1 of the Matrix by neccesity be the definition? Rubens Kuhl: Berry, attributes would be a word for it, perhaps ? Rubens Kuhl: Non-mutually exclusive comes to mind in such definitions. Phil Buckingham: so the questions asked on application are by each TLDs "attributes " ? kavouss arasteh: The use of or reference to category seems fundamental jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): some "categories" may indeed add up: a string could be a generic term, that describes a highly regulated industry and be presented as a community string... Rubens Kuhl: A TLD can be governmental, geographic and community, like .barcelona. Or non-governmental, geographic and community like .osaka, or governmental and geographic but not community like .rio. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Like the "tags" idea. Makes the new gTLD searchable jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): right - there may be multiple combinations... Carlos Raul Gutierrez: multiple tags jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): yes vanda: yes clear kavouss arasteh: Jorge, yes to what ? to multiple tag? kavouss arasteh: yes, tks jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated... vanda: from mround y study from lac region with mostly brands interested in next round i do believe it will be positive a separate Rubens Kuhl: Most strings can have multiple meanings like brand and generic. Apple is both a fruit and a computer company... any limitated application on one type excludes the other types. Martin Sutton: Given the unpredictable length of time before new applications may be opened, it could be an opportunity for ICANN to consider maintaining some momentum by looking at low-risk options, by opening up applications to those with less contention experienced in 2012 round, such as brands. Martin Sutton: It would be important to have a well-defined category. Donna Austin: sorry Avri, we seem to have some time delay Donna Austin: @Martin, brands needs to be defined Rubens Kuhl: To quote an example of the type of gaming that can occur, the dubious trademarks registered for the .eu sunrise is still a good example. Susan Payne: Will the WTs also have sessions? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Staff: Does this morning's announcement about the damaged equipment affect the abilty of folks to participate remotely (not in hubs)? Phil Buckingham: Isnt there a problem with RP ? Fire on ship Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): thank you. Rubens Kuhl: @Kristina: more of a guess, but it looks to affect more the Public Forum type of activity. Mary Wong: From what we hear, it seems tht remote participation via Adobe Connect should not be affected. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks Everyone...bye for now Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Thanks! Christa Taylor: Thank-you! Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Thank you everyone. Susan Payne: bye Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): talk soon jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): thanks to all and bye! Alexander Schubert: bye Phil Buckingham: Thanks Avri , Jeff

1 0

Apologies,
by Greg Shatan Oct. 3, 2016

Oct. 3, 2016

All, Due to Rosh Hashanah observance, I will not be participating in today's call. Greg Shatan

1 0