October 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

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