November 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG - 28 November 2016
by Emily Barabas Nov. 29, 2016

Nov. 29, 2016

Dear Working Group Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 28 November. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording and transcript. See the recording and transcript at: https://community.icann.org/x/EJPDAw. Kind regards, Emily ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. ICANN57 – Summary of outcomes and next steps 4. Work Track updates 5. CC1 Review, cont. (please see attached as XLS and PDF; iterative versions always captured here - https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw) Note, we will start discussion at 3.b. 6. AOB Notes and Action Items: 2. SOIs: no updates. 3. ICANN57 – Summary of outcomes and next steps - WG meeting took place on day 1 - leadership from each WT presented questions for public input - staff circulated notes from the meeting, and a transcript is also available (transcript: http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/fa/Transcript%20New%20gTLD%20Sub%20…) - WT leads took notes on public input, which will feed into sub team discussions during upcoming calls 4. Work Track Updates WT1 - Good conversation in Hyderabad on the accreditation program - There was also good conversation APAC regarding the applicant support program. - Avri and Jeff updated the GAC on progress made in this PDP -- encouraged more GAC members to get involved. - Alice Munyua from the GAC provided input on the issue of applicant support and has joined the Working Group. She will hopefully provide additional input for Sub Team 1. - Question: how many GAC members are in these WG meetings? - Staff response: As of 22 November, there were 4 self-identified GAC members who are Members of this WG, not including the GAC Secretariat or individuals who are GAC members/representatives but did not put down a GAC affiliation. There are also several GAC members who signed up as Observers to this WG. - It may be useful to have moderated sessions between this working group and the GAC on specific topics, for example on the topics of geographic names and applicant support. Absent good representation from the GAC, how can we ensure that we have enough GAC engagement that we don't end up with recommendations that are inconsistent with GAC advice. - The PDP and GAC could have an intersessional meeting in 2017 to accomplish this (not necessarily in-person). - Suggestion: engage with Alice Munyua and Olga Cavalli from the GAC who are active on issues related to this WG, as well as other topic leads. [Action Item: Identify topic leads in the GAC who are interested in PDP issues.] - GSNO liaison to the GAC (Carlos) can be helpful with coordinating - Discussion with co-chairs and GAC in Hyderabad was useful. It would be helpful to include all working group members and all GAC members in an open discussion and have topic leads on hand to provide input. It is useful to go back to the transcripts from Hyderabad to see who the topic leads and what issues are important to them. WT2 -Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names had a session at ICANN57. One item they discussed is whether to finish their Interim Report and then refer the issues to the PDP WG. - If this issue is referred to the PDP WG, the WG could set up a separate WT and have rapporteurs from the GSNO, ccNSO, and GAC to make sure that everyone feels represented and comfortable participating. - It is important to have input from ALAC, GAC, and ccNSO to make sure that all perspectives are taken into account - Suggestion: send communication to Thomas Schneider and ask for point of contact for each issue that might be of interest to the GAC (geo names, applicant support, etc) to make sure that they are able to provide input - It may be useful to go back and look at the perspective of the ccNSO and the GAC regarding geographic names from the last round - GAC is developing a draft proposal for Copenhagen regarding geographic names that are not provided protection in the Applicant Guidebook. - Three questions asked in Hyderabad with respect to WT2: single base registry agreement - most are in favor of constructing something that would allow for various categories, but but additional feedback is required on whether there should be a single base registry agreement with different specifications or if there should be multiple registry agreements. - Continuing operations instrument - The EBERO is still viewed as necessary, but the COI model is causing a lot of pain, so we need to seek alternatives - Reserved names list - we need to go back, organize ourselves, and look at the policy itself. Discussion will continue WT4 - Focusing currently on the review and the timeline, as well as low hanging fruit such as work on Universal Acceptance. - Co-chairs will be looking at discussions from Hyderabad of the steering group on universal acceptance. 5. CC1 Review, cont. - Process is taking a long time. We hoped to get through the review by the end of the year. Leadership discussed meeting every week instead of every other week to get through review of CC1. - The next full group meeting is scheduled for Monday, 5 Dec at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes to focus on CC1 only. - Some of the sub groups need these issues to be closer to resolution in order to address topics in their own tracks. 3b. - when I hear arguments like this saying that one form of releasing gTLDs might be advantageous to certain types of gTLDs, I’m prompted to say, we don't necessarily have to have a one size fits all. That if indeed the rolling rounds would be particularly applicable to brands, but not necessarily to others for a number of reasons, then that’s something we can end up recommending. the rules don't need to be consistent across all categories. 3c. - Clarification on the IPC comments: the term open filing means that the application should be public record when filed, visible from day 1. - It seems that people really don't see a large difference between equal treatment as long as we can achieve that consistent performance of the evaluators over time, which may in itself be a challenge. 3d. - continuous process doesn't have to be a first come, first serve process. There could be an application window, followed by a pause, before the process proceeds. - Objections and comments should also be possible in principle. - Advantages and disadvantages of first come first serve should be further fleshed out before we come to a conclusion. - Council of Europe report advocates for applications in staggered batches, expression of interest period. And then there would be some period of time where others could object or also submit applications for those names and then it goes through a process of how to decide between if there’s contention. This paper was informally submitted to us, so we need to discuss it as part of this topic. - The objections could come prior to the application or after the application. There are different mitigation strategies. - Question: is this still an open issue? - Yes, the issue of rounds is still under discussion. Nothing has been decided at this point. - One issue with first-come first serve: rules are needed for managing warehousing and those who submit frequent multiple applications. - From the chat: Vanda: based on our survey in this region, where majority would like to apply, a constant open opportunity to apply makes more sens for this region Alexander Schubert: Can't be 100% FCFS - that would result in "gTLD-snapping" (as in domain catching in the 2nd round). Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): as these are scarce ressources and each string is unique, comments, objections and concurrent applications should be made possible 3e. From the chat: Martin Sutton: What rationale was used for the 2012 round? Was a continuous process considered? If so, is there any historic 'pros & cons' we can review? Kurt Pritz: @ Martin: Rationale for rounds: allow those not inside the ICANN circle a chance to catch up with those that are in the inner circle and could file the application on day 1; provide a tool for contention resolution; encourage applicants to carefully complete the application and not rush it out; to limit the number of applications in some way; the policy was to have a subsequent round in a year so as not to disadvantage those who did not make the first round Martin Sutton: @Kurt: thanks. So based on your first point re 'inner circle' it could be argued that there is still insufficient awareness of new gTLDs and the FCFS approach would disadvantage outsiders. The 2012 round certainly limited the proceesing and was not rushed :-). I'll ignore the last point.... 3f. - no additional comments 3g. - There seems to be no disagreement in comments. There seems to be agreement that rounds lead to pent up demand. From the chat: Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): if rounds were continuous and in predictable timeframes the potential problem would be mitigated Harold Arcos: "if rounds were continuous and in predictable timeframes,,,,," +1 3h. -common theme: rounds might or do increase pent up demand. 3i. - How does this commitment work? How is it ensured that the commitment is met, and if it is not met, what happens? - A clear commitment was seen by many in the AGB regarding timing of subsequent procedures, but there was also a commitment that the process would be reviewed before subsequent procedures move forward. - Nobody imagined that 4+ years after the opening of the last round that there would still be unresolved issues and applications still in process. Are we going to fix things perfectly or will there still be outstanding issues after the next window/round? What can we realistically do to make sure we are not in trouble next time? - It is important that commitments are implementable, including a commitment on the period. From the chat: Phil Buckingham: + 1 Alan - this wlll never be perfect - however we long we take. There are many parts that are good / reusable. Alan Greenberg: @Phil, yes, but if we have such a large number of issues in the future, we will have to rethink again. Greg Shatan: Instead of "rounds", with space in between, we could have a new round open up when the previous one closed. Perhaps that's what meant by "continuous rounds." kavouss arasteh: between roundsGrec, we need some interval 3j. - This comment from the IPC comes back to the question of what is implementable in terms of predictability AOB - Next week's meeting will be focused on CC1 only

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group on Monday, 28 November 2016 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 28, 2016

Nov. 28, 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, 28 November 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-28nov16-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/EJPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 28 November 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 28 November 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Michael Flemming:Hi Steve Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi all Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Hello from Norway, everyone! Michelle DeSmyter:Hello, welcome!! Amr Elsadr:hvordan går det, Annebeth? Your AC room mic is not muted. ;-) Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I am fine, is it ok now? Amr Elsadr:Yup. kavouss arasteh:HIAll Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Hi all Harold Arcos:Hi all from sunny Venezuela kavouss arasteh:Please kindly speak slowly and clearly separate sylabus one from another tks kavouss arasteh:speak slowly Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):About the Hyderabad Meeting, I would like to once again thank Jeff and Avri for coming to the GAC session on new gTLDs, where we had a good discussion. See the transcript under https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schd.ws_hosted-5Ffiles_… Vanda:hi sorry to be late Emily Barabas:Transcript from HYD meeting: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schd.ws_hosted-5Ffiles_… Christa Taylor:I don't have anything special to add; call will get everyone up to speed; Had some great insight Vaibhav Aggarwal:hi Guys Christa Taylor:nope Martin Sutton:Hi Jeff, I have a lot of background noise here so will type - how will the ICANN57 session(s) feed back into the working group work? Will this be up to the individual tracks or into the CC1 review (or both)? Christa Taylor:For the record it was Alice Munyua Christa Taylor:Despite trying, we didn't connect while in Hyderabad Christa Taylor:With other members re: Applicant Support Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:It will be very helpful if everyone writes their stakeholdergroup after their name Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):it's 0212 here in AU so not suprised Tom Dale is an apology :-) Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I would very much appreciate this group, through the best appropriate means, to take on the inputs made during the mentioned GAC session, which are reflected in the transcript of it Mary Wong:As of 22 November, there were 4 self-identified GAC members who are Members of this WG, not including the GAC Secretariat or individuals who are GAC members/repesentatives but did not put down a GAC affiliation. There are also several GAC members who signed up as Observers to this WG. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Good points from Donna - I feel we could build on the experiences had in Helsinki and Hyderabad and structure the meetings in an even more interactive bilateral sessions Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:And don't forget that the ccNSO has strong opinions on country & territory names as well Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):noted Jorge can the link to the transcript go the the list *indeed any of the links put here in chat), as for me at least using an android tablet no links are 'live' Mary Wong:Alice Munyua and Olga Cavalli are signed up as Observers to this WG (again, as of 22 Nov). Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed they do Annabeth :-) Emily Barabas:Kavouss, would you mind typing the names of these people you mentioned so that I can add them to the notes? Donna Austin, Neustar:Annebeth, I think on geographic names I think it will be very important to have a moderated session with all the different work efforts related to geographic names. Vanda:Emily Mary already wrote the names above Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I agree, Donna. Emily Barabas:thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agreed Donna and cearly not ust for GAC ;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):++ Avri Vanda:guess we alla gree with Avri Phil Buckingham:sorry I am late . Michael and I are looking forward to our WT2 call tonite at 20.00 UTC . Hope you can make it . Newcomers always welcome. It is on Reserved Names. at the Top Level Harold Arcos:Yes @Vanda +1 Avri kavouss arasteh:For ,IGO and NIGO,Jorgge was very active in GAC Michael Flemming:Person on top is always first Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):old hand Michael Flemming:I believe Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):+++ Annabeth that is essential Alan Greenberg:Indeed. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I agree with Jorge on the country & territory names. There are quite a lot of views available from the last round that could be useful to "re-use". Greg Shatan:Adobe Connect on tablet does not put the list of hands in chronological order. Michael Flemming:Aaah Michael Flemming:Thats the difference. Karen Day:Sorry, not sure why mic not working. Karen Day:Next WT3 meeting will be 12/6 Vaibhav Aggarwal:ha ha ha Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):eeek!! Steve Chan:The next full group meeting is scheduled for Monday, 5 Dec at 2000UTC Karen Day:did an invite go out? Steve Chan:The meeting is currently scheduled for 90 minutes - I just wanted to confirm. Harold Arcos:For next full group meeting I will send my apologies in advance, I will attend IGF in México kavouss arasteh:Do we really need 90 mints? Steve Chan:@Karen, yes it did. Please let us know if you cannot find it. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I am sorry, I have to leave. Goodbye. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Agree with Greg - objections and comments should also be possible in principle Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that makes sense to me as well Kiran Malancharuvil (IPC):You're still on Vanda:+ 1 cheryl. makes sense Vanda:based on our survey in this region, where majority would like to apply, a constant open opportunity to apply makes more sens for this region Alexander Schubert:Can't be 100% FCFS - that would result in "gTLD-snapping" (as in domain catching in the 2nd round). Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):as these are scarce ressources and each string is unique, comments, objections and concurrent applications should be made possible Alexander Schubert:And some of the portfolio applicants are EXPERTS in "domain snapping" .... Vanda:i need to leave to a meeting outside the office. sorry. see you next week. Harold Arcos:See you @Vanda, take care Martin Sutton:What rationale was used for the 2012 round? Was a continuous process considered? If so, is there any historic 'pros & cons' we can review? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):good point Martin Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):if rounds were continuous and in predictable timeframes the potential problem would be mitigated Harold Arcos:"if rounds were continuous and in predictable timeframes,,,,," +1 Kurt Pritz:@ Martin: Rationale for rounds: allow those not inside the ICANN circle a chance to catch up with those that are in the inner circle and could file the application on day 1; provide a tool for contention resolution; encourage applicants to carefully complete the application and not rush it out; to limit the number of applications in some way; the policy was to have a subsequent round in a year so as not to disadvantage those who did not make the first round Christa Taylor:yes can hear you Martin Sutton:@Kurt: thanks. So based on your first point re 'inner circle' it could be argued that there is still insufficient awareness of new gTLDs and the FCFS approach would disadvantage outsiders. The 2012 round certainly limited the proceesing and was not rushed :-). I'll ignore the last point.... Greg Shatan:Instead of "rounds", with space in between, we could have a new round open up when the previous one closed. Perhaps that's what meant by "continuous rounds." kavouss arasteh:between roundsGrec, we need some interval Phil Buckingham: + 1 Alan - this wlll never be perfect - however we long we take. There are many parts that are good / reusable. Alan Greenberg:@Phil, yes, but if we have such a large number of issues in the future, we will have to rethink again. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Good to have got through this much Avri Thx... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx everyone talk again soon Bye Katrin Ohlmer:bye, everybody. Harold Arcos:Thanks everyone Vaibhav Aggarwal:thanks team Katrin Ohlmer:and thank you all of course.

1 0

transcript of new gTLD discussion in the GAC during Hyderabad meeting
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Nov. 28, 2016

Nov. 28, 2016

Dear all As mentioned during the call. I would like to once again thank Jeff and Avri for coming to the GAC session on new gTLDs, where we had a good discussion. See the transcript under http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/f1/I57%20HYD_Sat05Nov2016-New%20gTL… Please look into it and take into account the points made by the GAC topic leads :) Best regards Jorge Cancio

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 28 November 2016
by Steve Chan Nov. 23, 2016

Nov. 23, 2016

Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 28 November 2016 at 1500 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. ICANN57 – Summary of outcomes and next steps 4. Work Track updates 5. CC1 Review, cont. (please see attached as XLS and PDF; iterative versions always captured here - https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw) Note, we will start discussion at 3.b. 6. 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

[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

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 03 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 7, 2016

Nov. 7, 2016

Dear WG Members, Please see attached the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the face-to-face meeting held at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India on 03 November. The slides from the session also are attached. 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 will posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2016-11-03+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Independent Objector Statistics
by Steve Chan Nov. 6, 2016

Nov. 6, 2016

Dear WG Members, During the WG’s face-to-face, Kristina Rosette mentioned that she had some statistics related to the objections raised by the Independent Objector, as well as the respective outcomes. I asked if she was willing to share with the full WG and she graciously agreed. As such, please find those statistics attached. Not to take away from the discussion related to the Independent Objector, but I would like to point out that there are statistics for of the objection grounds here: https://community.icann.org/x/Vz2AAw. This analysis was shared with work track 3, so some on the full WG may not have had an opportunity to see. 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/

3 2

Council of Europe study on community based applications
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

Dear all I thought this study (I mentioned yesterday at the meeting), may be of interest for our work: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?docum… best regards Jorge Cancio

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] DNS WOMEN Cocktail in Hyderabad
by Vanda Scartezini Nov. 3, 2016

Nov. 3, 2016

Sorry ladies, I sent you the draft with lots of errors.. here the correct invitation!! Thank you! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. [cid:image001.png@01D23684.DCC4E580] From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 9:58 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] DNS WOMEN Cocktail in Hyderabad Dear women participant of this group, please be invited: see the invitation [cid:image002.png@01D23684.DCC4E580] Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. [cid:image003.png@01D23684.DCC4E580]

1 0

DNS WOMEN Cocktail in Hyderabad
by Vanda Scartezini Nov. 3, 2016

Nov. 3, 2016

Dear women participant of this group, please be invited: see the invitation [cid:image001.png@01D23681.F2026510] Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. [cid:image002.png@01D23681.F2026510]

1 0