December 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Doodle Poll: 3:00 UTC time slot for New gTLD SubPro PDP WG
by Emily Barabas 23 Dec '16

23 Dec '16

Dear WG members, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG currently rotates between three meeting time slots: Monday at 3:00 UTC, Monday at 15:00 UTC, and Monday at 20:00 UTC. As Avri mentioned on our WG call today, some members have suggested replacing the Monday at 3:00 UTC slot (which falls on Sunday for some time zones) with a Tuesday at 3:00 UTC slot to improve attendance. Please take a moment to let us know what you think of this proposal: http://doodle.com/poll/hqepcphdsz8ifinc. Kindly respond by 5:00PM UTC on Friday 23 December. Thanks for your input! 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

3 4

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Doodle Poll: 3:00 UTC time slot for New gTLD SubPro PDP WG
by Emily Barabas 22 Dec '16

22 Dec '16

Dear Annebeth and Kavouss, Thank you both for your feedback. The leadership team added the 3:00 UTC time slot to the rotation in order to “share the pain” and support participation by members in the Asia Pacific time zones. I know that the 3:00 UTC time slot has regularly been a source of discussion on working group calls, and I expect it will continue to be a topic of discussion going forward. If the WG decides that a different schedule is better, staff is happy to make adjustments to the calendar. The challenge is that there are very few meeting times that work in all time zones, and we are attempting to avoid conflicts with other initiatives, such as WS2, that regularly meet during these times. The Co-Chairs understand that not every working group member will be able to attend every call, therefore they revisit issues on multiple calls to ensure all voices are heard. Recordings and transcripts are available, and discussion on the mailing list is encouraged. I will flag your concerns with the leadership team and look forward to continued discussion on the topic. Kind regards, Emily From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange(a)uninett.no> Date: Thursday 22 December 2016 at 11:25 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Doodle Poll: 3:00 UTC time slot for New gTLD SubPro PDP WG Hi, I agree with Kavouss. In other working groups I am a member of, we strive to have the conferences so that nobody has to stay up between midnight and 6 am. Isn´t that possible here, Emily? Kind regards, Annebeth From: Julei Hedlund on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh Date: Thursday 22 December 2016 at 10:49 To: Emily Barabas Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Doodle Poll: 3:00 UTC time slot for New gTLD SubPro PDP WG For people living in Europe 03 UTC is a very uncomfortable window preventing people to remain awake till that time or get up at 02UTC to be prepare for o3 UTC. it is UNUSSAL to select such a highly uncomfortable time to favourable time for people from NORTH AMERICA. Kavouss 2016-12-21 23:07 GMT+01:00 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>: Dear WG members, If you have not already done so, please take a moment to weigh in on SubPro WG scheduling: http://doodle.com/poll/hqepcphdsz8ifinc[doodle.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doodle.com_poll_hqepcph…>. Kindly respond by 17:00 UTC on Friday 23 December. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 19 December 2016 at 22:49 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Doodle Poll: 3:00 UTC time slot for New gTLD SubPro PDP WG Dear WG members, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG currently rotates between three meeting time slots: Monday at 3:00 UTC, Monday at 15:00 UTC, and Monday at 20:00 UTC. As Avri mentioned on our WG call today, some members have suggested replacing the Monday at 3:00 UTC slot (which falls on Sunday for some time zones) with a Tuesday at 3:00 UTC slot to improve attendance. Please take a moment to let us know what you think of this proposal: http://doodle.com/poll/hqepcphdsz8ifinc[doodle.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doodle.com_poll_hqepcph…>. Kindly respond by 17:00 UTC on Friday 23 December. Thanks for your input! Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976<tel:+31%206%2084507976> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

6 6

FW: HAPPY HOLIDAYS
by Vanda Scartezini 22 Dec '16

22 Dec '16

Dear friends, Since this year Chrsitmas and Hanukkah will light our candles at same time, may it will be a signal of hope for a more tolerant and repectful world. My best wishes for a wonderful time with all you love and hope 2017 will bring Joy, Health and Success to each one of you and your whole families. Kisses 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. From: <ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, December 19, 2016 at 5:41 PM To: "ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org" <ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Meeting Invitation for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. 12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET For other times:http://tinyurl.com/zag4y3j Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option below (also sent in the calendar invitation). Kind regards Michelle DeSmyter You're Invited. You've been invited to a GlobalMeet® phone only meeting. Have the meeting call you. Click the Connect Me link below. No need to dial-in. Connect Me <https://toolbar.conferencinghub.com/pmc/pmc.aspx?conf=It9YhUoAI2rfs1zIA%2bA…> Not at your computer? You can join by dialing one of the access numbers below. Mobile: tel://1-719-457-6209,*,,8650457825#<tel://1-719-457-6209,*,,8650457825> Phone Only Controls: https://toolbar.conferencinghub.com/pmc/pmc.aspx?conf=It9YhUoAI2rfs1zIA%2bA… Primary Access Number: 1-719-457-6209 Guest Passcode: 865 045 7825 Additional Access: USA 1-719-457-6209 Canada, Calgary +1 403 407 5793 Canada, Montreal +1 514 669 5928 Canada, Toronto +1 647 426 9172 Canada, Vancouver +1 604 222 7836 Argentina (toll free) 0800 666 2649 Argentina (toll free) 0800 800 1223 Argentina, Buenos Aires +54 (0) 11 5172 6003 Australia (toll free) 1 800 804 786 Australia, Brisbane +61 (0) 7 3015 0535 Australia, Melbourne +61 (0) 3 8687 0553 Australia, Sydney +61 (0) 2 8017 6064 Austria (toll free) 0800 8866 3413 Austria, Vienna +43 (0) 1 25302 1785 Bahrain (toll free) 800 04212 Bahrain, Manama +973 1619 8739 Belarus (toll free) 8 820 0011 0341 Belgium (toll free) 0800 39279 Belgium, Brussels +32 (0) 2 400 6928 Brazil (toll free) 0800 887 0233 Brazil, Rio de Janeiro +55 21 2730 6944 Brazil, Rio de Janeiro +55 21 4560 0072 Brazil, Sao Paulo +55 11 3351 7036 Brazil, Sao Paulo +55 11 4935 7169 Bulgaria (toll free) 00800 111 4950 Bulgaria, Sofia +359 (0) 2 491 6045 Canada (toll free) 1 855 950 3717 Chile (toll free) 171 800 835 783 Chile (toll free) 800 363 514 Chile, Santiago +56 (0) 2 2666 0696 China (national) +400 613 8103 China, Beijing +86 10 5667 0003 China, Shanghai +86 21 2039 7081 Colombia (toll free) 01 800 518 0646 Colombia (toll free) 01 800 755 0102 Colombia, Bogota +57 1 508 8137 Croatia (toll free) 0800 805 940 Cyprus (toll free) 800 97424 Czech Republic (toll free) 800 701 532 Czech Republic, Prague +420 225 986 554 Denmark (toll free) 80 70 35 86 Denmark, Copenhagen +45 32 72 78 10 Egypt (toll free) 0800 000 0593 Estonia (toll free) 800 011 1589 Estonia, Tallinn +372 622 6551 Fiji (toll free) 00800 3322 Finland (toll free) 0800 772 236 Finland, Helsinki +358 (0) 9 2310 1677 France (national) 0811 655 100 France (toll free) 0800 946 531 France, Paris +33 (0) 1 70 37 16 56 Germany (national) 01801 003 899 Germany (toll free) 0800 588 9170 Germany, Frankfurt +49 (0) 69 2222 10612 Germany, Munich +49 (0) 89 2030 31207 Greece (toll free) 00800 128 913 Greece, Athens +30 211 181 3824 Hong Kong +852 3018 9111 Hong Kong (toll free) 800 901 787 Hungary (toll free) 068 001 9673 Hungary, Budapest +36 1408 8953 Iceland (toll free) 800 9847 India (toll free) 000 800 1008 367 India, Bangalore +91 (0) 80 6127 6710 India, Chennai +91 (0)44 6688 6061 India, Delhi +91 (0) 11 6641 1394 India, Mumbai +91 (0)22 6187 5028 Indonesia (toll free) 001 803 016 2541 Indonesia (toll free) 007 803 321 8927 Ireland (national) 1890 907 630 Ireland (toll free) 1800 937 649 Ireland, Dublin +353 (0) 1 526 9421 Israel (toll free) 1809 213 168 Israel, Tel Aviv +972 (0)3 721 7943 Italy (toll free) 800 146 094 Italy, Milan +39 02 3600 8006 Italy, Rome +39 06 8750 0676 Japan (mobile) 0120 632 611 Japan (toll free) 0120 305 211 Japan, Chiba +81 (0) 43 321 6881 Japan, Fukuoka +81 (0) 92 290 6881 Japan, Hiroshima +81 (0) 82 558 6881 Japan, Nagoya +81 (0) 52 850 6881 Japan, Osaka +81 (0) 6 4560 2410 Japan, Sapporo +81 (0) 11 234 6881 Japan, Sendai +81 (0) 22 708 6881 Japan, Shizuoka +81 (0) 54 902 6881 Japan, Tachikawa +81 (0) 42 841 6881 Japan, Tokyo +81 (0) 3 4560 1270 Japan, Toyama +81 (0) 76 408 6881 Japan, Urawa +81 (0) 48 698 6881 Japan, Yokohama +81 (0) 45 677 6881 Kazakhstan (toll free) 8800 333 7554 Latvia (toll free) 8000 4418 Latvia, Riga +371 6601 3627 Lithuania (toll free) 8800 31449 Lithuania, Vilnius +370 5205 5468 Luxembourg +352 2088 1749 Luxembourg (toll free) 800 28433 Malaysia (toll free) 1 800 816 152 Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur +60 (0) 3 7724 8010 Mexico (toll free) 01 800 054 0370 Mexico (toll free) 01 800 733 4102 Mexico, Guadalajara +52 33 4162 4504 Mexico, Mexico City +52 55 4777 2658 Mexico, Mexico City +52 55 8421 0326 Mexico, Monterrey +52 81 4162 5648 Morocco (toll free) 0800 091 296 Morocco, Casablanca +212 (0) 520 48 0022 Netherlands (toll free) 0800 020 2597 Netherlands, Amsterdam +31 (0) 20 716 8345 New Zealand (toll free) 0800 452 947 New Zealand, Auckland +64 (0) 9 929 1825 New Zealand, Christchurch +64 (0) 3 974 2596 New Zealand, Wellington +64 (0) 4 909 4674 Nigeria, Lagos +234 1 277 3944 Norway (toll free) 800 56081 Norway, Oslo +47 21 00 48 15 Panama (toll free) 00 800 226 3770 Panama (toll free) 00800 223 1390 Panama, Panama City +507 8 335 913 Peru (toll free) 0800 55 092 Peru (toll free) 0800 78102 Peru, Lima +51 (0) 1 700 9571 Philippines (toll free) 1 800 111 013 99 Philippines, Manila +63 (0)2 395 3426 Poland (toll free) 00 800 121 4356 Poland, Warsaw +48 22 295 3570 Portugal (toll free) 800 784 442 Portugal, Lisbon +351 21 316 4093 Qatar (toll free) 00 800 100 491 Romania (toll free) 0800 801 035 Romania, Bucharest +40 (0) 21 529 3992 Russia (toll free) 8 800 500 9241 Russia, Moscow +7 495 646 9181 Saudi Arabia (toll free) 800 844 6641 Saudi Arabia (toll free) 800 850 0219 Singapore +65 6622 1957 Singapore (toll free) 800 616 3192 Slovakia (toll free) 0800 002 002 Slovakia, Bratislava +421 (0)2 3321 5498 Slovenia (toll free) 0800 81193 Slovenia, Ljubljana +386 1600 8695 South Africa (toll free) 0800 999 434 South Africa, Johannesburg +27 (0)11 589 8321 South Korea (toll free) 00798 6136 1454 South Korea, Seoul +82 (0) 2 6007 0079 Spain (toll free) 900 828 035 Spain, Barcelona +34 93 800 1946 Spain, Madrid +34 91 114 6653 Sweden (toll free) 0200 125 588 Sweden, Stockholm +46 (0) 8 5065 3956 Switzerland (toll free) 0800 740 360 Switzerland, Geneva +41 (0) 22 595 4795 Switzerland, Zurich +41 (0) 44 580 7207 Taiwan (toll free) 0800 666 596 Taiwan, Taipei +886 (0) 2 2650 7329 Thailand (toll free) 001 800 6136 1473 Turkey (toll free) 00800 4488 26642 Turkey, Istanbul +90 212 375 50 49 UAE (toll free) 8000 3570 2662 UK (03) +44 (0)330 336 6002 UK (national) 0844 581 8062 UK (national) 0845 351 2782 UK (toll free) 0800 358 6385 Ukraine (toll free) 0800 500 896 Uruguay (toll free) 0004 019 0152 USA /Canada (toll free) 1-866-398-2885 Venezuela (toll free) 0 800 162 7451 Vietnam (toll free) 1800 9226

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group on Monday, 19 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 19 Dec '16

19 Dec '16

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, 19 December 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-19dec16-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/a5-DAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 19 December 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group on Monday, 19 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Katrin Ohlmer:@avri: all fine! Vanda Scartezini:hy everyone!! Greg Shatan:Hello, all. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):hi all! Kavouss Arasteh:HI EVERY BODY Vanda Scartezini:hi kavouss Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Hi all Vanda Scartezini:hi Annebeth! Vanda Scartezini:thnaks Christa! Karen Day:WT3 at 20:00 12/20 Steve Coates:Apologies for being late. Alan Greenberg:Meeting tomorrow is not entire PDP group but WT3 - correct?? Emily Barabas:Correct, Alan Robin Gross:The WT3 materials to read for tomorrow's discussion on Legal Rights Objections is on the wiki https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Jeff Neuman:Some discussion started on the list, but we need to keep it coming Steve Coates:No grinches in this group. Rubens Kuhl:Exactly Avri. The mailing list message described more of such details, but that went only to WT4 members. Phil Buckingham:Re WT2 . Sorry Michael is not on the call yet, but 1 we are considering changing the time of the call in the New Year - still every other Thursday . 2 Our first call in the new year willl be on the COI / LOC issues . Any applicant with prior experiences/ problems re Round 1 on this Q50 - feedback would be much appreciated - 3 WT2 received a really excellent email from Kurt Pritz re categories / registry agreement . Your feedback / responses on this would be much appreciated Rubens Kuhl:A truism: a longer process will be less predictable than a shorter process. So if we make it shorter, it gets more predictable. Klaus Stoll:We did learning by doing the first time round and should learn valuable lessons and implement them. Maybe we should create a list of lessons learned. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes we should have less radical changes to make after process starts this time Kavouss Arasteh 2:WHICH PARAGRAPH IS NOW DISCUSSED? Vanda Scartezini:@ cheryl - hope so. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Donna Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: We are discussion the responses to Subject 4 Predictability -- 4aR1, R2, and R3. Klaus Stoll:We need a document with three columns: 1) changes made, 2. Reason why?, 3) lesson learned Kurt Pritz:I think the question for this group might be, "Is there consensus that the application / evaluation / delegation procedure should be more predictable than the last round and aspire to be predictable and consistent with the Guidebook?" Kurt Pritz:That would be a policy statement for us to make. Vanda Scartezini:@Kurt, answer shall be yes. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Alan Rubens Kuhl:Kurt, the policy statement could also include whether predictability is or is not to be achieved at the expense of speed or cost efficiency. Klaus Stoll:My audio does not connect Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):GAC Advice was (from our point of viwe, of course) something that was also due to the fact that we were engaging in the very first exercise of this kind. And some of the issues raised by the GAC after the start of the round had already been reaised before, but perhaps there had been not a full agreement on how to factor it in Kurt Pritz:@ Rubens: The policy could say that there is a pretty high bar for amending the process after launch, i.e., a risk to DNS stability or clear violation of some public interest Klaus Stoll:Sorry my audio does not connect. Robin Gross:What is ICANN required to do with the GAC advice, especially if it comes late? Rubens Kuhl:Kurt, I would like to see the same thresholds existing today in the RA... like the board can issue emergency security policies, so they could intervene in the application process in case of risk to DNS stability. But for public interest issues, there would be either (a) something community-wide as a consensus policy or (b) full voted agreement between applicants and ICANN consenst. Rubens Kuhl:(consent) Donna Austin, Neustar:@Robin - i think that's an important question - what does late mean and what's the consequence. Robin Gross:Especially when GAC was involved in the working groups that created the GNSO policy, and subsequently wants to provide possibly different advice? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Kavouss - i was using it as an example and providing views of an SG other than the GAC. Christa Taylor:Depends on the substance of the change.. Kurt Pritz:Two thoughts that are not thought through: (1) If the GAC provides advice, the Board should be required to deal with it on a timely basis, with the timing to be spelt out in the procedure. (2) Maybe post-launch comments can only be based on new information that was not available before the launch Klaus Stoll:We should not loose the lessons learned and make a list of Changes and issues,and lessons learned. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):the merit is probably The question and the Test Robin Gross:We should look at what ICANN's bylaws require for GNSO policy development. Robin Gross:And specifically the process by which the board is to resolve differences between GNSO developed policy and GAC advice. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I think it is in place to remind of the GAC Principles on new gTLDs: ICANN should avoid country, territory or place names, and country, territory or regional language or people descriptions, unless in agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities. Mathieu Weill:No, Accountability WS2 is not addressing this Donna Austin, Neustar:@Annebeth, those principles existed prior to the 2012 round and were taken into account at that time. On what basis do you propose that agreements made for the 2012 round be re-opened? Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):WS2 sub-group on transparency is looking at ICANN-government relations, but not the role of the GAC. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:What I mean, Donna, is that in 2012 round country & territory names based on ISO 3166 were taken out - for this round. If they are taken in again in the next round, these principles should be taken into account, so that a support/non-objection should be necessary to make it a gTLD Rubens Kuhl:I think the question is whether advice that amounts to the deferrence required to deal with GAC Consensus Advice can occur after date X. GAC can always issue advice, governments can issue them, I can issue advice by writing a letter to the board... Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:In my view it does not make sense that a capitol needs support/non-objection, but a country/territory should not need it. This includes 3-letter codes on the ISO-3166 list representing countries. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we should also recognise that the GAC now is, more proactivly engaged now Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Annebeth Martin Sutton:It appears all are in agreement that there was lack of predictability in the last round. Based on this, should we simply list the specific issues that have been raised, check where there has been a change since, and whether the changes have improved predictability? Where no change has occurred against a specific issue, review and consider if a change is needed. As we channel specifics through the WTs, we should also use this as a checkpoint to see if we have sufficiently improved predictability. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):the merits are again the issue yes as Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Alan said Mathieu Weill:Agree with Alan, ICANN Bylaws are clear on the importance of security, stability and public interest, predictability will never prevail over these factors Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:And public interest also includes politics Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:On the other hand, the more uncertainties we can get rid of before launching, the better. That will, in my view, give us a faster next round than last time. Steve Coates:Mute your phones, please! avri doria:Could the cougher please mute? Steve Coates:To Jeff's point, this is why launch times need to be more predictable. Christa Taylor:perhaps categories Kurt Pritz:Combining two of my earlier comments: (1) a risk to DNS stability or clear violation of some public interest; (2) a change based on information that was unknowable when the process was developed Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Kurt, particularly on 2). Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Martin Sutton:@Kurt - we could test your formula on the changes that were made during the last application phase. avri doria:all of the contentful comments seem to end up in the notes. Kavouss Arasteh 2:Cheryl, what is the meaning of yup in standard communication standar Vanda Scartezini:Agree with Kurt too Christa Taylor:+1 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):We have to be aware that the role of GAC early warning and GAC consensus advice was part of the AGB of 2012 and therefore part of the rules of the game Vanda Scartezini:we can put our green to give you a better view Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I agree with KuRT Phil Buckingham:+1 to Kurt 's comment Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Kurt: Is there a reason you didn't include security in #1 or was it presumed? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Kurt: To be clear, the "security" in "security and stability"? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):what is being asked? Kurt Pritz:@ Kristine: DNS security, stability, resiliency Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I assumed presumed Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Politics, and policy are difficult to be reduced to a formula Phil Buckingham:+ 1 CLO presumed and overriding Mathieu Weill:Would this test apply to changes introduced by staff into the process ? It is my impression that there is an area for larger improvements in predictability Donna Austin, Neustar:what question are we on Steve Chan:4.b Jeff Neuman:I went back to 4b.....sorry Philip Corwin:Regrets must I must leave now for a client call. Ciao Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I know I was late (because of another cal), but now have to jump (for another call). Happy holidays everyone! Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):+ 1 Mathieu on staff/Board changes Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:+1 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel the GAC answer on 4 b) also answers some points made before on the GAC role Donna Austin, Neustar:Who would make the deterimination on what is 'severe' avri doria:chair hat off: every running around yelling the sky is falling!! hat back on. avri doria:and the Board deciding it was so? avri doria:without the EC objecting. Donna Austin, Neustar:Some could say we experienced that in 2012 with Names Collision. avri doria:True, Donna. avri doria:exccept no EC and no coming back to the community. Vanda Scartezini:i beleive limit is not realistic at all. I am for free competition and oepen opportunity to all who wants to apply Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:But is it fair, Vanda, that those companies with a lot of money can affort to apply for many, but "newcomers" have problems doing that? Wasn't one of the reasons behind opening up that there should be fair competition? Vanda Scartezini:this time, less money had a problem to apply more for lack of timely information than really lack of money Vanda Scartezini:at least in our region Kurt Pritz:@ Annebeth: I think interfering with markets in a way to abet less financial applicants is not workable; I think your concern is best address by the Applicant Support question Rubens Kuhl:I think the competitive angle is per-string, so those who apply for many are diluting their strength (low or high) among many strings and making it actually easier for the focused applicants. .club and .cloud registries are examples of that from the 2012-round. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):The key is again to have an effective outreach, that interested stakeholders have a fair say v-a-v strings that may interest them, that community based applications work, and that the applicant support program really works Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I think this is especially important for new markets, like Africe Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Jorge Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Agree, Jorge Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Annebeth Vanda Scartezini:agree with Rubens. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Good point, Kurt Donna Austin, Neustar:Outreach and awareness raising are important principles, and in order to be timely, it's important to be working towards a date. Vanda Scartezini:Happy Holidays to you all and whole families ! Steve Coates:I always prefer a Monday night to a Sunday night. Vanda Scartezini:avri- better - good idea Sunday night normally difficult during summer time here Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... bye for now and Seasons Greetings to all... Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Happy holidays to all. Christa Taylor:Happy Holidays!!! Karen Day:Hope to see LOTS of you at WT3 tomorrow :) Rubens Kuhl:Happy Holidays! Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Avri and Jeff Vanda Scartezini:happy holidays again! Katrin Ohlmer:happy holidays, all! cu you next year! Vanda Scartezini:see you in 2017! Phil Buckingham:thanks

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 19 December
by Julie Hedlund 19 Dec '16

19 Dec '16

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 19 December. 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, 19 December 1. Work Track Brief Updates Work Track 1 – Sara Bockey and Christa Taylor: Met on 12 December. Discussed applicant support, application process and cost, and application submission period and queuing. No further meetings through the end of December. Work Track 2 -- Phil Buckingham: We are considering changing the time of the call in the New Year - still every other Thursday . 2 Our first call in the new year willl be on the COI / LOC issues . Any applicant with prior experiences/ problems re: Round 1 on this Q50 - feedback would be much appreciated - 3 WT2 received a really excellent email from Kurt Pritz re categories / registry agreement . Your feedback / responses on this would be much appreciated Work Track 3 -- Karen Day and Robin Gross: Meeting tomorrow. Ensure that WT members review the materials for tomorrow's discussion on Legal Rights Objections is on the wiki at : https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.4.3+Objections Work Track 4 -- Ruben's Kuhl: Discussions from Hyderabad. (Work Track) Consensus all ongoing on doing technical capability after the process. Also discussing financial. We have a Work Track call on 22 December, but facing competition from Christmas and Santa Claus, so any objection to canceling? [No objections were received and the call cancellation notice was send out.] 2. CC1 Review, cont. (Please see attached as XLS and PDF; iterative versions always captured here - https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw.) Actions: Come back with principles related to the responses to CC1. Discussion Notes: Subject 4: Predictability should be maintained or enhanced without sacrificing flexibility. In the event changes must be introduced into the new gTLD Application process, the disruptive effect to all parties should be minimized. 4.a. Was the round of 2012 sufficiently predictable given external factors, while balancing the need to be flexible? [Reading from the tool, responses 4aR1-3.] · There were changes introduced only after we saw what the applications were like. Will still have some corrections to make along the way. · Should have learned a lot, but there are a couple of things we can flag. GAC advice was a big factor in slowing down two thirds of the applications. · A lot of these issues will have been sorted out since we are working on them. The comment on GAC advice is interesting and we'll need to talk about it in Work Track 3 -- how to deal with GAC advice after the round has started? · We need to look at patterns of the kind of advice we got in the processes we build so that (GAC advice) doesn't come out of the blue. The advice forced us to look at how the TLDs would be used and the semantics. · To think about: Let's say in Work Track 2 we finalize the geographic names issue and then the process starts, but someone submits an application and a government (GAC or anyone else) has a problem with that? Do we have to let it go? Is there a policy against opening up issues? What should be the response from ICANN? · I don't see how in the Bylaws we can say that GAC can't give advice. · A conversation in the RySG group, such as two characters at the second level, if there is GAC advice it should be based in international law. · What is the international law? This is a good question and one that Work Track 2 will need to look at. To bring it up a level -- what factors should the ICANN community look at as to whether it merits changing a process midway through. · The GAC seems to always find a loop hole to object later. Isn't the Accountability Work Stream 2 working on the role of governments in providing advice? No, Accountability is not addressing this. · The GAC is working with us, so presumably we will try to cover these issues, but I don't think there is anything we can do if a government wants to raise an objection. · But would ICANN be justified in saying that you originally said it was okay, we can apply this to the next window? · Seems natural that in the first round that there were a lot of issues that couldn't be predicted. There had been GAC principles on new gTLDs back as far as 2007. This is a process that should be ongoing. · GAC is much more active. · Think about it in terms of SSAC bringing an objection. Based on the implications (same with the GAC) it will be a judgment call. 4.c. What are the impacts on applicants, users, and related parties from a process that lacks predictability? [Reading from the tool, responses 4cR1-3.] Asking for agreement on: Kurt Pritz: Combining two of my earlier comments: (1) a risk to DNS stability or clear violation of some public interest; (2) a change based on information that was unknowable when the process was developed. This could be a starting basis for a framework. Ask for volunteers for a drafting team, or the Chairs or staff? Get the points down. 4.b. Do the changes implemented as a result of the establishment of CCWGs and the adoption of the principles and processes from the Policy and Implementation Working Group suffice to maintain predictability of the application process while at the same time provide for the needed flexibilty to address changes of circumstances. [Reading from the tool, responses 4b.R1-3.] 4.d. Any other issues related to this overarching subject? [Reading from the tool, responses 4dR1-3.] If this group got to the point later had a consensus on how an implementation review team could work we could do that later. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: A truism: a longer process will be less predictable than a shorter process. So if we make it shorter, it gets more predictable. Klaus Stoll: We did learning by doing the first time round and should learn valuable lessons and implement them. Maybe we should create a list of lessons learned. Kurt Pritz: I think the question for this group might be, "Is there consensus that the application / evaluation / delegation procedure should be more predictable than the last round and aspire to be predictable and consistent with the Guidebook?" Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): GAC Advice was (from our point of viwe, of course) something that was also due to the fact that we were engaging in the very first exercise of this kind. And some of the issues raised by the GAC after the start of the round had already been reaised before, but perhaps there had been not a full agreement on how to factor it in. Kurt Pritz: @ Rubens: The policy could say that there is a pretty high bar for amending the process after launch, i.e., a risk to DNS stability or clear violation of some public interest Robin Gross: What is ICANN required to do with the GAC advice, especially if it comes late? Rubens Kuhl: Kurt, I would like to see the same thresholds existing today in the RA... like the board can issue emergency security policies, so they could intervene in the application process in case of risk to DNS stability. But for public interest issues, there would be either (a) something community-wide as a consensus policy or (b) full voted agreement between applicants and ICANN consenst. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Robin - i think that's an important question - what does late mean and what's the consequence. Robin Gross: Especially when GAC was involved in the working groups that created the GNSO policy, and subsequently wants to provide possibly different advice? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss - i was using it as an example and providing views of an SG other than the GAC. Christa Taylor: Depends on the substance of the change.. Kurt Pritz: Two thoughts that are not thought through: (1) If the GAC provides advice, the Board should be required to deal with it on a timely basis, with the timing to be spelt out in the procedure. (2) Maybe post-launch comments can only be based on new information that was not available before the launch Klaus Stoll: We should not lose the lessons learned and make a list of Changes and issues,and lessons learned. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): the merit is probably The question and the Test Robin Gross: We should look at what ICANN's bylaws require for GNSO policy development. And specifically the process by which the board is to resolve differences between GNSO developed policy and GAC advice. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: I think it is in place to remind of the GAC Principles on new gTLDs: ICANN should avoid country, territory or place names, and country, territory or regional language or people descriptions, unless in agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities. Mathieu Weill: No, Accountability WS2 is not addressing this Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, those principles existed prior to the 2012 round and were taken into account at that time. On what basis do you propose that agreements made for the 2012 round be re-opened? Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): WS2 sub-group on transparency is looking at ICANN-government relations, but not the role of the GAC. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: What I mean, Donna, is that in 2012 round country & territory names based on ISO 3166 were taken out - for this round. If they are taken in again in the next round, these principles should be taken into account, so that a support/non-objection should be necessary to make it a gTLD Rubens Kuhl: I think the question is whether advice that amounts to the deferrence required to deal with GAC Consensus Advice can occur after date X. GAC can always issue advice, governments can issue them, I can issue advice by writing a letter to the board... Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: In my view it does not make sense that a capitol needs support/non-objection, but a country/territory should not need it. This includes 3-letter codes on the ISO-3166 list representing countries. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we should also recognise that the GAC now is, more proactivly engaged now Donna Austin, Neustar: thanks Annebeth Martin Sutton: It appears all are in agreement that there was lack of predictability in the last round. Based on this, should we simply list the specific issues that have been raised, check where there has been a change since, and whether the changes have improved predictability? Where no change has occurred against a specific issue, review and consider if a change is needed. As we channel specifics through the WTs, we should also use this as a checkpoint to see if we have sufficiently improved predictability. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): the merits are again the issue yes as Alan said. Mathieu Weill: Agree with Alan, ICANN Bylaws are clear on the importance of security, stability and public interest, predictability will never prevail over these factors Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: And public interest also includes politics. On the other hand, the more uncertainties we can get rid of before launching, the better. That will, in my view, give us a faster next round than last time. Steve Coates: To Jeff's point, this is why launch times need to be more predictable. Christa Taylor: perhaps categories Kurt Pritz: Combining two of my earlier comments: (1) a risk to DNS stability or clear violation of some public interest; (2) a change based on information that was unknowable when the process was developed Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Kurt, particularly on 2). Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Martin Sutton: @Kurt - we could test your formula on the changes that were made during the last application phase. avri doria: all of the contentful comments seem to end up in the notes. Kavouss Arasteh 2: Cheryl, what is the meaning of yup in standard communication standard? Vanda Scartezini: Agree with Kurt too Christa Taylor: +1 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): We have to be aware that the role of GAC early warning and GAC consensus advice was part of the AGB of 2012 and therefore part of the rules of the game Vanda Scartezini: we can put our green to give you a better view Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I agree with KuRT Phil Buckingham: +1 to Kurt 's comment Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Kurt: Is there a reason you didn't include security in #1 or was it presumed? @Kurt: To be clear, the "security" in "security and stability"? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): what is being asked? Kurt Pritz: @ Kristine: DNS security, stability, resiliency Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I assumed presumed Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Politics, and policy are difficult to be reduced to a formula Phil Buckingham: + 1 CLO presumed and overriding Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): + 1 Mathieu on staff/Board changes Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: +1 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel the GAC answer on 4 b) also answers some points made before on the GAC role Mathieu Weill: Would this test apply to changes introduced by staff into the process? It is my impression that there is an area for larger improvements in predictability Subject 5: Community engagement in new gTLD application processes 5.a Are there circumstances in which the application window should be frozen while unforeseen policy issues are considered and resolved? If so, should there be a threshold or standard that must be reach before considering freezing an application window? [Reading from the tool, responses 5aR1-3.] 5.b. If the Board is faced with questions that cannot be addressed by the policy recommendations they were sent, must the Board bring the issue back to the GNSO and PDP process (e.g. the GNSO Expedited PDP or GNSO Guidance Process)? [Reading from the tool, responses 5b.R1-3.] 5.c. Should a standard be established to discriminate between issues that must be resolved during an open application window and those that can be postponed until a subsequent application window? [Reading from the tool, responses 5cR1-3.] 5d. Any other issues related to this overarching subject? [Reading from the tool, responses 5dR1-3.] >From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: Who would make the determination on what is 'severe' avri doria: and the Board deciding it was so? without the EC objecting. Donna Austin, Neustar: Some could say we experienced that in 2012 with Names Collision. avri doria: True, Donna. Except no EC and no coming back to the community. Subject 6. Limiting applications in total and/or per entity during an application window. 6a. Should a limit for the total number of applications for an application window and/or from a single entity be established? If so, what should be the limiting factor (e.g. total applicaitons, total number of strings, etc.) and why? 6b. If a limit for the total number of applications for an application window and/or from a single entity is established, how would the appropriate amount of applications be set to establish this limit? 6.c: If a limit for the total number of applications for an application window and/or from a single entity is established, what mechanism(s) could be used to enforce limit(s)? 6.d: How would a limit on the total number of applications for an application window and/or from a single entity impact fees? 6.e: Would limits to the total number of applications for an application window and/or from a single entity be considered anti-competitive? Please explain. 6.f: Do limits to the total number of applications for an application window and/or from a single entity favor “insiders? 6.g: Any other issues related to this overarching subject: [Reading from the tool, responses to each question.] Seems that people speaking and commenting in the chat are not in favor of limits, but to make sure the process is not dominated by insiders. >From the chat: Vanda Scartezini: i beleive limit is not realistic at all. I am for free competition and oepen opportunity to all who wants to apply Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: But is it fair, Vanda, that those companies with a lot of money can affort to apply for many, but "newcomers" have problems doing that? Wasn't one of the reasons behind opening up that there should be fair competition? Vanda Scartezini: this time, less money had a problem to apply more for lack of timely information than really lack of money at least in our region Kurt Pritz: @ Annebeth: I think interfering with markets in a way to abet less financial applicants is not workable; I think your concern is best address by the Applicant Support question Rubens Kuhl: I think the competitive angle is per-string, so those who apply for many are diluting their strength (low or high) among many strings and making it actually easier for the focused applicants. .club and .cloud registries are examples of that from the 2012-round. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): The key is again to have an effective outreach, that interested stakeholders have a fair say v-a-v strings that may interest them, that community based applications work, and that the applicant support program really works Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: I think this is especially important for new markets, like Africa Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Jorge Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: Agree, Jorge Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Annebeth Vanda Scartezini: agree with Rubens. 3. Any other business: Look for a poll on the 0300 UTC Monday meeting falling on Sunday evening. Substitute for 0300 UTC Tuesday (fall on Monday evening).

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 19 December 2016
by Steve Chan 16 Dec '16

16 Dec '16

Dear All, As the 19 December meeting at 2000 UTC was scheduled to replace the cancelled 12 December meeting, the proposed agenda from that date is still stands. Please see below. Best, Steve From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:58 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 12 December 2016 Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 12 December 2016 at 2000 UTC for 90 minutes. As you’ll see from the proposed agenda, this meeting is dedicated to CC1. A tentative meeting will be scheduled for the following week in the event we are unable to complete this review during the allotted 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. 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 on Subject 4: Predictability. 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

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 12 December 2016
by Steve Chan 11 Dec '16

11 Dec '16

Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 12 December 2016 at 2000 UTC for 90 minutes. As you’ll see from the proposed agenda, this meeting is dedicated to CC1. A tentative meeting will be scheduled for the following week in the event we are unable to complete this review during the allotted 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. 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 on Subject 4: Predictability. 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/

2 1