March 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Status change: Observer/ Member in GNSO Working Groups
by Nathalie Peregrine 31 Mar '16

31 Mar '16

Dear all, A friendly reminder about the two available options open to participants wishing to be active in GNSO Working Groups: OBSERVER * Read-Only access to the Working Group Discussion list (gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org) * No access to conference call dial in details (provided on a private list, available only to members) * Access to conference call recording and transcripts MEMBER * Reading and posting rights to the Working Group Discussion list (gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org) * Read only access to conference call dial in details, provided on a private list (ntfy) available only to members * Statement of Interest<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=14713457> compulsory to finalize registration as member IF YOU WISH TO CHANGE YOUR STATUS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, PLEASE EMAIL : gnso-secs(a)icann.org Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support

1 0

Call for RSVPs: GNSO Working Group Newcomer Open House Session | 5 April 2016 at 20:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 30 Mar '16

30 Mar '16

Call for RSVPs | GNSO Working Group Newcomer Open House Session | 5 April at 20:00 UTC Please RSVP via <http://goo.gl/forms/DJIdwnIZEi> this form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1koLwNkVxkljGK49wgmdGFekHBqavejhVdeOs1cHYAC…>. Remote participation details will be sent on the 4 April 2016. The GNSO Working Group Newcomer Open House Session returns on 5 April 2016 and we are pleased to invite you to participate. These informal sessions provide an ideal opportunity for participants to ask questions about the GNSO Policy Development Process and the specifics of taking part in a Working Group. Of course, even though the open house sessions are intended for newcomers, anyone interested in brushing up their knowledge or looking for an opportunity to engage with others interested in GNSO policy development activities are welcome. In order to encourage interaction, we strongly recommend that you look through the list of Reading Materials at the bottom of this announcement. On the RSVP form, participants will be able to select items of interest chosen from three currently available categories: 1. Policy Development A-Z 2. Consensus Policy 3. Working Group Guidelines Join us to learn more about the GNSO and about how you can effectively participate in ICANN! Reading Materials: Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws> PDP Manual - http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf PDP Overview - http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/consensus-policy/pdp Consensus Policy: http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/consensus-policy/about GNSO Working Group Guidelines Summary - http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf GNSO Working Group Guidelines - http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf

1 0

Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 28 March 2016
by Julie Hedlund 29 Mar '16

29 Mar '16

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions captured by staff from today’s meeting and let us know if you have comments, changes, or questions. Note that a transcript and MP3 also will be available. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 28 March 2016 1. Work Tracks 3, 4, 5 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections, Disputes Clarifying Questions: a. Kavouss Arasteh: Do we have a checklist of all those problems/difficulties with respect to similarity/singular v. plural so that someone could update it? Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It would be very valuable to produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning. In response to Paul McGrady's note -- there were initial evaluations and objections -- should user confusion in a trademark sense be part of an initial application/evaluation, or as part of an objection? If in the initital evaluation what factors would go into that evaluation? Action Item: Produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning. b. Alan Greenberg: Re: Level playing fields: How much emphasis should be made on this issue? Have we decided if this is problematic. Answer (Jeff Neuman) — This is an overall issue. Same with safeguards. No decisions have been made at this point. Action Items: Look at all the objections that were filed, how they turned out, consistency. Check to see if the CCT Review Team may be doing this. Look at the role of the independent objector. c. Kavouss Arasteh: Who is authorized to raise a question or objection based on the public interest? Should we have some type of rationale? Do we also accept political objections? Answer (Jeff Neuman): In 2012 anyone was entitled to file a public interest objection, but it did cost money. The grounds for the objection were in the Applicant Guidebook. There was a process to ensure that the claim had some merit. There was no formal objection ground for political objections, but the GAC or governments could file early warnings. The GAC could always provide advice during the process. Discussion Notes: Paul McGrady: Look very carefully at the GAC's role and how that played out in the first round. Ken Stubbs: Develop a process and methodologies for dealing with objections to avoid them dragging out. Greg Shatan: Re: consistency of outcomes -- we need to look at these things as processes and how this relates to the auction process. Jeff Neuman: Include in this track contention resolution aspects, such as auctions, indirect contentions, etc. Jay Westerdal: Some of the issues may take a year or two longer to resolve. Jeff Neuman: Not sure how we can have an impact on the previous round. Falls into how we stick to the principle that we are not advantaging/disadvantaging previous versus future applicants. Track 4: Internationalized Domain Names Clarifying Questions: Paul McGrady: How far are we allowed to go with respect to encouraging adoption of internationalized domain names? Can we recommend that ICANN lower the cost on IDNs? Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It might be that we could discuss issues -- but not exact pricing -- that in theory that you could have a recommendation that ICANN should have a subsidy, or that ICANN should encourage. Track 5: Technical & Operations Clarifying Questions: Alan Greenberg: We should be getting a report on whether the questions on the accreditation process met the needs or should they be changed. Answer (Jeff Neuman) — I think ICANN staff have said they want to participate in this PDP WG. They should be active members and listed on the wiki page. Discussion Notes: Mary Wong: Note that the WG could ask for answers from staff for specific questions. Alan Greenberg: I think we want something written from them, but much of this is implementation so it is not clear how deep we need to get into it. Jeff Neuman: It might be in the implementation report that they did. See: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation/program-review-29jan16…. Also the comments on the report: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/. Avri Doria: We should make sure we look at relates to the original policy that the GNSO came out with that all registry requirements don't need to be the same. Jeff Neuman: I could see that as a good issue for track 5. Action Items: PDP WG support staff will take the action to add staff to the WG member list on the wiki. The PDP WG will direct specific questions to staff as needed. 3. Letter from Steve Crocker Discussion Notes: Jeff Neuman: I do think that the creation of yet another group to look at these questions would create a lot of overlap. I think these questions are captured in the issues we have laid out and if not we should make sure they are in there. We could respond to the Board by thanking them and that these are issues that are properly for the GNSO to consider. Alan Greenberg: We can say, "noted" and the items are in our work list. Steve Coates: General consensus is that this is a good letter. It seems that a short response is necessary and appropriate. Any questions with that approach? Alan Greenberg: And we will coordinate with the CCT Review Team. Jeff Neuman: Amr notes that these issues were brought up about the 2012 round in Marrakech. We should make it clear that our jurisdiction is only over subsequent procedures, not current TLDs. Alan Greenberg: There is no intent in the current ALAC advice to fix problems with the current round. Action Item: Staff will assist in drafting a brief response to the Board. 4. Liaisons from SOs/Acs Discussion Notes: It would be up to the SO and AC. They would not have special status in this WG, except for the GNSO Liaison. They may have liaison status in their groups. May be useful perhaps with the GAC, if they feel the need. 5. Next Meeting: Monday, 04 April at 2200 UTC.

5 6

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group 28 March 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter 28 Mar '16

28 Mar '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, 28 March 2016 at 16:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-28mar16-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/IxmAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 28 March 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 28 March 2016. Michelle DeSmyter:If you do wish to speak during the call, please either dial into the audio bridge and give the operator the password NEW gTLD, OR click on the telephone icon at the top of the AC room to activate your AC mics. Please remember to mute your phone and mics when not talking. Harold Arcos:Hi Jeff, everyone Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome Harold! Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Julie Kavouss Arasteh:Hi everybody Harold Arcos:Thanks Michelle, My apologies in advance because I have very slow bandwidth in my job. Jeff Neuman:Hello Theo Geurts:hello all Jeff Neuman:We will get started in a few minutes. Thanks to all for joining Julie Hedlund:Hi Kavouss and everyone! Klaus Stoll:Hi All Greg Shatan:Hello, all. Katrin Ohlmer| DOTZON:Hi ALl Khaled Koubaa:Hi everyone Julie Hedlund:@Avri: It is in the Adobe Connect room. Julie Hedlund:The agenda Michael Flemming:Good evening Khaled Koubaa:re-agenda : I think the letter is more important to begin with Steve Coates (Twitter):I'm on audio now. Apologies for running late. Julie Hedlund:@Avri: Kavouss has his hand up -- re: the agenda. Rubens Kuhl:Hearing echo Vanda Scartezini:sorry to be late. Freida Tallon:hello everyone Paul McGrady:Tracks+1 Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, your Portuguese pronunciation of .hoteis failed evaluation. Sorry. ;-) Phil Buckingham:Welcome Kavouss Avri Doria:i do recommend the recording for all who missed the first meeting. worth listening to the exlpanation of tracks 1 & 2. Rubens Kuhl:One area of overlap between evaluations and objections is string similarity. There were both string similarity evaluations (like .unicom / .unicorn, .hotels/.hoteis) and string confusion objections ( .com / .ecom, .kid / .kids). Steve Coates (Twitter):Good point, Rubens. Steve Chan:@Kavouss - the FInal Issue Report would have a non-exhaustive list of issues around string similarity. So that might be able to act as a starting point for the list you've asked about. Paul McGrady:Agree that both the substance and the procedure need to be fixed. Katrin Ohlmer| DOTZON:+1, Rubens. Also, the results for those two different mechanisms were not in-sync. Paul McGrady:+1Jeff Thanks! Phil Buckingham:Good point Alan . Greg Shatan:An application would seem to indicate an "intent to use," even if it doesn't constitute use at the time of the application. Rubens Kuhl:The risk already exists, since some string confusion objects on singular x plural already prevailed in the 2012-round. Vanda Scartezini:good suggestion ALAN Donna Austin, Neustar:I thought it was a principle raised in the discussion group. Avri Doria:we are still in clarification and have not decided anything Kevin Kreuser:What if those that hold singular want plural, or what if a brand wants the plural of its own name? Absolute bar, or exceptions permitted? Thinking out loud. Avri Doria:are we gettign lose to dicussing the solution space at the moment? Alan Greenberg:@Avri, yup Kevin Kreuser:@Avri, yes. Jeff Neuman:thanks avri Mary Wong:Note that the charter for the RPM PDP does not include evaluation/string confusion/objection topics. Khaled Koubaa:With all respect for all members we better go ahead with the list of subjects/issues and not spend the time in discussing only one Steve Coates (Twitter):Thx, Mary. Great point. Khaled Koubaa:This actually will be the role of each sub-group Greg Shatan:Thanks, Mary. That's interesting.... Vanda Scartezini:khaled, in alrge group like this one youa re right Mike Rodenbaugh:IGO Names also in SCO Rubens Kuhl:Kevin, one similar issue is IDN x ASCII. Some IDNs were blocked in 2012 like québec due to .quebec application. So those are also waiting for a policy allowing them to apply at a further procedure. Mary Wong:@SteveC, @Greg - it did not seem appropriate to carve out a single type of objection procedure from this PDP to go to the RPM one, even if the phrase "rights protection mechanism" can generally be applied to some of these processes. That's one reason why the RPM PDP charter is very explicit as to what is meant by "RPM" for purposes of that PDP. Greg Shatan:Thanks, Mary. I see the point. At least we know that we are dealing with all objection procedures in this group. Rubens Kuhl:@Mike, you are right that IGO Names were foreseen in SCO, but I believe none triggered that rule, even ECO x .eco which was a possible SCO. Steve Coates (Twitter):I agree with that, Mary. Let's figure out how to address that, and sync with the RPM PDP closely. ken stubbs:We need to find a more effective methodology for reducing the time frames for the objection processes Mike Rodenbaugh:@ Rubens, sorry I misspoke, IGO Names specifically address in in LRO, not SCO, and there was at least one LRO case Amr Elsadr:Yes..., the two objection mechanisms via the IO in the last AG were the limited public interest objection and the community objection. Akin-Awokoya Emmanuel:I would be interested in the data on the objections. And I think it would really help our projection and help us know what it is now Mary Wong:@Greg, @SteveC, yes, thanks. Having the liaison (as foreseen by the Charters for these two PDPs) betweeen the two WGs will help coordinate the discussions. Of course, if at the appropriate time either WG sees the need to refer a topic to the other, that's always a possibility (to be coordinated with the GNSO Council as manager of the PDP). Amr Elsadr:Both objection types had pretty specific criteria on why they could use the two objection mechamisms. Amr Elsadr:Terrible typing. Sorry. Gangesh Varma:Does the applicant guidebook prescribe the limited parameters for a public interest objection? Steve Coates (Twitter):Thanks, Mary. I think this ties in with the Crocker letter, and time permitting, we will discuss on this call. Amr Elsadr:@Gangesh: If I recall correctly, yes. Gangesh Varma:@Amr: Thanks. Since that is the case then we might want to distinguish ihis debate from the larger public interest/GPI discussions witihn icann. Amr Elsadr:AG downloadable here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb Amr Elsadr:@Gangesh: Very much agree. Kevin Kreuser:https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr Amr Elsadr:The objection mechamisms are details (as Jeff mentioned) in module 3 of the AG. Amr Elsadr:details = detailed. Rubens Kuhl:It's also of notice that the language of the Limited Public Interest Objections is very different from the Public Interest Committments in the registry agreement, so the term "Public Intest" is a bit overloaded in the 2012-round. LPIs were born out of the public order / morality idea, while PICs out of the public safety / security idea. Khaled Koubaa:@Jeff @Avria @Steve : we are getting lost in discussion outside the agenda. Is it possible to focus on the adopted agenda Avri Doria:indeed. was just thinking the same thing. we are going down the issues. Amr Elsadr:@Rubens: Absolutely right. It may be worthwhile to consider changing the names of the limited public interest objection and PICS to avoid confusion with PI issues within broader ICANN contexts. Kavouss Arasteh:Ken +1 Gangesh Varma:+1 Rubens Gangesh Varma:Agree with you Amr. Greg Shatan:Woo hoo. I clarified something. Greg Shatan:We have a general "timing" issue that we are repairing an airplane that is still flying. Paul McGrady:Good analogy Greg! Steve Coates (Twitter):We are R2D2, fixing the X-Wing, in flight. Avri Doria:shirft Avri Doria:i mean shrift Amr Elsadr:@Greg: Are we? I thought we were looking at the last plane to figure out how to build a better one this time around, as opposed to repairing the one that is already flying? I may be wrong. Steve Chan:@Jay, some aspects of the 2012 round are complete. For aspects that are not complete, it might be worth building in dependencies into the Work Plan. Gangesh Varma:Important aspect raised by Jay. We must be careful with possibility of retrospectively affecting/applying policy. Avri Doria:for those who do not kow the expression short shrift: Avri Doria:short shriftn. Summary, careless treatment; scant attention: Amr Elsadr:translation/transliteration is an RDS issue, correct. Is there anything specific to gTLd strings in that regard? Mary Wong:The GNSO receives a regular update from Sarmad Hussain, who leads ICANN's IDN Variant Program, at each ICANN meeting. If this WG has any particular topics or questions, they can be referred to Sarmad for further discussion/elaboration. Jim Prendergast:UASG is at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=47255444 Avri Doria:Mary, might be useful when get to those topics in detail during the track work. Steve Coates (Twitter):+1 Rubens Kuhl:Internationalized Domain Names also include IDN ccTLDs, BTW... Mary Wong:On translation and transliteration - while the GNSO's PDP on the specific charter questions it had is completed, the subsequent Final Report of the Expert Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data has just been referred by the ICANN Board to the GNSO Council for consideration as to any potential policy work it may need to do in that regard. The Council will likely discuss this issue in April. Jim Prendergast:IDNs did have a proritization in the draw Paul McGrady:Thanks Jeff! Rubens Kuhl:@Jim, and that prioritization worked against them, since they had no registrar channels... "be careful what you wish for" Amr Elsadr:@Rubens: If I recall correctly, the first IDN TLD was the Egyptian IDN ccTLD .مصر Phil Buckingham:IDN - yes to subsidies and give them priority ( again) Avri Doria:Note: while doing the bit of chairing at the top i forgot to mention: Avri Doria:Everyone should update their SOIs and should let the group know of any changes they have made. Steve Coates (Twitter):I think there is only 1 outstanding SOI, but Steve Chan can correct me. Steve Chan:@Steve Coates, confirmed, just a single missing SOI Katrin Ohlmer| DOTZON:Revisitng the process for letter of credits might be agood idea. Rubens Kuhl:This report already exists, new gTLD Implementation Report. Christa Taylor:+1 Alan Vanda Scartezini:+ 1 alan + Kavouss Rubens Kuhl:ICANN staff report (errousnely credited as community report): https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation/program-review-29jan16… Alan Greenberg:That part of the AG was largely written by Staff, and then used by them, so we really need their input.. Steve Chan:@Jeff, the folks you mentioend are following along on the mailing list and staff coordinates on a regular basis to ensure they are informed on the progress of this group Rubens Kuhl:Link to comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/ Phil Buckingham:+ 1 kavouss - a report / feedback from the evaluators Christa Taylor:Its only 215 pages! Thanks for the link Alan Greenberg:That being said, much of this issue could really be considered implementation. Mary Wong:@Jeff, given the volume of emails and the number of mailing lists some of them are on, it would additionally be helpful - if the WG has specific questions - for us to reach out to the relevant staff members directly as well, to ensure timely and targeted responses. Steve Coates (Twitter):+1 Mary Avri Doria:hard to hear Kiran Malancharuvil 2:Please speak up but that's better Christa Taylor:Better now Cecilia Smith:better Amr Elsadr:@Steve: Volume a little low. Better now. Christa Taylor:yes Amr Elsadr:yes. thanks. Robin Gross:PICS are the AC's competing policy platform for gtld policy. Amr Elsadr:These questions also came up during the GNSO closing session in Marrakech (also at the request of the ALAC/GAC), but in the context of the current round. Vanda Scartezini:yes- a good letter. Avri Doria:+1 Jeff Paul McGrady:+1 Jeff. We can fix the next round without opining on specific fact patterns coming out of the last round. Amr Elsadr:Also agree with Jeff. Amr Elsadr:@Alan: Appreciate the clarification. Thanks. Vanda Scartezini:guess the points were more about GAC formal aprticipants Mary Wong:On intra-GNSO coordination, I think my earlier point was about this WG and the RPM PDP group appointing a liaison between them. Steve Coates (Twitter):Thx, Mary. Rubens Kuhl:We should note that there are already liasons between GNSO and ACs, and unless we find an specific scaling need to have more than one, I don't see the need for specific WGs to have them. Steve Coates (Twitter):Vanda, great point, and we would like to have GAC participation, directly. Mary Wong:There is a formal GAC-GNSO liaison that is appointed by selection of the GNSO Council. Amr Elsadr:@Rubens: Also, the GAC/GNSO consultative group has forseen the possiblity of having some sort of liaising between GNSO PDPs and the GAC, but the group hasn't gotten around to the specifics of that just yet. Amr Elsadr:@Julie: +1 Avri Doria:Except for the GNSO Liaison Avri Doria:who has other possible roles. Julie Hedlund:@Avri -- correct! ken stubbs:makes this process more inclusive & provides for enhanced communications Mary Wong:As Julie noted, it would be up to each SO/AC if they wished to appoint a specific person to report back to them. Amr Elsadr:The thinking for having liaisons with the GAC is because individual GAC members cannot represent their AC. In the event of a liaison with the GAC, there should be some sort of process within the GAC to ensure that the person appointed can represent the GAC effectively. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you everyone! Christa Taylor:Thanks! Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Kiran Malancharuvil 2:Thanks! Sara Bockey:thank you all Vanda Scartezini:good call. thank you !! Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone! Gangesh Varma:Thanks all Rubens Kuhl:Bye all, thanks! Alan Greenberg:Good call. Yoshi Murakami(JPRS):thank you Khaled Koubaa:thanks Greg Shatan:Bye all! Christopher Niemi:Thanks.

1 0

Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 28 Mar '16

28 Mar '16

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 28 March 2016 at 16:00 UTC. 1. Review the Agenda 2. Roll Call/Statements of Interest 3. Walk Through of Subjects/Issues 1. Address any further clarifying questions on Work Streams 1 and 2. 2. Work Streams 3, 4, and 5 4. If time permits — Letter from Steve Crocker to the PDP WG and CCT RT Re: ALAC and GAC concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) for sensitive new gTLDs (attached) 5. AOB Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

10 13

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC
by Kavouss Arasteh 26 Mar '16

26 Mar '16

Dear all I still believe that work stream is is famous terms used by CCWG Accountability Folks Work Step is less confused Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Mar 2016, at 14:18, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Well said and my +1; Every effort to avoid increasing terminologies within ICANN should be intentionally pursued. New comers are really having a great deal of following terminologies before the substance. > > Cheers! > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >> On 26 Mar 2016 00:21, "Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> wrote: >> I have no opposition to using Work Stream. I think it makes sense to have consistent terminology across working groups, so have no opposition to using a term that is easily understood. >> >> >> >> The differentiation is that this will be the Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Streams, which I think is easily enough understood by most. >> >> >> >> Work Step or Work Lane don’t really resonate with me. >> >> >> >> Donna >> >> >> >> Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. >> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager >> >> Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin(a)neustar.biz >> >> >> >> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. >> >> Follow Neustar: Facebook LinkedIn <image003.png> Twitter >> >> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady (Policy) via Gnso-newgtld-wg >> Sent: Friday, 25 March 2016 2:31 PM >> To: 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC >> >> >> >> I like Work Step just fine! Thanks Kavouss. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 02:07 PM >> To: Paul McGrady (Policy) >> Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC >> >> >> >> Dear All >> >> I agree with Paul that we need to be mindful to avoid using any terms which could eventually mislead or confuse the community. >> >> I suggest alternative to " work stream" the terms" work step" >> >> Regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On 25 Mar 2016, at 19:03, Paul McGrady (Policy) via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Julie & Everyone: >> >> >> >> I’m a bit concerned about our labeling. We are calling these “workstreams” which would make great sense if that term was not already enshrined in Transition work. I’m concerned that we could dilute the clarity that the term “Workstream 2” already has in the community and could lead to confusion as we do reporting to the Council on our work. >> >> >> >> Could we, at this early stage, rename these Perhaps Work Lane 1, 2, 3, etc? >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Paul (speaking in role as Council liaison) >> >> >> >> >> >> Paul McGrady >> >> policy(a)paulmcgrady.com >> >> +1-312-882-5020 >> >> GNSO Councilor for the IPC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg >> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 12:44 PM >> To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC >> >> >> >> Dear WG Members, >> >> >> >> Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 28 March 2016 at 16:00 UTC. >> >> >> >> 1. Review the Agenda >> >> 2. Roll Call/Statements of Interest >> >> 3. Walk Through of Subjects/Issues >> >> 1. Address any further clarifying questions on Work Streams 1 and 2. >> >> 2. Work Streams 3, 4, and 5 >> >> 4. If time permits — Letter from Steve Crocker to the PDP WG and CCT RT Re: ALAC and GAC concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) for sensitive new gTLDs (attached) >> >> 5. AOB >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Julie >> >> >> >> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

1 0

Fwd: Correspondence from Steve Crocker] PICs and Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs
by Rubens Kuhl 22 Mar '16

22 Mar '16

FYI

1 0

Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 21 March 2016
by Julie Hedlund 22 Mar '16

22 Mar '16

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the notes/actions captured by staff from the meeting on 21 March and let us know if you have comments, changes, or questions. Note that an MP3 is available at http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-21mar16-en.mp3 and a transcript will be provided. As noted during the call the next meeting will be Monday, 28 March at 1600 UTC for 90 minutes. Please see the meeting notice that has been sent via separate email. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 21 March 2016 1. Discussion Regarding Community Perspective on PDP Progress Action Items: a. Notify/advise GNSO Council that there are community concerns about this PDP progressing too quickly (e.g., GAC, ALAC, CCT Review Team). b. Question re: Quick Look Mechanism — Staff confirmed that it was applied to all three of the most recent GNSO PDPs, including this one. See: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-quick-look-mechanism-19feb16-en.pdf. 2. Discussion Regarding Steps ahead (e.g., requesting input from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies) Discussion Notes: Go out initially to the SOs/ACs on the overarching issues, but not getting into each of the separate work items/sub groups. Move forward on those after processing the overarching issues. Note that this could result in more comment periods, but should provide more focused responses. There were no stated objections to this approach during the call. 3. Walk Through of Subjects/Issues Work Stream 1 -- Process/Support/Outreach Clarifying Questions: a. Alan Greeberg: Was there ever a reconciliation of the money taken from the reserve? If there is a deficit does this need to be added to the applicant fees? Answers: Jeff Neuman believes that ICANN staff feels that it is still in that process. A presentation was given to the CCT Review Team. Action Item: Get the presentation that was provided to the CCT Review Team in Marrakech and ask for more data if necessary/desired. Per this action item see the materials from the Marrakech meeting at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58727546 and in particular the financials at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58727546&preview=/…. b. Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach: Clarification To Chairs: To what degree is this group supposed to provide "detailed" implementation guidelines rather than addresing a principle frameworks with suggestions for "things/issues" to change/implement. Example: Is job done by suggesting we need categories of strings with requirements fit for each categories ? Or are we supposed to suggested exact criteria for each category (GEOs/Brands/cultural/non for profit TLDs etc? Answer: (Jeff Neuman) — Previously we provided high-level principles, but not implementation details. Perhaps more guidance is needed, but it depends on how deeply we get into criteria. Since 2007 the GNSO developed policy & implementation guidelines. (Avri Doria) — There is a formal procedure for doing that implementation oversight work. (Mary Wong) — The Policy & Implementation Working Group recommended certain principles for policy making as well as a Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (among other recommendations) See the Final Report from that Working Group, containing all their recommendations as of June 2015: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun…. Work Stream 2: Legal/Regulatory Clarifying Questions: a. Khaled: With whom will the registry be signed and what is the jurisdiction/controlling law? And what is the mechanism for the applicant to decide? b. Rubens Kuhl: Can we invite ICANN Legal to join the PDP to help address these questions? Answer: (Jeff Neuman) — Yes, we can and it would be very beneficial to have ICANN Legal staff join. Karen Lenz and Christine Willet have also offered to help out and participate. Action Item: Before beginning the discussion on Work Stream 3 we address any further clarifying questions on Work Streams 1 and 2.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Proposed Agenda
by Jian-Chuan Chang 22 Mar '16

22 Mar '16

Hi Julie, Thank you for the timely response. I think I can make most of the 2200UTC (6am Beijing time) meetings, while 1600UTC will be problematic. Regards Jian Chang Sr. Research Fellow KNETCo. Ltd. Tel: +86-10-8218-4187 Fax: +86-10-6250-6502Email: jczhang(a)knet.cn ----- 原邮件内容 ----- 发件人: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> 收件人: "Jian C. Chang" <jczhang(a)knet.cn>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>,"gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> 发送时间:Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:15:24 +0000 主题:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Proposed Agenda Dear Jian, Thank you very much for joining the PDP Working Group and for your question. The calls will be rotated to accommodate various time zones, although we understand that no time will likely be ideal for everyone. The calls will be held weekly on Mondays alternating between 2200 UTC and 1600 UTC for 90 minutes. Yesterday’s call was at 2200 UTC, so next Monday’s call will be at 1600 UTC. Please do let us know if we can assist you with any other questions. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From:<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Jian C. Chang via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Reply-To:"Jian C. Chang" <jczhang(a)knet.cn> Date:Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 5:04 AM To:Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Proposed Agenda Hi, I joined this WG in Marrakech. Just wonder whether the meeting time is fixed or rotated? As it will be 6am in Beijing time. In addition, how frequent will it be held? Regards Jian C. Chang KNET From: Steve Chan via Gnso-newgtld-wg Date: 2016-03-19 04:13 To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Proposed Agenda Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 21 March 2016 at 22:00 UTC.Roll Call/SoIsDiscussion Regarding Community Perspective on PDP ProgressDiscussion Regarding Steps Ahead (e.g., requesting input from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies)Walk Through of Subjects/IssuesAOB Best, 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

1 0

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan 22 Mar '16

22 Mar '16

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 21 March 2016 at 22:00 UTC. 1. Roll Call/SoIs 2. Discussion Regarding Community Perspective on PDP Progress 3. Discussion Regarding Steps Ahead (e.g., requesting input from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies) 4. Walk Through of Subjects/Issues 5. AOB Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

3 2