April 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan April 29, 2016

April 29, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 2 May 2016 at 22:00 UTC. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw) Subject discussion: 4.2.7 Applications Assessed in Rounds, continued (Final Issue Report excerpt available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/Jz2AAw) Subject discussion: 4.2.2 Predictability, continued (Final Issue Report excerpt available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/HT2AAw) Subject discussion: 4.2.4 Community Engagement (Time Permitting. Final Issue Report excerpt attached and available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/IT2AAw) Subject discussion: 4.2.16 Application Submission Limits (Time Permitting. Final Issue Report excerpt attached and available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/OT2AAw) AOB Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the GNSO Secretariat. If you did not receive these participation details, please contact the GNSO Secretariat for assistance (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://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 April 2016
by Julie Hedlund April 25, 2016

April 25, 2016

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 18 April. 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. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email. Please note for review/comment that there now are three Google Docs as follows (and referenced below): 1. New gTLD - 2007 Principles and Recommendations — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15_0TRWzFIaLgO3QlfYH_0ZtOlMKm7SEjsHif4Oi…. 2. Subject 1 Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future - Pros and Cons — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/111-IBO9zKMXPorvBxoot8uTdLPyjPesYCha6D0s…. 3. Different TLD Types: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…. These also are on the wiki at the WG Documents at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001970. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 April 2016 1. Continued Discussion on the Catalog of Advice and Statements from the 2012 round of New gTLDs Action Items: (1) PDP WG members can help fill in the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G1H9OaX9KL5vzxa3b6hbVziwgAx3CHNnISO…; (2) Staff will add a column on form of advice (letter to the Board, other, formal, informal) - DONE; (3) The PDP WG will send a note to each group as a formal request. 2. Continued Discussion on Subject 1: Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future? Divide the ‘Constituency Comment’ request that will sent to AC/SOs, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and GNSO Constituencies into 2 parts. Part 1: Only includes the Overarching issue questions including whether there should be subsequent procedures and the issue of gTLD types. Action Items: (1) Continue to fill out Pros and Cons with data suggestions at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/111-IBO9zKMXPorvBxoot8uTdLPyjPesYCha6D0s…. (2) Send out Constituency Comment I (CC1) by the deadline for the Helsinki meeting. This gives us ~6 weeks. Draft (in progress) schedule being built on https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001972#. It is open to comments. 3. Continued Discussion on Subject 2: TLD Types/Differentiation Action Item: PDP WG and Staff update the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…. 4. Wiki Work Space — Update from Steve Chan. Action Item: None. 5. Liaison to Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs PDP WG Action Item: Agreed that this would helpful and also is in the charter. Seeking volunteers from PDP WG members who also are on the RPM PDP WG. 6. Timing of Meetings Action Item: Staff will review the geographic spread of the current PDP WG members and determine whether the rotating times should be changed.

3 2

Attendance , Mp3 & AC Chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG
by Michelle DeSmyter April 25, 2016

April 25, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 25 April 2016 at 16:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-25apr16-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/RgV1Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 25 April 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures call on 25 April 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi all... Ready for dial -out any time Michelle DeSmyter:perfect -thanks Cheryl - I will let the operator know Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Jeff Neuman:hello all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi Jeff Jeff Neuman:hi Cheryl. What time is it on your side of the world now? Iliya Bazlyankov:Hello all Jeff Neuman:Hello. This is the official 5 minute warning (We will start in 5 minutes) :) Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):2.00am in Australia. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:we are warned...... Carlos Raul Gutierrez:waht about the time shifts we want to introduce? Jeff Neuman:We are still analyzing. Last week the call was 6 hours later which was more convenient for Asia, less so for Europe Jeff Neuman:3 minutes until we start Jeff Neuman:2 minutes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi Tom yes lucky we Aussies are a resilient lot even after a NATIONAL Day Public HOLIDAY >>>Did you attend a dawn Service BTW? Jeff Neuman:1 minute until we start Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Cheryl, not this year. Richard Padilla:Hi all managed to make in early after all Carlton Samuels:Howdy all Carlton Samuels:The audio coming in kinda low. Barely hearing Avri Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Avri has a low voice allways on Mondays...... Richard Padilla:Yes Steve Avri Doria:i adjusted my volume up a bit for the next time i talk. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):we hear you Martin Sutton:we hear you Christopher Niemi:Sounds good Karen Day (SAS):Hearing you fine Carlos Raul Gutierrez:todays is much better Carlton Samuels:Yessir Steve, it is low Carlos Raul Gutierrez:hmmmm Rudi Vansnick:sorry for being late, had another call Carlton Samuels:I can hear Carlos very well! Carlton Samuels:@Carlos: Re the Analysis survey, we expect interim results before the June CCT RT f2f, no? Michael Flemming:I am sorry, I can't hear him. Is he saying spotting issues? Carlos Raul Gutierrez:@Carlton yes Carlton Samuels:Thks Michael Flemming:I can now, thank you! Julie Hedlund:@All: The PDP Topics Mapping document in the Adobe Connect room is unsynced so you can scroll through it yourself. Michelle DeSmyter:try now Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Good point, we should number this list Rubens Kuhl:It's also possible to download the PDF at the upper right corner icon. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Rubens Kuhl:Actually, it was possible, not anymore... Jeff Neuman:Thanks Rubens Jeff Neuman:The document was atteched to the e-mail with the agenda Jeff Neuman:Where there is a high interest FYI, that does not mean that they want exclusive jurisdiction over any of these items. They just want to make sure that we are closely coordinated Jeff Neuman:So, if we do a survey or focus groups, for example, they would like to participate (and vice versa) Alan Greenberg:I would assume that these are areas where they MAY have something significant to say, and presumably we will have to pay attention. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):understood Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:Good to know that co-ordination is going on between the two efforts. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:I would only add Avri´s general principle that real time policy development would wait for the recommendtions Brian Aitchison:RE name collision: the safeguards sub-team will have a call on Thursday discussing this issue, so may be more interest in this. Thanks. Steve Coates (Twitter):Thanks, Brian. Good to know Brian Aitchison:I'll keep it on my radar Steve and update here as needed Steve Coates (Twitter):FAbulous Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Thank you Avri, I think is very clear framework. Carlos Raul Gutierrez::) Carlton Samuels:Ooops. Some things going on in the background somehere jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):I guess that the understanding period will require that we also listen and digest the pending findings and recommendations from the ongoing review teams Greg Shatan:Grace Mutung'u needs to mute grace mutung'u:muted. sorry Steve Coates (Twitter):Jorge - I think that's right, to the extent that there is overlap. Marilia Maciel:Apologies for joining late. Got caught in another meeting Kiran Malancharuvil:sorry to join late Kurt Pritz:Is "should there be subsequent procedures" ICANN-speak for "should there be additional new domain name registries"? Steve Coates (Twitter):Great to see you, Kiran. Jeff Neuman:@ Kurt "subsequent Procedures" is being used instead of using the term "rounds" Carlos Raul Gutierrez:@Kurt or "should procdures be improved" if there are goin to be more resgitries jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):process seems sensible at first sight Christa Taylor:Support driving to the goal Jeff Neuman:We will need some volunteers for this drafting team, so please volunteer :) Gangesh Varma:seems reasonable Jeff Neuman:Would be ideal to have diverse representation on that team Christa Taylor:Happy to volunteer in drafting Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):I would like to volunteer. Katrin Ohlmer:I can volunteer, too Gangesh Varma:I'd be happy to help Jay Westerdal:I volunteer Cecilia Smith:Count me in Iliya Bazlyankov:I volunteer as well grace mutung'u:Would like to volunteer Rubens Kuhl:Besides noting whether doing rounds or not as a steady state procedure, there is a different question of whether the next instance should be a round even being the last round. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:@SteveChan why does the paper assume that rounds are cheaper? Kiran Malancharuvil:it seems like it's the nature of commerce that someone might get there first. pressure and urgency will exist in rounds or in the alternative structure. vanda Scartezini:sorry to be late Rubens Kuhl:@Carlos, rounds are cheapear if the evaluation procedures are extensive and repetitive. We can achieve those cost efficiencies by other means, but rounds have that property. Steve Chan:@Carlos, I don't recall that it makes that assumption. I think it's noting that it MAY be more extensive to have continual retainers for providers (evaluators, pre-delegegation providers, etc.) Kurt Pritz:I agree with martin Karen Day:+1 Martin Nathaniel Edwards:Pro: Rights holders (including registries) do not have to be on their toes continuously, watching for new TLD applications Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Predicability of Cycles (well the potentil for tt ;-) is a Pro I would assume Carlos Raul Gutierrez:@Martin.Sutton ¿predictabe mini-rounds? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes Carlo Prdictabilty of any level of rounds mini or otherwise can be a Pro Greg Shatan:Number 4 is incorrect -- should say "Identical applications -- contenttion sets, not first come, first served" Carlos Raul Gutierrez:@Jeff good point <competing interst in string> as a parameter to consider Klaus Stoll:Predictable cycles that have short time periods between them to introduce lesons learned Julie Hedlund:@Greg: Please see rewrite for 6 (combining yours and Jeff's comments). jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Rounds allow for subsequent reviews and a cycle of improvement Rubens Kuhl:One con of the round system is adding latency, increasing time to the market. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Steve, I think it depends on how often rounds were opened up. Would it be once every year or one ever three years. Martin Sutton:There could be fast track processing Martin Sutton:e.g. accredited back-end provider + accept standard agreement Carlos Raul Gutierrez:I lost avri Jay Westerdal:Pro: Global rules and board actions can address all new applicants prior to a round. So rounds allow for consistency in rules. Cecilia Smith:+1 to Martin to have a pre-determined fast tracking process for certain applications, while keeping the controlled rounds for others. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:CONS rounds are onot an optimal process for solving competing interest. Auctions do solve them. IP rules also do solve them. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:@Greg agree that in the case of brands/communities it creates artificial barriers. Maybe only in the case of "pure"generics it does not, but then we can go for auctions Greg Shatan:I think the rounds tee up the applications for auctions better than a continuing open application window. Rubens Kuhl:We had some auctions between brands and open TLDs, with both types winning some. Carlton Samuels:@Avri: If demand is going to be indicator for booting a round, we must have a definition..and it is about what exist at the point Kiran Malancharuvil:good point, may be dificult o Kurt Pritz:@ Greg. If we do not have rounds, contention is resolved by first-come-first served. Correct? Greg Shatan:PLEASE ADD to CONS: Creates artificial demand and artificial scarcity. Kiran Malancharuvil:sorry... difficult to establish the difference between existing demand and created demand Jeff Neuman:Even with trademarks there are competing interests Jeff Neuman:Several entities can share the use of a particular mark Carlton Samuels:@Carlos: I read a 'round' to mean a set of structured activities geared towards introducing a set of TLDs into the root. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Pro: Rounds allow for subsequent reviews and a cycle of improvement Jay Westerdal:Pro: Trademarks can be gamed. $2K for a trademark in Europe. So Trademarks bypassing rounds is bad. Generic words will apply as trademarks. Kurt Pritz:Good point by Jorge Cancio Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Does this list of pros and cons logically mean cons and pros of a perpetual application process? Or is that a separate analysis? Greg Shatan:@Kurt -- that's not really contention -- that's sidestepping contention. Think about a group of siblings dividing up their parents' belongings. Do you want first-come, first-served or a round where everyone has an opportunity to make a claim and then those claims responsiveness. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Specific rounds have a sub set of Pros and Cons I guess Carlos Raul Gutierrez:I do understand @Greg artifical demand point Martin Sutton:An open-ended round can create artificial demand, for instance Rubens Kuhl:On trademark gaming, some legal right objections were already filed in the 2012 round based on that tactic, so it's more than theoretical. Donna Austin, Neustar:Timing between rounds may lead to pent up demand. Carlton Samuels:@artifical demand? Why does that sound so much like 'gaming mechanisms" expressed another way? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):up Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that should be @Donnas Yup not up Kiran Malancharuvil:I don't see how the discussion about market demand implicates gaming the system. can you clarify Carlton? Marc Trachtenberg:How is having rounds like digital archery? Rubens Kuhl:Having many rounds as we have ICANN meetings, 3x / year, might ease up artificial effects. Jim Prendergast:might be good to know the impact on ICANN staff/budgets on having a standing army of reviewers for an ongoing application process vs ramp up and ramp down for rounds. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Rubens, agreed. Jay Westerdal:Pro: Standard contracts can be applied as a base Julie Hedlund:@Marc: I had misplaced the digital archery comment as a con. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):a factor that may affect our opinion on pros or cons to rounds: impredictable timing for rounds speaks against them; but in a framework of organized, periodic, predictable rounds, rounds become much more attractive Carlos Raul Gutierrez:We should have new {pure, non-generic} TLD for sure, I´m not sure in the case of "generic" TLDs. Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach:to Mark : first come first served - once the window opens...(Dig Arch) Marc Trachtenberg:@Julie - thanks - that makes more sense Greg Shatan:I think standard contracts could be used in an "open window" system just as well as in rounds. Harold Arcos:sound goes and comes Donna Austin, Neustar:@Carlos, I think it would be difficult to define what a [pure, non-generic] TLD was or is. Harold Arcos:@Jay But all rounds will be by trademarks? so what will happen with generics? Not all will be trademarks, I think. Katrin Ohlmer:revisions are easier and more fair if done after rounds Jay Westerdal:My Pro above was not added jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Another general thought: rounds may be tied to categories Jeff Neuman:thats noty you Philip Corwin:My view is that discrete rounds arecreate unnatural boom and bust cycles for application processing, consulting services, etc. -- and that a permanent open window would be prefereable (adjusting various aspects to accommodate should not be that difficult). Jay Westerdal:Pro: Standard contracts can be applied as a base Julie Hedlund:@Jay: Sorry to miss it. Could your repeat in chat? Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):There are also differing cost impacts on SOs and ACs. Kurt Pritz:@ Jim: Good point. I think the costs can be managed. ICANN has a "standing army of reviewers" now for registrars. After a round or two, the cost of evaluating will be driven down by streamlining process and decreased demand so that cost will not be high. Julie Hedlund:@Jay: I think I got it. Jay Westerdal:@julie thanks Christa Taylor:Rounds allow the application for predictable methodology Julie Hedlund:@Christa: Got it! Jeff Neuman:sorry Avri to steal your thunder Rubens Kuhl:I think we have most of what we need to bring it for applicants what's already in for registries: if it's a security issue, board can define provisional mechanisms; otherwise, agreement by ICANN and the affect group is required. Rubens Kuhl:(affected group) Martin Sutton:Rounds: Cycles of rounds can overlap as the process is refined. So if you have 4 distinct stages (1)application window (2) Reviews/objections(3)contracting (4) test/delegate - then the next round could begin as soon as stage 2 is passed, thus shortening the time to next rounds. So Ruben can have 3 rounds per yr.... Rubens Kuhl:@Martin, and (4) is possibly going to get expedited by accrediting RSPs... Donna Austin, Neustar:@Martin, would need to be careful that it is only the process that is refined and not substantive policy elements that would lead to, or have the unintended consequences, of manipulating the playing field. Jay Westerdal:Pro with Rounds. Watchdogs and others don't need to be on gaurd 24/7, they can tune in at planned reveal dates Steve Coates (Twitter):I think the issue with having rounds is we can shorten the lenght of time between rounds, but similarly, they can also be lengthened. If the process is ongoing, they could still be processed in batches every few months, or immediately. Julie Hedlund:@Jay: I got your additional pro. Julie Hedlund:@Steve Coates: Also captured your pro. Jeff Neuman:I think one thing that led to unpredictability was a lack of ICANN's decisive action Jeff Neuman:and sticking to what was in the guidebook Katrin Ohlmer:+1 Jeff Jeff Neuman:it keps leaving the door open Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach:Predictability: I suggest ICANN Board analyses and makes decisions on GACs input to final AGB principles AND agree with GAC not to change rules for applicants AFTER applications have been submitted - in this way we would not experience such things as "sensitive strings" , "closed generics" Two letter release applications etc etc.... Donna Austin, Neustar:Another reason for unpredictability was GAC advice and the NGPC response. Steve Coates (Twitter):+1 Jannik Jay Westerdal:Legal and application processes are still being worked out and argued. So it is nice to have predictability by having those issued worked out ahead of time. Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Jannik Donna Austin, Neustar:New CEO created some unpredictability as well. Katrin Ohlmer:pro: predictability offers the chance to improve the communication of the introduction process of new gtlds Steve Chan:@Jeff, and the way those issues of compelling interest are resolved should hopefully be predictable as well. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel a strong element to enhance preditability is to develop adaptations to policy based on a cross-community effort from the start. We have learned a lot since the last AGB, and work in silos is slowly being superseded by cross-community work Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jorge, CCWG efforts are distinct from policy development efforts. Rubens Kuhl:As mitigation, we might have approval - with the same mechanism already in place in registyr agreements - for changes to the process that are not security/stability-related. Kurt Pritz:Should we list / catelogue the changes that occured post application-window opening to get an idea of issues to be addressed? Jay Westerdal:String confussion was not something that could be tested or judged before applying jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Donna: sure, but cross-community dialogue would certainly help in avoiding adverse effects on predictability Alan Greenberg:@Donna, I read Jorge's comment a being a lower-case cross-community effort and not a CCWG. Cecilia Smith:Standards: predictability on deadlines both from applicant and ICANN such as response times for application review, negotiation process, etc Amr Elsadr:@Donna: +1. Also, membership to GNSO WGs is open to anyone. This group is chartered by the GNSO Council, we're actually having a cross-community discussion right now, aren't we? :) jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Alan is right, sorry if I wasn't clear Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach:Predictability suggestion: Publish "perfect applications" for new applicants to read and give better guidelines for each answer/requirement Donna Austin, Neustar:@jorge, PDPs are cross-community efforts, there are no restrictions on how can participate. Amr Elsadr:*Although* this group is chartered by the GNSO Council, we're having a cross-community discussion right now. Katrin Ohlmer:Lack of predictability causes applicants to loose faith+trust in process Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):I note there are proposals for PDPs to be the subject of cross-community discussions in the afternoon sessions at Helsinki. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff, I agree on the statements you made about results of lack of predictability, but I think the larger failing was the time it took to iron out the kinks. It's four years since the 2012 application round opened and ICANN is still signing contracts and delegating TLDs. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):right, Tom - good opportunity to bring a wider cross-section of the community into this debate Jay Westerdal:Pro: A definitive list of names banned should be shown to applicates ahead of applying. Such as .home, .corp, etc. Carlton Samuels:Can't hear Jeff at all! Steve Coates (Twitter):I can hear Jefff. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:We can hear you Carlton Samuels:He's fading away.>>> I hear Avri perfectly Carlos Raul Gutierrez:@Carlton suffers from selective hearing Avri Doria:https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/e.+Action+Items Harold Arcos:sound goes and comes Alan Greenberg:Worth noting that PDPs are now FAR more cross community than they were in years past and certainly mre than when the last new gTLD policy was created. There was always an opportunity to input, but not to cooperatively develop the policy. Carlton Samuels:@Carlos. I wish it were the case! :-) Carlos Raul Gutierrez::) Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:thanks Jeff ;) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thanks Everyone good cll, we continue to make progress, talkagain soon then... Bye for now Carlton Samuels:Thanks all! Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Thank you. Martin Sutton:Thx all Rubens Kuhl:Thanks @ll, bye! jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Agree with Alan - and as Tom Dale mentioned, Helsinki would be a good opportunity for a good f2f Christa Taylor:Thanks Avri and Jeff Katrin Ohlmer:thanks Jeff, thanks Avri jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks Gangesh Varma:thanks everyone Rudi Vansnick:bye Christopher Niemi:Thanks Richard Padilla:thanks Harold Arcos:thanks all Iliya Bazlyankov:thank you all and bye grace mutung'u:bye vanda Scartezini:thanks Adri good explanation

1 0

Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 25 April 2016
by Julie Hedlund April 25, 2016

April 25, 2016

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 25 April. 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. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email. Action Item re: Subject Reviews — PDP WG Members should review the Google Docs as follows (and referenced below): 1. New gTLD - 2007 Principles and Recommendations — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15_0TRWzFIaLgO3QlfYH_0ZtOlMKm7SEjsHif4Oi…. 2. Subject 1: Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future - Pros and Cons — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/111-IBO9zKMXPorvBxoot8uTdLPyjPesYCha6D0s…. Different TLD Types: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…. 3. Subject 2: Should the subsequent procedures be rounds? Pros and Cons — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p7RqPPNafMOViLyG-y_isLeYkcqsjHLIgLEXTOP…. 4. Subject 3: Predictability Pros and Cons — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qwbdz_iwAHVVpJwm2RPJK5w07QXxjM9QNn0NAyq…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 25 April 2016 1. Update on CCT-RT/PDP WG Leadership Coordination Call Action Item: Staff will establish regular coordination meetings between the leadership of the two groups. 2. The path forward to Constituency Comment 1 Action Item: Start a Drafting Team to frame the questions and seek volunteers. Volunteers: Christa Taylor, Tom Dale, Katrin Ohlmer, Gangesh Varma, Jay Westerdal, Cecilia Smith, Iliya Bazlyankov, Grace Mutung'u. 3. Subject 2: Should the subsequent procedures be rounds? Pros and Cons Action Items: PDP WG Members should review the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p7RqPPNafMOViLyG-y_isLeYkcqsjHLIgLEXTOP…. 4. Subject 3: Predictability Pros and Cons Action Items: PDP WG members should review the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qwbdz_iwAHVVpJwm2RPJK5w07QXxjM9QNn0NAyq…. 5. Action Item List on Wiki Action Item: PDP WG members should review the actions and comment as desired. See: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/e.+Action+Items. The Chairs will provide a status update at the beginning of each meeting. 6. Timing of Meetings Action Item: Staff will continue to review the geographic spread of the current PDP WG members and determine whether the rotating times should be changed.

1 0

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan April 22, 2016

April 22, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 25 April 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Review agenda Roll call/SoIs Update on CCT-RT/PDP WG Leadership Coordination Call (discussion document under consideration by the CCT-RT attached) The path forward to Constituency Comment 1 Subject discussion: 4.2.7 Applications Assessed in Rounds (Final Issue Report excerpt attached and available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/Jz2AAw) Subject discussion: 4.2.2 Predictability (Time Permitting. Final Issue Report excerpt attached and available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/HT2AAw) AOB Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the GNSO Secretariat. If you did not receive these participation details, please contact the GNSO Secretariat for assistance (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://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

- Response to Dr. Crocker and the ICANN Board
by Steve Chan April 20, 2016

April 20, 2016

Dear WG Members, This message is to inform you that this WG’s response to the letter received from Dr. Crocker and the ICANN Board (http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-zuck-et-al-21mar16-en.pdf) has been provided to ICANN’s Board Support team for transmission to Dr. Crocker and the Board and has already been published on the GNSO’s correspondence page. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/coates-et-al-to-crocker-19apr16-en.… Please let me know if you have any questions, 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://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures call 18 April
by Michelle DeSmyter April 19, 2016

April 19, 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, 18 April 2016 at 22:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-18apr16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-18apr16-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, 18 April 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group on Monday, 18 April 2016 at 22:00 UTC. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Hello everybody Michelle DeSmyter:Hello, welcome Carlos! Yoshi Murakami(JPRS):Hi Steve Coates (Twitter):I'm on, but just need to step away for a minute. Steve Coates (Twitter):Back on. Carlton Samuels:Howdy all Karen Bernstein:Greetings and Salutations. Rubens Kuhl:Good <time of day> everybody! Carlos Raul Gutierrez:GAC 20 commandments of 2007 Steve Coates (Twitter):Link to the language Avri mentions: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-charter-21… Steve Chan:Lost in the ether... Carlos Raul Gutierrez:lost in transmission Carlos Raul Gutierrez:objection Julie Hedlund:@Avri: You are now a host. Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):was the previous qeustion you were addressing from a GAC member? Jeff Neuman:Tracey, the topic was addressed last week by several members of the Working Group that wanted to go striaght to talking about the guidebook Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):ok. thanks Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Bravo!!!!! Carlton Samuels:Lost audio .....but back on a refresh Steve Chan:yes! Carlton Samuels:Audio gone again!! Phil Buckingham:lost audio Rubens Kuhl:This time it looks wholesale. Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):did you look at GAC Jeff, or do you need someone to do this for you for the GAC? Steve Coates (Twitter):I will have the BC's content when I am able to sit with Steve DelBianco. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:lost my audio Steve Coates (Twitter):Carlos - The audio is still on. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Avri is fine Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):Will help you from GAC. Rubens Kuhl:Couldn't hear Jeff at all. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:its back now Carlton Samuels:All I now hear is like a bird in a cage......um, ok, Avri up again. Rubens Kuhl:Bridge to Adobe might be working one-way. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: congratulations Jeff for keeping dates as one of the colums Carlos Raul Gutierrez:very useful Rubens Kuhl:Can't hear Alan as well. Rubens Kuhl:Can always hear Avri. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:hope the other lsits keep the same fomrat Carlton Samuels:Can't hear a thing out of Alan Steve Coates (Twitter):I'll address next. It seems like we are having audio problems. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:can´t hear the gentleman from ALAC Jeff Neuman:Also, people in the RySG should check to see if I got everything :) Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Hey Carlos Raul Gutierrez:I can only hear AVri Carlton Samuels:I'm hearing Avri but nobody else Craig Schwartz - fTLD Registry:I hear all fine. Rubens Kuhl:Same as Carlton for me. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:exactly Greg Shatan:Probably a problem with using Adobe audio. Greg Shatan:Rather than phone bridge. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:maybe a bridge would help Julie Hedlund:I heard Alan and everyone else, but we have had some breaking up. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:yes Kurt Pritz:I only hear Avri Carlos Raul Gutierrez:avri only Carlos Raul Gutierrez:+506 8837 7176 Greg Shatan:We have a bridge... Craig Schwartz - fTLD Registry:I am on the phone line so perhaps an Adobe issue. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:keep going Susan Payne:I think it would be very useful to make it clear what the type/status of the advice is. In case of the GAC for example there should be a clear distinction between GAC Advice and something which is less than formal GAC advice. Olga has mentioned some principles from a GAC WG that she would like to share - we will need clarity on the status of those principle since I do not belioeve they are GAC Advice or indeed formally adopted by the GAC Steve Coates (Twitter):Nobody can hear me talking with Avri? Carlos Raul Gutierrez:@Susan +1 Rubens Kuhl:I couldn't, Steve. Carlton Samuels:Not me sah! Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):@Susan. I sent a document that might be useful to you to Steve last week. Will also help with gAC Advice Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):I can hear everyone Steve Coates (Twitter):Rubens, perhaps relogin? This has happened to me before. Jeff Neuman:I think Susan's points are a good one for the GAC, which is uniquely positioned to give Advice directly to the Board Rubens Kuhl:Tried once. Can try it again. Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):Yes. I offered a littl efurther back in the chat (while you were speaking Jeff) to help you complete your spreadsheet for the GAC. Steve Coates (Twitter):@Tracey - That is much appreciated. Would love that. Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):you're welcome Steve Coates (Twitter):@rubens - I'm so sorry. Any staff recommendations? Steve Chan:@Tracey, all, there is a page added to the WG Wiki, which will be used to capture the catalog of statements and advice: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Catalog+of+Statements+and+Advice+… Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):ok. thx Carlos Raul Gutierrez:can´t hear Jeff..... Greg Shatan:I hear you fine. Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):I can hear you Rubens Kuhl:Even after reloading again, can't hear Jeff or anyone from their side of the universe... Greg Shatan:I am dialed into the phone bridge. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:suld staff please ask for a bridge to +506 8837 7176 Carlton Samuels:Hearing Jeff clearly! Carlos Raul Gutierrez:only Avri :( Phil Buckingham:cant hear jeff . can hear avri Carlos Raul Gutierrez:please call me out Kurt Pritz:I don't hear Jeff Michelle DeSmyter:yes, one moment carlos Steve Coates (Twitter):I see Carlos, Rubens, Phil, Kurt having audio issues with everyone except Avri. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Txs @Kurt. We must have the cheap seats Susan Payne:yes I can Kurt Pritz:I can hear Jeff now Steve Coates (Twitter):Can anyone hear through Adobe or on phone? Christopher Niemi:Hear in Adobe Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):I'm on adobe and it's fine Steve Coates (Twitter):I'm on the phone bridge. Carlton Samuels:I hear you inadobe well! Karen Bernstein:Just fine on my end Carlos Raul Gutierrez:ok Greg Shatan:Hear on phone. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: will restart my pc Richard Padilla:Hello All I'm sorry for being late had to work Robin Gross:I hear through the adobe Sara Bockey:No audio issues via adobe for me Carlos Raul:txxs Carlos Raul:yes Carlos Raul: i´m on the bridge now Steve Coates (Twitter):For those that can't hear Jeff, we are going through the pros and cons listed in Adobe, and making additions, as necessary. Carlton Samuels:Regarding competition, the CCT RT is collecting data that might be useful in evaluating whether that statement is worthwhile Rubens Kuhl:Phone bridge works fine. Phil Buckingham:can t hear anything . shall I reconnect on adobe again ? Rubens Kuhl:This is a bit more than the usual Adobe Connect issues, is the link between Adobe and phone bridge that is failing today. Carlton Samuels:In regard to diversity, there is definitely more with IDNs coming along Rubens Kuhl:And failing in a way not only impacting for those speaking, but also for those trying to follow. Steve Coates (Twitter):@rubens, I think you are correct. Carlton Samuels:Steve is very low! Carlton Samuels:Didn't hear a word he said! Steve Coates (Twitter):I will speak louder. I stated that we are at a competitive disadvantage is at a competitive disadvantage because we do not have a TLD. Greg Shatan:I would distinguish that point from the "anticompetitive" point, which I read as alluding to possible antitrust claims. Carlos Raul:that was close Jeff!!!!! Rubens Kuhl:A Con I usually hear is something in the line of "We already have all the TLDs people need. " Carlos Raul:close to next round Steve Coates (Twitter):@Greg, agreed. Carlton Samuels:@Jeff: Thanks. Sounds practical Carlos Raul::) Julie Hedlund:It was me :-) Carlos Raul:Julie can you number the list please? Carlton Samuels:@Jeff: Yes, the CCT RT is looking at that matter and collecting data to substantiate Carlos Raul:Segmentation I would say, instead of innovation Craig Schwartz - fTLD Registry:Very little innovation yet to be seen. Craig Schwartz - fTLD Registry:Differentiation...lots of that! Carlton Samuels:@Carlos: Yes, that iwhat the preliminary data is suggesting has happened. Carlos Raul:@Cragi differentiation/segmetation yes Rubens Kuhl:There is data on innovation in general, although not on domains specifically. For instance, data showing correlation between timing and innovation success, which reinforces the principle of predictable timing. Carlos Raul:getting a brand to the 1st level, does not create a "generic", but a brand at the first level with a new set of combiantions at the second level possible (like delegating 2letter country codes at the second level. is that innovation or differentiation? I donpt know, but is something new Rubens Kuhl:One source on innovation success factors: https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gross_the_single_biggest_reason_why_startups… Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):+1 to Alan's statement Carlos Raul:$1 for Greg Shatan please Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):Exactly. Cart before horse Alan Greenberg:Only $!?? That's a pretty low rate for a New York lawyer. Rubens Kuhl:Con #2 is split If/When. Carlos Raul:he said the forbidden word..... Avri Doria:That is one reason we are doing mostly investigative work in these first stages of this PDP WG. Alan Greenberg:@Carlos, a "round" is a multi-part song - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_%28music%29. What's wrong with that? Robin Gross:I would list as a "con" for new gtlds: how badly ICANN screwed up the last round. Took in tons of cash, expanded in size and mission scope, many applicants extremely unhappy with ICANN's changing of the rules and general mis-handling of the last round. Until those problems get fixed, we shouldn't do it again. Greg Shatan:Carlos, you can have 6 seconds of my time for that price... :-) Avri Doria:These are also question we can include in the request for Constituency Commnets 1 (CC1) Carlton Samuels:@Alan: Restriction on use? Steve Coates (Twitter):Greg - I can recommend our Vine platform of 6 second lopoed videos. Perfect for that purpose.. Avri Doria:Time check 45 minutes - Half way through meeting Steve Coates (Twitter):Speak louder. Carlos Raul:@Jeff +1 about 70 metrics Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat)::-) Greg Shatan:@Steve, You can find me on Vine at @GSS1958. I've posted a Vine just for you.... Greg Shatan:Robin, I misread your post as "messianic scope".... Steve Coates (Twitter):@greg - Got it! Indeed. Avri Doria:Time check: 30 minutes left Carlos Raul:This classification exercise could be usefull for CCT purposes............. Carlos Raul:5 times rounds Carlos Raul:he said it 5 times Avri Doria:These were not necessarily Brands. Sponsored were essentially simlar to community tlds Craig Schwartz - fTLD Registry:Have to run, thanks all. Avri Doria:and the restricted use are not necessarily Brands. Greg Shatan:I wasn't saying that these were brands, just to be clear.... Kurt Pritz:It might be good to divide the TLD categories between those created by the Consensus Policy and those created in an ad hoc way after the Policy was approved Karen Day:Google did get exclusive use for .PLAY Avri Doria:Kurt, we are talking about the mergent types and not that they were created as types in the last round. Greg Shatan:A generic term is only generic when it isued to as the name of the thing that makes it generic. Apples for applies, but not for computers.... Avri Doria:... emergent types ... Avri Doria:please comment on the email list or comment areas on the wiki. Avri Doria:i expect we will build thse into a question in the request for Community Comments Rubens Kuhl:One reason for having TLD categories is to allow applicants to request a specific category, and if ICANN wouldn't allow that, for that application to be denied. Rubens Kuhl:Which gets more predictability than signing an agreement with ICANN and then having their categorization denied. Carlos Raul:@Rubens I dont think is up to the applicant to decicde on categorization Rubens Kuhl:Not to decide, but to request. Greg Shatan:Agree that one size does not and did not fit all. Carlos Raul:@Rubens as Avri said its an emergent carachteriztion by grouping the applications Rubens Kuhl:Like in if .example doesn't get Brand TLD qualification, applicant prefers its application to be denied. Greg Shatan:Should "faux communities" be a recognized type? Carlos Raul:@Rubens antoher issue would be if after categoriztion, a new "channels" could be opened to a new category Carlos Raul:l@Greg faux pass Rubens Kuhl:Faux communities can be prevented by not having policies that invite them to do so... Avri Doria:Or was that just a funny line. Carlos Raul:at least for the CCT it may be useful to have such a category framework, in a common language with this pdp Steve Coates (Twitter):Sort of funny. Steve Chan:https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/c.+Subject+Work+Spaces Greg Shatan:Not entirely a joke. Is there something useful in looking at a type that may not meet all the criteria of a community, but is not just a generic? Greg Shatan:@Rubens, I agree that gaming by trying to be a community was inspired by the prioritization rules. Robin Gross:We may want to re-think the whole concept of "community" tlds. Rubens Kuhl:@Greg, I think Validated registry covers the use cases I can think that are between full generic and communities. Steve Coates (Twitter):@robin - Definitely agree there could use some clarity there. Steve Chan:https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/d.+Decision+Log Steve Chan:Decision Log: there is a Data Agreed column and to Avri's point, there is a Data Confirmed, which I envisioned as the second meeting, where the decision is confirmed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes I think it is a gd idea Steve Coates (Twitter):I think it's a fabulous idea, and I would be very grateful. Mary Wong:The RPM Working Group will hold its first meeting this Thursday; presumably the liaison question will be discussed at one of its subsequent (but early) meetings. Mary Wong:The liaison is required by the WG Charter, yes. Steve Chan:It's captured in the WG Charter for both of the PDPs Rubens Kuhl:But if the RPM WG thinks it's an awful idea, they can ask to Council to reconsider that idea... I think it's a good idea, though. Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):Can you show the list of pros and cons again on the screen? I'd like to take a screen shot Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):thanks/! Carlos Raul:I will Carlos Raul:its only two times possible Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):as someone who often has issues with EU and NA tme zones.. the rotating times are fine by me even though ne is in the *middle of my night 0200) this one is just fine Carlos Raul:Hobart in Tasmania to LA Carlos Raul:Steve can check it with Lars hoffman please Tracey Hind (GAC Secretariat):+1 to Cheryl Michael Flemming:Being in Asia GMT+ 9:00, I end up spending a majority of my early morning hours (0:00 - 3:00) in ICANN related meetings. However, having them at this time, (7:00 - 8:30) is much better for my schedule. Steve Chan:@Carlos, thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):We just have to share the pain Julie Hedlund:Sure why not Avri :-) Steve Chan:Yes :) Greg Shatan:I will note that I am on the East Coast, and I have a Next Gen RDS call tomorrow night from 1-2:30 am (05:00-06:30 UTC). So we do get the short end of the stick sometimes (and more often lately). Carlos Raul:I will send the times Rubens Kuhl:Just limit people in WGs to be from UTC-3 to UTC+3 only. Susan Payne:thanks, night Karen Bernstein:Have a good evening, morning, and night Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Good call thans Avri and Jeff, thanks all, talk again soon... Bye for now... Robin Gross:thanks, all, bye. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you everyone! Richard Padilla:Bye Sara Bockey:thanks all Marilia Maciel:Thanks Carlton Samuels:Thanks all Carlton Samuels:Bye Greg Shatan:Rounds. Iliya Bazlyankov:Thanks and bye!

1 0

Call for RSVPs: GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | 26 April 2016 at 19:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine April 18, 2016

April 18, 2016

GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | April 26 2016 | 19:00 UTC Please RSVP via this form<http://goo.gl/forms/mR4HD9XNZU> by 25 April 2016. Are you a new GNSO Working Group Member? Do you have questions you never asked about Adobe Connect or other participation tools that are used to facilitate Working Group deliberations? The upcoming Communication Tools Classroom is the place to look for answers to these and any other questions you may have in relation to Working Group tools. Please join the SO/AC Support team on April 26, 2016 at 19:00 UTC for the Communication Tools Classroom. In an informal setting, new Working Group members will be familiarized with the communication tools they will be using when taking part in GNSO Working Groups. Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Introduction to the SO/AC Support team & Policy Support Staff 3. Where to find relevant information: a. GNSO Master Calendar b. Individual Working Group Wiki pages. 4. Working Group Mailing lists: a. Difference between statuses (Observer/ Member) 5. Working Group Members a. Statements of Interests b. Email invitations c. Calendar invitations 6. Adobe Connect room 7. Questions This session will be recorded and the recordings will be made available on the GNSO Calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>. We look forward to your participation! Please RSVP via this form<http://goo.gl/forms/mR4HD9XNZU> by 25 April 2016.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan April 18, 2016

April 18, 2016

Dear Olga, The GNSO Secretariat will note your apologies. As to the best practices you mentioned, I think it would be helpful for you to share what works well for GAC Working Groups, although I would note that policy development within the GNSO is subject to certain requirements in the ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO PDP Manual, and the GNSO WG Guidelines; any additional practices cannot be contrary to those requirements. Please see the related links in the General GNSO Processes & Background section here on this PDP WG’s Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/PAp1Aw. With that caveat, I’ll be happy to add the best practices you mentioned, once sent to me or the WG, to that same Wiki page. Best, Steve From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 18, 2016 at 12:17 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Proposed Agenda Dear Steve, Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call today, as some unexpected domestic matters will keep me busy. I am very interested in participating and by the way I would like to send you the best practice principles that some GAC countries have developed in the GAC Working Group on Protection of Geo names in new gTLDs. Perhaps this document can be posted in the wiki space? I will follow up´with recordings and notes from the meeting. Best Regards Olga 2016-04-15 17:14 GMT-03:00 Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>: Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 18 April 2016 at 22:00 UTC. Review agenda Roll Call/SoIs Continued Discussion on the Catalog of Advice and Statements from the 2012 round of New gTLDs Continued Discussion on Subject 1: Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future? Continued Discussion on Subject 2: TLD Types/Differentiation AOB Wiki Work Space Liaison to Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs PDP WG Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

1 0

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan April 18, 2016

April 18, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 18 April 2016 at 22:00 UTC. Review agenda Roll Call/SoIs Continued Discussion on the Catalog of Advice and Statements from the 2012 round of New gTLDs Continued Discussion on Subject 1: Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future? Continued Discussion on Subject 2: TLD Types/Differentiation AOB Wiki Work Space Liaison to Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs PDP WG Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

8 7

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] .Africa Preliminary Injunction
by liz williams April 14, 2016

April 14, 2016

Hello everyone This is a cross post from the CCWG. It is, however, very relevant to our work. We were discussing one of the questions about fair and objective processes and also blanket waivers to take legal action against ICANN as a consequence of the new TLDs application process for 2012 in our call this week. The attached case link is well worth reading as it addresses many of the issues we are considering in our group. Liz … Dr Liz Williams Senior Advisor Towerhouse LLP 10 Fitzroy Square London W1T 5HP United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 20 7874 1850 Mob: +44 (0) 7824 877757 [cid:image001.png@01D11247.54F845F0] Web: www.towerhouse.co.uk<http://www.towerhouse.co.uk/> www.pierstone.com<http://www.pierstone.com/> Twitter: @towerhouseLLP Towerhouse LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (partnership number OC 330953) and is a firm of Solicitors regulated by Solicitors’ Regulation Authority THIS EMAIL AND ITS CONTENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. THIS EMAIL MAY BE RELIED UPON ONLY BY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE NOTIFY US AND DESTROY THIS EMAIL Begin forwarded message: From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] .Africa Preliminary Injunction Date: 13 April 2016 at 16:35:07 BST To: <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> For those following the case, the decision can be accessed here: case no. 16-CV-00862 RGK (JCx) <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001cSDGDz8h71ckml9p90Ehw8ncA4XI-441d1R6i4Gdh49b…> Short summary – ICANN is enjoined from delegating the .Africa gTLD. The whole case is worth reading, but the money quote is: “The evidence suggests that ICANN intended to deny DCA's application based on pretext.” Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com<http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

Some examples we could use in policy
by Rubens Kuhl April 14, 2016

April 14, 2016

From https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-02.txt , an IETF problem statement document regarding non-DNS TLDs: " Brands / Trademark law If Wile E. Coyote approached the IETF requesting that the IETF reserve .acme, a trademark held by a large corporation making anvils and giant slingshots, the IETF could become embroiled in trademark lawsuit" Other references in 6.3 "The ICANN process to evaluate names" are also worth reading. Rubens

1 0

Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 11 April 2016
by Julie Hedlund April 11, 2016

April 11, 2016

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 11 April. 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. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email. Please note for review/comment that there are two Google Docs as follows (and referenced below): 1. New gTLD - 2007 Principles and Recommendations — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15_0TRWzFIaLgO3QlfYH_0ZtOlMKm7SEjsHif4Oi…. 2. Subject 1 Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future - Pros and Cons — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/111-IBO9zKMXPorvBxoot8uTdLPyjPesYCha6D0s…. These also are on the wiki at the WG Documents at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001970. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 11 April 2016 1. Any Other Business: Action Item: Jim Prendergast re: ICANN workshop on new gTLDs at the WSIS. Request for Steve Chan to check and report back. 2. Catalog of Advice and Statements from 2012 round of New gTLDs Jeff Neuman: Capture all of the different pieces and things we learned that we didn't foresee in the original process so as not to lose the statements filed. Example: Plurals issue -- groups not satisfied with how it was implemented. Request for GAC statements, but focus beyond the GAC, such as BC letter on plurals vs singular; statements on changing contacts midway, etc. Paul McGrady: Annotate the Applicant Guidebook. Provide links in the various sections. Jeff Neuman: Or group by subject matter. Alan Greenberg: Annotating the AGB may be the appropriate place. Action Items: 1) Get a Word version of the AGB and put into Google Docs; 2) Need volunteers from each group's representative (Advisory Committee, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituency, etc.); 3) Co-Chairs will propose a way forward on this. 3. Continuing the discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report Recommendation 12 Susan Payne -- yes still relevant. Liz Williams -- Should never be a prohibition on the opportunity to take legal or other action. Jim Neuman -- The point of the exercise is to make sure we have established a baseline and then when we have a procedure map it back to the concept. Recommendation 13 Liz Williams -- Question: Should there be an EOI whilst the PDP goes on? How do you assess demand? Did some work on potential demand. Carlton Samuels -- Was there ever a direct connection between round and demand? How was demand was established? Jeff Neuman: What is a definition of a round? Alan Greenberg: Think we need to stick with rounds for at least one more round. Unwise to eliminate at this time. Jeff Neuman: These are issues we need to look at. This is one of those concepts that the groups will look at and is not a given. Keep this bracketed until we've done more work and look into GAC advice. [Reference the chat room and transcript for further discussion.] Recommendation 14 No comments. Jeff Neuman: Fairly innocuous proposal. Recommendation 15 No comments. Recommendation 16 Jeff Neuman: The heart of the multistakeholder group model. Seems obvious to keep going. Recommendation 17 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure that this was done. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: As long as compliance is not done at arm's length from GDD it is going to be almost impossible to terminate the contracts. Alan Greenberg: Compliance reports direct to the CEO, not to GDD. Jeff Neuman: The group that works on Track 2 will work with Compliance to ensure that this concept is clear. [Reference the chat room and transcript for further discussion.] Recommendation 18 Jeff Neuman: I think that is in all the agreements now. I think that is a clear concept and not controversial. Recommendation 19 Jeff Neuman: Everyone should pay attention to this one. It has formed the basis for a number of rules. An exception was grant for the BRAND registries for the second part of it. It was the topic of a lot of discussions. The goal is not to reopen the debate here, but it is one the Track 2 group will discuss and whether the principle is still relevant. Susan Payne: This will inform part of the discussion as to whether there are different types of registries with different roles. Jeff Neuman: It can play into the discussion of whether there could be different classes of new gTLDs. Alan Greenberg: This was ultimately not followed and we will have to redo the wording. Jeff Neuman: I think the first part was followed (only ICANN accredited registrars with the exception of the promotional names). The second part of that (not descriminate among accredited registrars) some may argue was not followed in all circumstances. [Reference the chat room and transcript for further discussion.] Recommendation 20 — Replaced recommendation 11. Jeff Neuman: Gave rise to a community objection whether or not it was a community application. One of our tracks will look at objections and communities so we'll be looking at this concept or what could be done to ensure it is implemented in accordance with this concept. Action Item: Staff will update the Google Doc — DONE — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15_0TRWzFIaLgO3QlfYH_0ZtOlMKm7SEjsHif4Oi…. 4. Discussion on Subject 1 (Time Permitting): Pros and Cons — Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future? Action Item: Staff will create a Google Doc with the Pros and Cons — DONE — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/111-IBO9zKMXPorvBxoot8uTdLPyjPesYCha6D0s…. 5. Differentiation with TLDs -- Whether it is good or bad to have Categories Categories from 2012 Open registries Geographic Brand Intergovernmental organizations Community registry Brainstorm on types of categories and characteristics Validated registry -- not another brand but not open to everyone (qualification criteria that must be verified) Not-for-profit or non-profit gTLDs, NGOs Highly regulated Capture for next meeting -- pros and cons of differentiation and difficulty of drawing boundaries/judging them Liz Williams: @ Susan ... so that is just domain name regiistration policy. We really shouldn't be tying ourselves in knots about the REGISTRY label. We should only focue on whether an applicant has articulated their domain name registration policy...so much easier and must less problematic for evaluation panels AND for future changes to use of registry Liz Williams: @ jeff...yes and I'll be preparing for that by illustrating the negative effects (in this round and in previous rounds) of trying to force applicants to declare that they are "something" and then having to prove it for the evaluation process. total madness ensues.

1 0

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 11 April 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Review agenda Roll Call/SoIs Catalog of advice and statements from the 2012 round of New gTLDs Continued discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report Discussion on Subject 1 (Time Permitting): Should there in fact be new gTLDs? AOB 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://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 1

Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
by Julie Hedlund April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. 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. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016 1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached). Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board. 2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt): Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results. Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle. Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.) Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity." Principle D (Summary of discussion) — Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws. Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail. Principle F (Summary of discussion) — No action. Still applies. Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to “provided" in front of "internationally recognized”.Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures." Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms? Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection). Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later. Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss. Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept. Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt. Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration). Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track. Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"? Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses. Recommendation 11 — Replaced with 20. Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.

9 12

For those of you who missed yesterday's GNSO Working Group Newcomer webinar
by Nathalie Peregrine April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Dear all, Yesterday another edition of the GNSO Working Group Newcomer webinar was held, chaired by Donna Austin, GNSO Council vice-chair. For those of you who couldn't make it please find the transcription and slide deck of the presentation attached to this email. Please also find the Adobe Connect recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5t711npn5b/<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5t711npn5b/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ad6eb32f94d9cb4…> The mp3 recording, as well as the aforementioned materials have been posted to the GNSO Master calendar here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr Thank you all! Kind regards Nathalie

1 0

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group 04 April 2016 22:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine April 6, 2016

April 6, 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, 04 April 2016 at 22:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-04apr16-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, 04 April 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 04 April 2016 at 22:00 UTC 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. Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Michelle, Hi steve, Hi all Michelle DeSmyter:Hello, welcome Kavouss! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Odd Audio .. someone needs to mute Steve Chan:Hi Kavouss, everyone! Welcome to the call. Kavouss Arasteh:Michelle, Kavouss Arasteh:I have not been dialed up yet Kavouss Arasteh:Couls someone ask the operator to dial my Number pls Michelle DeSmyter:Hello Kavouss - I just sent you a private chat Jeff Neuman:Hello all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi Jeff Steve Coates (Twitter):Just dialing in now. Yoshi Murakami(JPRS):Hi Jeff Neuman:Steve COates - You have a much better phone :) Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone!! Jeff Neuman:No its just my sloppy typing Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):LOL Frederic Guillemaut SafebRands:Hello all Phil Buckingham:hi everyone Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Hello Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Dont need a phone bridge appaerntly all is fine Carlos Raul Gutierrez: thank you Steve Mary Wong:Per question about Dr Crocker's letter, it was to ask the WG (and the CCT Review Team) to review the concerns raised by the ALAC and the GAC regarding effectiveness of the PICS safeguards (from the GAC's Category 1) Vanda Scartezini:i will remain just at Adobe. Jeff Neuman:Someone should mute Mary Wong:Please mute if you're not speaking, thank you! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):MUTE Carlton Samuels:Howdy all Rudi Vansnick:sorry had connection problems .. Vanda Scartezini:hi Rudi, Carlton, Cheryl... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi Rubens Kuhl:Echo echo echo Vanda Scartezini:ecco Carlton Samuels:Hi Vanda, CLO, Rudi Rudi Vansnick:a lot of well known people here ;) Carlton Samuels:Hi Alan Alan Greenberg:Howdy Vanda Scartezini:hi Alan Craig - fTLD Registry:Can you please make the font a litttle larger? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):second readings in Meetings is a good practice Steve Chan:@Craig, you should be able to adjust the font size on your end Craig - fTLD Registry:Yep, thanks! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and BTW that started in ccNSO FOI WG as a practice ;-) Martin Sutton BRG:Agree with Jeff - this helps with the time zones where some may not be able to join each call. Vanda Scartezini:+ 1 Alan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Also a decision LOG is helful Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):helpful Kavouss Arasteh:Alan+1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Alan Greenberg:First reading decision is normally the result of discussion and therefore not documentable ahead of time. Carlton Samuels:@CLO: +1 on decision logs Steve Coates (Twitter):I don't hear anything, Jeff. Kurt Pritz:What this list lacks is the Terms of Reference Kurt Pritz:There were four of them Carlos Raul Gutierrez:do we still need the word "should"? Kurt Pritz:1) Whether there should be new TLDs. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:I think IDNs are a fact of life now Kurt Pritz:2) What are the criteria for awarding them? Craig - fTLD Registry:Agree with Alan. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:agree with Alan Steve Coates (Twitter):I tend to agree with Alan. Kurt Pritz:3) What is the allocation process Rubens Kuhl:At that time both ccTLD IDN Fast Track and gTLDs were under consideration. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup agree Kurt Pritz:4) What should be the contractual terms Donna Austin, Neustar:If any of these Principles are considered no longer available, do we need to formally say why this is so? Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry, no longer applicable ... Kurt Pritz:The principles, recommendations and implementation guidelines are meant to answer these four over arching questions Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I would thnk a rationale is important es Donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes Alan Greenberg:I think we demonstrated realtively well that we were not able to homour Principle A in the first round. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Alan, that may be the case but the principle remains relevant. Vanda Scartezini:Anyway could just astate new top level domains can be in both ASCII and IDN formats Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Greg Shatan:Agree. Carlton Samuels:@Vanda: +1. Just state that as a principle Jon Nevett:Vanda +1 Vanda Scartezini:in a better english please Carlton Samuels:I would like to see a principle here that take out and make geographic and service provider diversity a major goal! Greg Shatan:I agree with Vanda that "C" is not well drafted, and should be revised for that reason. Rubens Kuhl:+1 to sync wording with new bylaws. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Greg Rubens Kuhl:I don't think there is anything in the principles that would prevent service-provider accreditation and/or aggregated evaluation. Alan Greenberg:I wasn't suggesting that we not do it. It was just an observation. Steve Coates (Twitter):Agree with you Jeff. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):For C, perhaps "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity. Kevin Kreuser:we should scrap principle B. cannot control what is applied for. C covers IDNs. Robin Gross:I'm not on audio, but this one (Principle G) was not or at least insufficiently implemented. Ayden Ferdeline:re: G, why only the "applicant's" freedm of expression rights? Carlton Samuels:Refer G: I think more should be said about the string evaluation process. There's more to it than freedom of expression! Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Just to draw the WG's attention to the GAC 2007 Principles on New gTLDs, which are advice to the Board. Not suggesting anything specific for this current discussion but I expect that GAC members will wish to raise some aspects of them at some point. I can circulate the link to the mail list. Rubens Kuhl:@Ayden, because other freedom of expression rights are covered by overall consensus policies. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Tom, does the GAC intend to revise their Principles in light of the 2012 round? Robin Gross:I disagree with removing principle g Carlos Raul Gutierrez (mobile):@robin it was suggested to move from principles to recommendations Carlos Raul Gutierrez (mobile):not to eliminate Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Donna, that has been alluded to in GAC discussions but the specifics of a process are yet to be discussed in detail. Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Tom Jon Nevett:agree with Robin Robin Gross:The recomendations and principles are supposed to work together. They aren't an either or proposition. Carlton Samuels:@Greg: I agree twith Greg to the extent that principles should be inviolate. I think it is important to scribe a principle on the string evalaution process because so much of outcome depends on this! Vanda Scartezini:being under principle further discussion will not change it while as recommendation can be follow or not and related to rights it is relevant to pay attention Carlos Raul Gutierrez (mobile):correct @Robin, but the whole list suffers from the expectations that something could go earl Greg Shatan:We should either make "G" a recommendation or move some of the recommendations up to principles. Carlos Raul Gutierrez (mobile):go wrong Rubens Kuhl:A is the least followed principle, with G second. B to F were followed. Kavouss Arasteh:Iam disconncted Kavouss Arasteh:I do not hear or unable to hear the reaction to my suggestions Michelle DeSmyter:yes Steve Coates (Twitter):I would change to "that are recognized under international principles of law." Robin Gross:Julie, I'm not on audio, but could you please include in the notes my objection to moving principle g out of principles? Thanks. Greg Shatan:Agree with Steve C. re phrasing. Craig - fTLD Registry:Well we know that didn;'t happen. Jon Nevett:Craig +307 Julie Hedlund:@ Steve Coates: I've captured that text. Julie Hedlund:@Robin Gross: I've noted your objection. Robin Gross:Appreciate it, Julie! Kavouss Arasteh:What is principle of law? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I think we should allow for fexability Steve Coates (Twitter):+1 to Jeff, we should consider implications to "rolling procedures" Rubens Kuhl:What general guidance do we have from the policy x implementation WG ? Kavouss Arasteh:Colleagues, let us retain Principle as thezy are and not start such conversion Steve Coates (Twitter):Agree with Greg. Recommendation 1 should not be negotiatiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz:It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board Kurt Pritz:The 19 points under "recommendations" are the heart of the New gTLD Policy Steve Coates (Twitter):Just a reminder to mute your line. Steve Chan:@Steve Coates, it is noted in the Final Issue Report that the impact of switching to a "rolling procedure" should be well understood Greg Shatan:Once "recommendations" are adopted, they're no longer recommendations; they're policy. Steve Coates (Twitter):Thx @Steve Chan Karen:I was just kicked out of the call. Any reason why? Robin Gross:And the way they are framed in the appendix A (GNSO Policy) are "recommendations". Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):So once Board-approved, perhaps "Mandates" instead of "Recommendations" Robin Gross:to the bylaws, that is. Mary Wong:@Karen, were you logged in under your own name before? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Fair point(s) Greg Rubens Kuhl:There are reserved words that would not create technical instability, like .EXAMPLE. Richard Padilla:Sorry for being late I'm here hi everyone Jeff Neuman:I just got dropped/ Kurt Pritz:https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt Kurt Pritz:Definition of Must, Shall etc that has been adopted by ICANN Greg Shatan:Definition of must: (mŭst)n." The unfermented or fermenting juice expressed from fruit, especially grapes." Richard Padilla:Can someone dvise what exactly what is meant by strings should that be fully defined Richard Padilla:sorry I'm meant should the term strings be fully defined sorry about my english lol Steve Coates (Twitter):Yes to "what is a reserved name." Greg Shatan:A string is the set of characters that make up a domain. Kurt Pritz:@ Richard: I agree. We should get rid of terms like "string" that are not commonly understood Greg Shatan:Kurt, next you'll suggest we get rid of acronyms!! Richard Padilla:@greg thanks Richard Padilla:@Kurt yes when I hear strings I start think of programming it is such a loose used term in computing Jon Nevett:Jeff, Isn't that on the second level? Rubens Kuhl:During application a string is not yet a TLD, so it could be either "string" or "proposed TLD". Ayden Ferdeline:re: recommendation 2, does this only apply to strings in the same language? Craig - fTLD Registry:ICANN fail - allowing plaurals. Steve Coates (Twitter):At least "confusingly similar' is generally recognized as a concept in trademark law, which is largely consistent internationally. Rubens Kuhl:@Ayden, this has been decided differently by objection panels. Some included language as criteria, some considered the overall meaning. Steve Coates (Twitter):Agree with Kavouss, let's tie that defintion to "Reserved" with a capital R, in its various forms. Ayden Ferdeline:thanks @rubens Carlton Samuels:@Kavouss +1 Carlton Samuels:I'm agreeing with the definitional notion! Rubens Kuhl:I think that some reserved names would only require exact match blocking, not similarity blocking. Carlton Samuels:I have to drop off now. School Bord meeting Steve Coates (Twitter):The former is TM/IP based, the latter are not. Robin Gross:so free expression concerns was left out of implementation of Rec 3 (which only focused on TM) Marc Trachtenberg:"Existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law" should go beyond tademark. The existing language argiably does, but in practice did not. Rubens Kuhl:.home, .corp and .mail Robin Gross:Julie, I'm not on audio, but can you please include my point above above about Rec 3 in the notes? Thanks! Harold Arcos:+1 Greg, Richard. Regarding on definition of terms. Point G and Recomm 1.- are joint and are key for many groups who works in HHRR for their countrys. Kurt Pritz:@ Greg - that is why I referred to the Terms of Reference at the ouset; each of the recommendations point to one of the terms of reference, not the principles Julie Hedlund:@Robin: Done! Robin Gross:Thanks, again! Rubens Kuhl:Robin, I think the Limited Public Interest Objection ended up carrying the active part of rec. 3. But it's debatable indeed. Steve Coates (Twitter):Yes to that. Richard Padilla:@Harold Thanks for that Steve Coates (Twitter):Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical." Rubens Kuhl:Could be IDN Language support, could be registration volume... Rubens Kuhl:Currently, they demonstrante passing a pre-delegation test. Rubens Kuhl:ICANN site describing PDT: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt Martin Sutton BRG:Agree with Rubens - it's the PDT Frederic Guillemaut SafebRands:when applying, you had to explain your technical choices. And clarification questions were asked on that matter suring the evaluation process. Rubens Kuhl:On Rec.8, the process ended up only looking at financials with the angle of a commercial registry, while brand registries and community registries could be financed very differently than thru registration revenues. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Frederic Guillemaut SafebRands:for some customers it was already too much to show Kavouss Arasteh:YES Rudi Vansnick:indirect financial information is normally found in the business plan the applicant has to present Frederic Guillemaut SafebRands:yes Rudi Vansnick:based on the business plan the financial capabilities are influencial depending on when the application is put into the root$ Rubens Kuhl:I think we moved more to be able handle financial and technical issues with registry transition mechanisms. Robin Gross:We must do better on Rec. 9 in the future. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Jay Westerdal:Financial information has not led to any failed registry so far? Rudi Vansnick:@Robin: +1 Rubens Kuhl:The only sure way to fail financial evaluation was to refuse to provide financial statements. Other than that, no. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Jay Westerdal:New companies formed just to be Registries have no books to exam Rudi Vansnick:@Jay: the applicant provides a business plan based on information at the moment of drafting the application, should an applicant forecast the fatc ICANN rolls out years after the application is entered ? Rubens Kuhl:BTW, ICANN made all applicants financial projections to fail by requering a new registrar accreditation in order to sell new gTLDs, so every projection contained in the applications were broken... Vanda Scartezini:" using" is really a bad word in this context . Kavouss Arasteh:TO WHOM nO. 9 IS ADDRESSED? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Vanda Vanda Scartezini:to ICANN I beleive Kavouss Arasteh:aRE WE ASKING icann TO DO THAT PUBLICATION USING.... Kavouss Arasteh:perfect twhat you said jeff Vanda Scartezini:@kavouss "using is really bad word as some of us agreed Rudi Vansnick:normally tha applicant guidebook should contain process Greg Shatan:Please mute if you are not speaking, and especially if you are typing.... Rubens Kuhl:"non-discriminatory" would be a nice addition to rec. 9. Vanda Scartezini:+ 1 Rubens Rudi Vansnick:"non-discriminatory" -> define the criteria too Harold Arcos:+1 Rubens Rubens Kuhl:Or, could be a "should" instead of a "must"... Kavouss Arasteh:YES Steve Coates (Twitter):Jeff - 4 miniute warning. Steve Chan:@Jeff, as Julie typed in the notes, you missed Recc 10 Robin Gross:GAC objections impact Rec. 12 - not understanding what a govt might object to Jay Westerdal:100% agree. Alan Greenberg:Sure it was.... Rubens Kuhl:This was violated. No other way to state what happened. Steve Coates (Twitter):10 could use some improvement, especially with additional clasuses, and application of new clauses in existing contracts and renewals. Jay Westerdal:Sounds illegal to change a contract afterwards Vanda Scartezini:each contract shall be available for different alernatives now that we know how different aspects of newTLDs can come out from applications Rudi Vansnick:have there been lawsuits due to the failing base contract Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):We do need to 'fix' this matter Kavouss Arasteh:nEXT CALL Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thank everyone.. Good progress Talk again next week then Bye for now Julie Hedlund:Next call is Monday, 11 April at 1400 UTC Julie Hedlund:1600! Julie Hedlund:Sorry! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):BYE Julie Hedlund:Yes! Steve Chan:1600 UTC :) Martin Sutton BRG:Thanksall Robin Gross:Thanks, Jeff and all! Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you all. Christopher Niemi:THanks Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone! Rudi Vansnick:bye Yoshi Murakami(JPRS):thank you Ayden Ferdeline:thank you all Richard Padilla:Later Frederic Guillemaut SafebRands:bye Rubens Kuhl:Thanks Jeff, Steve, staff and all! Vanda Scartezini:thank all Greg Shatan:Thanks all! Vanda Scartezini:specially julie....and all stafff

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] : New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
by Craig Schwartz April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Dear Colleagues, As we embark on this effort to help ICANN improve its process for the approval of new gTLDs, I encourage us to consider at least the following: - To the extent that something worked reasonably well, let’s not reinvent the wheel if it’s not necessary. This would include not spending a tremendous amount of time wordsmithing policy principles, recommendations, etc. unless it absolutely adds value to the next iteration of a New gTLD Program. - In my opinion, the process for the last round was in some respects over-engineered and having been part of ICANN staff at that time I know there was an effort to attempt to account for every conceivable wrinkle via some process (e.g., dispute resolution procedures, objections). Unfortunately this approach not only led to several significant delays, but also resulted in the Applicant Guidebook being modified numerous times before ICANN opened the application window. The process was supposed to be that all applicants would know and play by the same set of rules before applications were accepted and we all know how that turned out. Let’s not unnecessarily repeat this kind of approach. - Focus on the elements that were just plain bad and did a disservice to stakeholders in the process. There are probably a dozen or so pieces of the process that either did not work as intended (e.g., applicant support program, community applications, objections) and then some pieces that are just plain failures in my view (e.g., permitting plurals of strings, ICANN’s accountability mechanisms and particularly that of the Ombudsman with regard to disputes). For example, many stakeholders have called for the development of appeals mechanisms to challenge results of certain processes rather than what’s currently available through ICANN. This may be something from the group to consider. As a new gTLD registry operator, determining how much time to spend on “ICANN” vs. serving the needs of the communities fTLD represents is not a tough call. On the one hand, all registry operators have businesses to run and stakeholders to serve. On the other hand, and I think many of you share the same view, we feel committed to improving ICANN for the benefit of all stakeholders regardless of whether they choose to participate directly or watch from the sidelines. I’d rather see us spend our time and energy improving the process by focusing on what didn’t work and what makes sense to consider adding vs. going backwards and attempting to recreate much of the program from scratch. To all of you committed to this important work, thank you. Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cellular: +1 202 236 1154 Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: <https://twitter.com/fTLD_Registry> @fTLD_Registry Please visit us at <https://www.ftld.com/> www.ftld.com and <https://www.register.bank/> www.register.bank

1 0

- Proposed Agenda for 4 April 2016
by Steve Chan April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 4 April 2016 at 22:00 UTC. 1. Review agenda 2. Roll Call/SoIs 3. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (Draft letter to be distributed by Steve Coates) 4. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (excerpt attached) 5. Discussion on Subject 1: Should there in fact be new gTLDs? 6. Discussion on Subject 2 (Time Permitting): TLD Types/Differentiation 7. AOB Best, Steve 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

4 7