May 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg - lists.icann.org

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan June 1, 2016

June 1, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Wednesday 1 June 2016 at 22:00 UTC. 1. Review Agenda 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw) 4. CC1 Discussion, continued (Working Draft here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh8ugZAomD2AGNymmVRgKGP9TA2KQ7BkQbrRAEv…) 5. AOB a. Work Plan – As there have not been any objections to the attached draft work plan, it will be considered as adopted by the WG, although this certainly does not prevent revisiting and revising in the future. 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/

3 2

- 30 May WG Meeting Rescheduled
by Steve Chan May 25, 2016

May 25, 2016

Dear WG Members, It was brought to staff and the co-chairs’ attention that 30 May is a holiday in the US and in the UK. In order to avoid losing a significant number of participants, the meeting will be rescheduled for 1 June at 2200 UTC. Members should expect to receive an updated meeting invitation from the GNSO Secretariat. Apologies if this change leads to any conflicts for WG Members. 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, Attendance & AC Chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG 23 May 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter May 23, 2016

May 23, 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, 23 May 2016 at 13:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-23may16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-23may16-en.mp3> <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-09may16-en.mp3http://a…> 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/hQyOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 23 May 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 23 May 2016 at 13:00 UTC. Vanda SCARTEZINI:good day Michelle, Vanda SCARTEZINI:hola raul, como estas? Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Buenos dias Vanda. Todo pura vida aqui en Costa Rica. Como va el nuevo Gobierno? Vanda SCARTEZINI:I am arriving at my office, so may disconnect and reconnect during may way throug elevators... Carlos Raul Gutierrez:connected trough my celphone. Thank you Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Safari is asking me for a new Adobe add-in Carlos Raul Gutierrez:and I dont trust them.... Carlos Raul Gutierrez:anybody had the same message today? Michelle DeSmyter:Carlos, go thru this link to check your AC: https://arcps.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm Jeff Neuman:hello all Michelle DeSmyter:you will probably have to reconnect your Adobe Connect after doing this Jeff Neuman:pretty low on attendance so far with 3 minutes to go. I will likely start in 4 minutes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi all Note I AM HERE not an apology after all Paul McGrady:Same for me. I was not supposed to be to be here, but had a schedule change. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Thanks Jeff Jeff Neuman:Hello from Sunny Orlando....where I see a number of people on this call are calling in from.... Carlton Samuels:Morning all Jeff Neuman:wow Jeff Neuman:mute please Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ouch Carlos Raul:Txs Michelle Carlton Samuels:I hear "hello"... Michelle DeSmyter:I will private chat you Carlos Carlos Raul:I had to install the add-in and it is working in safari ight now Martin Sutton:Apologies for joining late Carlton Samuels:All else is quiet on the western front. Carlton Samuels:OK. Now I hear Michelle Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:wow Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:thanks for fixing Berry Cobb:Carlton, can you mute your AC mic please. Carlton Samuels:IT is Mute! Avri Doria:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh8ugZAomD2AGNymmVRgKGP9TA2KQ7BkQ… Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:yes Vanda SCARTEZINI:@raul, yes I got it too but just ignored Martin Sutton:no sound Alan Greenberg:very hard to hear Carlos Raul:lost susan Vanda SCARTEZINI:not clear sound Vanda SCARTEZINI:not a clear sound and now none Alan Greenberg:Can someone repeat what she said? Susan Payne:sorry - hopeless internet connection! Carlos Raul:BIG trouble today with Adobes new add-in :( Susan Payne:I will type Steve Chan:@susan, agree with avri, the letters can be customized to the particular community body Carlos Raul:Pity Tom Dale is not on the call today to hear his reaction to Susnas suggestion Susan Payne:I am not sure how much you all heard. I think you got the gist, that could we specifically ask the GAC to identify their WGs and what they are working on to drive early engagment. Vanda SCARTEZINI:yes Susna, clear now. you right may be needed to add some words to make it more appropriate Susan Payne:I do wonder whether everyone will understasnd what is meant by "continuing mechanisms" Carlton Samuels:@Susan: GAC doing have traditional WGs and their decision-making protocol is by comparison, relatively bryzantine. Julie Hedlund 2:@Avri: I am taking notes also. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Hi - as I'm attending this call (or trying to), perhaps I could help somehow on GAC matters? Carlton Samuels:@Avri: We have a major definitional challenge with the category "community". Carlos Raul:ok Avri, will take an English as a second language look.... Vanda SCARTEZINI:Carlos, youRight. some trasnlations made driven to worng interpretation Vanda SCARTEZINI:sorry so mnay typos Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes we will lneed to watch the matters of interpretation carefully and ensure question meaning doand opnness is not altered Vanda SCARTEZINI:procedures to apply is one problem but procedures to get the approval is much more demanding of modifications Carlos Raul:get more coffee for Avri Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Carlos Raul::-) Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:+1 Alan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Carlton Samuels:@Alan: +1. That is a killer. What we need is a well-defined protocol to address any question that arise during the process Carlos Raul:Good point to be carefull about the difference between applicants, users and people who don´t care at all......... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Or don't know but are effected Jian Chang_KNET:+ 1 to Kristina Jian Chang_KNET:it's not only for applicants, but for many other stakeholders Vanda SCARTEZINI:right Carlton. first round for brand for instance I had several question to one applicant I was help here and it was almost impossible to get a clear feedback. Kristina Rosette (Amazon):Any examples of what might be a "special post PDP policy consideration method"? Carlton Samuels:I don't like the idea of an issue on which hangs an application is not deemed "resolved" to settle the applicant! Kristina Rosette (Amazon):@Avri: Thanks. I think the question should also ask "and, if yes, what do you propose"? Read literally the special post PDP policy consideration method question only asks for a "Yes" or "No" answer. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Perhaps it's just me, but I'm not sure about the link between the overall question 5 and some of the subquestions. Carlton Samuels:A legitimate response might be "we didn't anticipate this one and it appears the policy framework is silent here. But this is our feeling on what must be done." Where there is no policy then make your best decision and close the matter! jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):What is meant with "community" in this question and what is meant with "processes"? Jian Chang_KNET:Many applicants for the new round of TLDs may come from the traditionl industries. It will be quite challenging to reach out and engage these people Amr Elsadr:Agree with Alan. There are existing GNSO mechanisms to make post PDP policy considerations. The question (as I understand it) is asking whether further mechanisms are necessary. For this question to be answered, the respondent would need to understand the GNSO mechanisms, and point out why they are insufficient, and how further mechanisms would add value. Rudi Vansnick:@Amr + 1 Kristina Rosette (Amazon):+1 to Amr. And, depending on what is proposed, amendments to the bylaws would be necesary. Jian Chang_KNET:My comment is for the first sub-question about enable "greater community engagement". jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):As to the last question: wouldn't it be advisable to inform SO/AC/C that there are other phases foreseen where a number of topics are planned to be tackled? Carlos Raul:shit happens Jian Chang_KNET:for the open question, should we discuss the application fee? e.g., the upper limit of application fee jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):not yet? :P Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Should first question under Q6 be clarified to indicate that we are talking about the number of total applications from all applicants? Steve Chan:@Jorge, this concept is touched on in the introductory section. Perhaps you can take a look and see if it's sufficient? Carlos Raul:@Alan i thnk they are good to get a feeling of the temparature in the room Carlos Raul:very valuable by the way jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Steve: do not underestimate how quickly people read things - perhaps a note refering back to that piece of info could work Carlos Raul:I agree with Avri that it is a good time to take stake. We are just a very small sample of the community and we better take the time right now if there is only one way forward. or people have 3 different ways forward. Steve Chan:@Jorge, fair point, and we'll look to adding a reference like you suggest Carlos Raul:$1 for paul McGrady for use the R word Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I suspec5 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):should rad suspect a second coffee is in Avri's nnear future ;-) Carlos Raul:Dear Staff I dont get the full width of the slides on my screen Carlos Raul:ok Carlos Raul:sorry Carlos Raul:$1 for Jeff Steve Chan:You can find the recordings on this page: https://www.icann.org/gddsummit Steve Chan:The session that Jeff is describing is from day one, Part 1, at around the 2hr 15 minute mark Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Steve Carlos Raul:Good call. We made $2 so far. Please staff invoice Jeff and Paul. Don´t bill Akram, because Staff can´t be charged Sara Bockey:It was mentioned at GDD, I believe by Jeff, to call it "application window" instead of the "R" word. Carlos Raul:As co Chair of the subsequent roudns,e charge $10 he should b Rubens Kuhl:I would add that only 3 specific back-end providers came out against starting an accreditation process right now. Carlos Raul:Excellentt summary Jeff, thank you Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):no holdng anything against you Jeff Carlton Samuels:Have to run to another call. Bye all Karen Day:+1 Paul Avri Doria:I have to drop off right at the end. i again encourge everyone to review and comment on the CC1 doc this week. Paul McGrady:Yes, but INTA has several members on this call right now, even during their Annual Meeting Sara Bockey:thank you all Paul McGrady:Thanks Jeff! Thanks Avri! Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Tthanks all have a great day Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you. Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Martin Sutton:Thanks, bye Kristina Rosette (Amazon):By all Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:thank you Vanda SCARTEZINI:very good meeting Vlad Dinculescu:thanks all Susan Payne:thanks all Jeff Neuman:by the end of this I will owe hundreds of dollars Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now then Vanda SCARTEZINI:thank you all Rudi Vansnick:bye

1 0

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan May 23, 2016

May 23, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 23 May 2016 at 13:00 UTC. Agenda Review 1. Review Agenda 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw) 4. CC1 Discussion (Working Draft here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh8ugZAomD2AGNymmVRgKGP9TA2KQ7BkQbrRAEv…) 5. Draft Work Plan Discussion Continued 6. 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/

4 3

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 23 May 2016
by Julie Hedlund May 23, 2016

May 23, 2016

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 23 May. 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, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Please also note the link to the Community Comment 1 Google Doc for review and comment at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh8ugZAomD2AGNymmVRgKGP9TA2KQ7BkQbrRAEv…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 23 May 2016 1. Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw) #19 Liaison for Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs): Staff is facilitating a search for a volunteer. #22 Drafting Team to Develop Constituency Comment 1: Google Doc created for PDP WG review (see link above). #24 Pull data on who applied, how many applied, and how many for at least the top 10 applicants (from discussion on application limits, pros and cons) – ongoing 2. CC1 Discussion (Working Draft here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh8ugZAomD2AGNymmVRgKGP9TA2KQ7BkQbrRAEv…) Action Item: PDP WG members review and provide comments. Discussion Notes: Introduction Susan Payne: In the "other efforts" section of the GAC's letter, consider adding their particular WG efforts related to New gTLDs in their particular outreach letter. General Comments Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Offer to review the document with respect to interpretation by non-English speakers. Alan Greenberg: This is a huge amount of work and I think it could be difficult to analyze the answers. Martin Sutton: Think about what likely responses will be received from the questions. For example, on limits, note that we have not placed limits on the previous rounds. If we should contemplate future limits how would you envision imposing them? Avri Doria: Agree. Should look at conditioning the questions. Question 1: Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future? Jeff Newman: Suggestion is to restate the question. The burden should be that circumstances need to have changed; burden is on the side against the current policy. Jeff will make additional comments in the draft to change the tone. Avri Doria: Is it reasonable to ask both questions? Alan Greenberg: What does it mean to make Internet names more diverse? Question 4: Predictability and flexibility. How should the two be balanced? Alan Greenberg: Avoid absolutes -- Example: "every imaginable situation". Importance to the broader community and not just applicants. Kristina Rosette: Focus on trust in the process; none of the questions address trust in the outcome. Paul McGrady: Instead of "imaginable" we could say, "foreseeable". Also ask is there a concern that extremely flexibility will put predictability at risk. Question 5: How can community engagement be improved in the processes? Kristina Rosette: Any examples of what might be a "special post PDP policy consideraton method"? Add "and, if yes, what do you propose"? Read literally the special post PDP policy consideration method question only asks for a "Yes" or "No" answer. Avri Doria: I don't have a suggestion as to what it might be. Alan Greenberg: "If the Board is faced with questions" -- not sure how I would answer. It depends on the nature of the issue. Jorge Cancio: Not sure of the link between the overall questoin 5 and the subquestions. Martin Sutton: "Can a standard be established..." Change to "Should a standard be established" and add a request for examples. Paul McGrady: Add a second question: "If the Board is faced with an implementation issue that is contrary to the policy should the policy be sent back to the GNSO to address?" Amr Elsadr: Agree with Alan. There are existing GNSO mechanisms to make post PDP policy considerations. The question (as I understand it) is asking whether further mechanisms are necessary. For this question to be answered, the respondent would need to understand the GNSO mechanisms, and point out why they are insufficient, and how further mechanisms would add value. Open Question: Jorge Cancio: As to the last question: wouldn't it be advisable to inform SO/AC/C that there are other phases foreseen where a number of topics are planned to be tackled? Perhaps a reference to the introduction could be included. 3. Draft Work Plan Discussion Continued Action Item: PDP WG members review and continue discussion. Discussion Notes: Slide 3 -- Key Questions/Assumptions for Work Plan Design: Jeff Newman: "Are there operations that shouldn't be part of this subsequent procedures policy discussions?" Steve Chan: There are rough estimates for every subject. It is possible that not every subject will result in policy recommendations. Some may just require implementation guidance and some may not require recommendations. There are various outcomes for each subject. 4. Any Other Business: GDD Summit Update Action Item: None.

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures 16 May 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter May 17, 2016

May 17, 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, 16 May 2016 at 22:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-09may16-en.mp3http://a…> 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/yAWOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 16 May 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 16 May 2016 at 22:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:yes Janvier Ngnoulaye:Hi to All Sara Bockey:yes Dennis Chang:yes Steve Chan:@Avri, she's having some audio difficulties Steve Coates (Twitter):I can kick off, if necessary. Steve Chan:the feedback is unpleasant... Julie Hedlund:I can hear the buzz too! Steve Chan:yeah Dennis Chang:I hear it too Philip Corwin:That buzz is most annoying Klaus Stoll:Cricket with a bell Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):especially through headset Susan Payne:no Karen:Hi Folks, I was traveling the past 2 weeks. Janvier Ngnoulaye:The sound is not fine at all Karen:Thanks Greg Shatan:Someone may have a cellphone too close to their landline phone. Everyone should mute if they are not talking. Susan Payne:yes why don't we all try dropping off Klaus Stoll:Start the recording, start the meeting and call in the cricket hunter Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):perhaps dial-out to them Greg Shatan:I t ried dropping off and coming back on.... Julie Hedlund:@Greg: Did that help? Richard Padilla:Hello all glad the noise is over Janvier Ngnoulaye:Yes, it is quite well now Steve Chan:https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001974 Greg Shatan:@Julie, made no difference, but the problem was solved not long after..... Steve Chan:@alan, thanks for the suggestions. Carlos Raul:Full time GNSO???? Who is full time GNSO...... Greg Shatan:All GNSO, all the time.... Alan Greenberg:@Carlos, those who are not actively part of (or running) other sessions in parallel with the GNSO sessions. Carlos Raul:@Alan I thought the whole purpose of the Schduel for helsinki was to amke progress on policy work, but never mind. We have Greg. :) Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you Steve C. Steve Chan:I'm glad I have an excuse if that was fuzzy. It's 12:30 here in Amsterdam + jet lag. Greg Shatan:2 and 5 seem rather similar.... Greg Shatan:in the last set Alan Greenberg:Is limits competition different from stifle competition? Julie Hedlund:@Avri: Probably could just use either one. Greg Shatan:Stifling competition is a bit different from being anticompetitive.... Alan Greenberg:It's been a long day. I am just being argumentative! Greg Shatan:I vehemently disagree, Alan! Alan Greenberg:Shades of Monty Python... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Julie Hedlund:@Greg: Maybe it could just be a trifle stifling :-) Carlos Raul:I redommend both of your to go to the argument clinic Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I assume iCals will be sent to us for the meeting Greg Shatan:Not the Department of Redundancy Department? Steve Chan:@Cheryl, they will, but sometimes you just accept the meeting without looking at it :) Carlos Raul:Sayonara Steve Coates (Twitter):Cheryl - I'll folllow-up on that. I don't have it on my calendar either. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thanks everyone a short call is always fine by me :-) Philip Corwin:Bye all Greg Shatan:Au revoir! Richard Padilla:bye Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you everyone. Julie Hedlund:Thanks all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye Steve Chan:thanks

1 0

Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 16 May 2016
by Julie Hedlund May 16, 2016

May 16, 2016

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 16 May. 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, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Please also note the following links to Google Docs for PDP WG review with additions referenced below. These Google Docs also are linked in their respective Subject Work Spaces on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/c.+Subject+Work+Spaces. 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…. 5. Subject 4.2.4: Community Engagement — Anything to Add/Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kr-ejx8tuxbrD-i51wmLEPgqfdbaysS_A_ndFcf…. 6. 4.2.16 Application Submission Limits — Pros and Cons: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ohStHeUAP8GeEniuPso7y4XKcrEZ9W17kJHUhY7…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 16 May 2016 1. Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw) Action Items: #16 SO/AC letter on overarching issue: Sent out on to the SOs/ACs on Friday, 13 May requesting responses in 35 days. #19 Liaison for Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs): Staff is facilitating a search for a volunteer. #22 Drafting Team to Develop Constituency Comment 1: Put a partial first draft in a Google Doc and informed Drafting Team. 2. Draft Work Plan Discussion (Current Draft Attached) Action Item: PDP WG members review and continue discussion. 3. Subject discussion: 4.2.4 Community Engagement (Final Issue Report excerpt available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/IT2AAw) Action Item: Incorporate into Constituency Comment 1. 4. Subject discussion: 4.2.16 Application Submission Limits (Final Issue Report excerpt available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/OT2AAw) Action Items: Incorporate into Constituency Comment 1.

1 0

CCT RT Conference calls
by Nathalie Peregrine May 16, 2016

May 16, 2016

Dear all, The CCT-RT now has 4 sub teams which conduct work on calls (in addition to plenary calls). This results in a large number of call. As such, we have added the CCT RT plenary calls to our GNSO Master calendar: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar For additional details and dial in details of the sub team calls: * Plenary https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56989447 * Competition & Consumer Choice https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58737630 * Safeguards & Trust https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58737319 * Nielsen Subteam https://community.icann.org/display/CCT/Nielsen+Subteam+-+Calls * Application & Evaluation Process https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59639637 Note: the procedure to join calls remains the same I.e. Via https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cctreview-observers Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan May 13, 2016

May 13, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 16 May 2016 at 22:00 UTC. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw) Draft Work Plan Discussion (Current Draft Attached) Subject discussion: 4.2.4 Community Engagement, continued (Final Issue Report excerpt available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/IT2AAw) Subject discussion: 4.2.16 Application Submission Limits, continued (Final Issue Report excerpt 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 09 May 2016
by Julie Hedlund May 10, 2016

May 10, 2016

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 09 May. 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, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Please also note the following links to Google Docs for PDP WG review with additions 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…. 5. Subject 4.2.4: Community Engagement — Anything to Add/Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kr-ejx8tuxbrD-i51wmLEPgqfdbaysS_A_ndFcf…. 6. 4.2.16 Application Submission Limits — Pros and Cons: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ohStHeUAP8GeEniuPso7y4XKcrEZ9W17kJHUhY7…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 02 May 2016 1. Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw) Action Items: #12 SO/AC letter on overarching issues (see also #16): PDP WG members should review the draft letter circulated on 09 May by Steve Chan and send comments by COB Wednesday, 11 May. Once the letter goes out additional outreach from PDP WG members would be helpful. Send the final letter to the SO/AC Chairs no later than Friday, 13 May. Ask for responses in 35 days. #20 Timing of the Calls: Staff will add 1300 UTC as a new time rotation to 1600 and 2200 UTC, starting on 23 May. PDP WG will re-evaluate in Helsinki. Updates: #17 Word version of AGB: Completed. See the link on the action items list. #19 Liaison for Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs): Still seeking a liaison. #21 CCT RT leadership coordination: Completed. Scheduled every 3 weeks. 2. Subject discussion: 4.2.4 Community Engagement (Final Issue Report excerpt available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/IT2AAw) Action Item: Continue discussion on next rotation call; PDP WG members should review the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kr-ejx8tuxbrD-i51wmLEPgqfdbaysS_A_ndFcf…. 3. Subject discussion: 4.2.16 Application Submission Limits (Final Issue Report excerpt available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/OT2AAw) Action Items: 1) Pull data on who applied, how many applied, and how many for at least the top 10 applicants. 2) Continue discussion on next rotation call. 3) PDP WG members should review the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ohStHeUAP8GeEniuPso7y4XKcrEZ9W17kJHUhY7….

2 1

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG Call 09 May 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter May 9, 2016

May 9, 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, 09 May 2016 at 16:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-09may16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-09may16-en.mp3 http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-09may16-en.mp3> <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-09may16-en.mp3 http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-09may16-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/_QCOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 09 May 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 09 May 2016 at 16;00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi Tom, Great time of day for us in AU ;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and he dropped off.. Steve Coates (Twitter):We are working on it Cheryl! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I HAVE NO PROBLEM SHARING THE PAIN>>> Alan Greenberg:Long delay in getting on bridge Richard Padilla:Hello All Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Cheryl, nowhere else I'd rather be. Greg Shatan:I got in the bridge almost immediately.... Susan Payne:hi I don't have sound - is it me? Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Steve Coates....are we ready? Susan Payne:ah, thanks! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):argh sorry CAPS Steve Coates (Twitter):Can you hear, Susan? vanda SCARTEZINI:hi all Martin Sutton:Hi everyone, sorry for my late arrival. Susan Payne:@Steve - yes, now I can hear thanks vanda SCARTEZINI:i am in a noise room, so I am mute. Steve Coates (Twitter):https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw Avri Doria:would like to get it out by the end of the week. Avri Doria:We have one for the CCT Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):What deadline would be envisaged for the SOs/ACs to respond? Steve Coates (Twitter):My apologies, you are correct Avri. Robin Gross:Agree with Susan about the need to understand the level of consensus of GAC "advice" Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):The GAC resppnse will make clear the status of the advice referred to. Alan Greenberg:Lost all sound. Just me? Guillemaut Frederic (SafeBrands):i lost audio Susan Payne:I have too Julie Hedlund:I lost sound too. Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:same here Amr Elsadr:I lost sound as well. Christa Taylor:Very light in the sound Julie Hedlund:Steve Coates is very faint. Christa Taylor:better Marc Trachtenberg:Now its intermittent Robin Gross:sound going in and out Amr Elsadr:@Steve: You're breaking up. vanda SCARTEZINI:sound is going and come back Amr Elsadr:Better now. Christa Taylor:yes Christopher Niemi:Yes Susan Payne:yes vanda SCARTEZINI:yes Julie Hedlund:Loud and clear Steve. Gangesh Varma:much better now Steve Chan:@Susan, noted. I can prepare a draft unless you've like to provide updated text. Christa Taylor:good in the volume Richard Padilla:Loud enough thanks vanda SCARTEZINI:13 UTC looks ok Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:dito Avri Doria:35 days sounds good, but the sooner the better Steve Chan:@Avri, that's actually driven by the PDP manual vanda SCARTEZINI:yes. 25 will be too close to Helsinki. would be good to have it early. vanda SCARTEZINI:i beleive we need to have a stronger engagement from regions like LAC for instance.. I have done first round a huge effort but still llack of knowledge about new gTLDs in this region. depspite all efforts from all groups here. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@vanda - are you referring to more outreach to LAC region, input from the LAC regision, or both? Paul McGrady:I'm always amazed by Avri's mastery of all of this ICANN procedure. Thanks Avri!! Very helpful. Robin Gross:I agree these issues need to be decided by the community and not the board-staff. Harold Arcos:my apologies for late connection Amr Elsadr:Wouldn't the standard be something that was within the scope of this PDP, but not addressed? That is my understanding of something that would warrant an expedited PDP. Harold Arcos:@Vanda +1 Amr Elsadr:Expedited PDPs cannot be used to revisit issues that were already settled. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):or to invent theoretical, but not necessarily real issues Gangesh Varma:I'm not sure if this is the right point of time to raise this, but when do we flag potential human rights concerns? Avri Doria:Ganesh are you suggesting that HR should be one of the overarching issues? Avri Doria:Amr, I beleive it can also be used with there is substantive new information on a previously scoped aand discussed issue. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I know HR is referenced with some of the specific issues (when we get into tracks), but how would it apply as an overarching issue? Gangesh Varma:no Avril, I was thinking hr implications in particular issues we are looking at . forexampl e related to sensitive strings restrictions on freedom of expression etc. Avri Doria:and a GGP can be used for clarifying policy that was not cear enough - explanation not new policy Amr Elsadr:@Avri: Yes..., exactly. But Jeff does raise an interesting point on what may be "theoretical issues". I suspect it would be up to a Council vote on whether or not to launch an EPDP. Gangesh Varma:Avri* sorry about the typo Kurt Pritz:While one can form an opinion on this issue without data, this discussion should have been prefaced by a brief illustration of statistics: how many applied for how many? Avri Doria:no worries - i am the queen of typos Phil Buckingham:Rightside ???? Avri Doria:Ganesh, in that case I think it would come in during the specific these discussion that we will ask about in CC2, a project for after Helsinki vanda SCARTEZINI: I beleive this is a client's decision - Avri Doria:I must say, I do not rember the discussion of limits or the numbers of application _evver_ being an item of discussion in the policy of 2007 vanda SCARTEZINI:no limit in my opinion vanda SCARTEZINI:in a noise environment . just able to write Robin Gross:I agree, Avri, that was never an issue. Avri Doria:If we put a limit, one can create several applicants and get around the limits. Donna Austin, Neustar:any limit seems to be anti-competitive Robin Gross:Right - easy to create a "new" and "different" legal entity. Donna Austin, Neustar:the application fee may have an impact on numbers Danny Glix:demonstrated usage of gtld within specified timeframe (more than landing page) Christa Taylor:Pro: Reduces the risk of gaming applications Christa Taylor:Con: Reduces competition Avri Doria:In fact it was rumored that limits was one of the ingredient causes of a 6 figure application fee. Christa Taylor:Con: Always a way around it and reduces transparency on applicants vanda SCARTEZINI:i am against limit client applicications Amr Elsadr:I'm concerned that limits in the number of applications, or time to apply may favour those who are closely following the process, as opposed to others who may require outreach. Robin Gross:Yes, Amr. I don't think limits are a good idea. vanda SCARTEZINI:for me no limit to application Avri Doria:so a pro, where it possible, might be that limits might keep the application fee down. Amr Elsadr:Also..., I wonder if setting any sort of limits will affect how and when applicant support is implemented, assuming any form of applicant support is actually implemented. Steve Coates (Twitter):I see fees as being a more complicated issue, where higher fees creates separate benefits and drawbacks. Christa Taylor:Con: Could stifle competition, which is an AoC principle Laura Hutchison:+1 Samantha on limits adding complexity and uncertainty to the process Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:Limits can easily be gamed Amr Elsadr:I think I was confused on what was being suggested as limiting the number. Are talking about limiting the number of applications per applicant, or the total number of applications? VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:Hi Guys Got late. :-( Avri Doria:the same caveat about just through out ideas applies to the things i threw out in the chat just as issues we may want to ask about in CC1 Martin Sutton:If the application fee is reduced (which is likely based on the surplus derived from the latest round), then multiple applications are more likely from a single applicant Greg Shatan:Jeff -- understood you were just putting that out for discussion, but thanks for clarifying. Nothing should be beyond discussion.... Amr Elsadr:@Jeff: Fair enough Thanks. :) Kurt Pritz:@We all know the top 5 or so. We should look at the long tail too. How many appliecd for one, two, or three. What were the auction results, who were the general victor? The we could actually confirm that the round did encourage wider involvement in the DNS and the application process followed economic rules that operate in free markets. These would be good results that would support an opne, unlimited round. Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Agree with Kurt. Should not the starting point for any policy discussion be whether specific problems have been identified from the data for the current round with regard to who applied for how many? Phil Buckingham:It is much more cost effective to apply for multiple applications vanda SCARTEZINI:agree with PHIL here vanda SCARTEZINI:susan arguments looks great Robin Gross:I don't think there should be a "Penalty" for applying for multiple applicants. Donna Austin, Neustar:Not sure I agree with Susan, I think there were some significant events that slowed things down: pural v single and name collision Robin Gross:applications, rather vanda SCARTEZINI: time I beleive for application Susan Payne:but to be clear, I do see the cons to limits, and I do thinkif the expectations were different at the outset then the outcome could have been different vanda SCARTEZINI:will limit normally Laura Hutchison:Agreed To - what problem are we trying to fix? IIs there a problem? Laura Hutchison:sorry - that was meant to say "ageeed Tom" Kurt Pritz:If rounds were held frequently, the volume problem would be reduced. Susan Payne:@Donna - I agree with you - I didn't say it was the only delaying factor but I do think it was a significant factor Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good point Alan Christa Taylor:~$20k per app Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:Agree with Alan Christa Taylor:In reality: Multiple apps is economies of scale, are further supported by the fact that biggest volume and successful TLDs (generally) are portfolio applicants Amr Elsadr:@Susan: You raised a valid concern. I don't know if the number of applications contributed to delays, but one way or another, there should be some sort of predictable deadline for gTLDs to go live. Not sure if limiting the number of applications is the solution though. Jim Prendergast:$100k for eval, $25k for progam development and $60k for legal fund Steve Coates (Twitter):From 2013: ICANN has provided the components and associated costs relating to the $185,000 application fee as follows: Development costs of $26,950. A recovery of costs associated with the launch of the gTLD application program. Application processing costs - Fixed of $24,800 relating to set-up, integration and one-time communication costs. Application processing costs - Variable of $73,000 for labour in relation to evaluating each application. Risk costs of $60,000 for unanticipated costs and variances between estimates and actual costs. vanda SCARTEZINI:last round time was the limit. Phil Buckingham:Thought 185K fee was based on 500 original budget ( back in 2010) as full cost recovery . Christa Taylor:How about some method to try and reduce or implement a ceiling on the number of applicantions an applicant can have in contention to reduce gaming in the next round? Steve Chan:@Jeff, the DG noted that reducing the number of applications from applicants could conceivably reduce demand for a scarce resource Danny Glix: It seems like a handfull of large companies owning most of the gtlds, isn't that diversified, the efect of this is that niche specialists that better match the gtld string end up getting upsold. Limits create lots o problems, but we can still aim for some type of policy where you state usage, get it approved, and demonstrate said usage in order to maintain the string. Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Christa Amr Elsadr:Cool. Thanks all. Bye. Guillemaut Frederic (SafeBrands):thank you Cecilia Smith:ha! Susan Payne:thanks Christa Taylor:woo hoo! thx! Robin Gross:wow - thanks, bye Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:Thanks all! Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Bye Martin Sutton:thx

1 0

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan May 9, 2016

May 9, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 9 May 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw) Subject discussion: 4.2.4 Community Engagement (Final Issue Report excerpt available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/IT2AAw) Subject discussion: 4.2.16 Application Submission Limits (Final Issue Report excerpt 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 1

Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 02 May 2016
by Julie Hedlund May 3, 2016

May 3, 2016

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 02 May. 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, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. 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, 02 May 2016 1. Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw) Action Items: 1) Geographic distribution/rotation of meetings: Consider rotation for APAC. Staff to review/edit and then share Excel document. 2) Letter to Chairs to collect statements: Send out a communication and get as many statements as possible. Include link in the communication on overall issues. Staff will prepare a draft letter. 3) Staff to send around a note to CC1 volunteers re: next steps 2. Subject discussion: 4.2.7 Applications Assessed in Rounds, continued (Final Issue Report excerpt available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/Jz2AAw) Action Item: PDP WG members should review the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p7RqPPNafMOViLyG-y_isLeYkcqsjHLIgLEXTOP…. 3. Subject discussion: 4.2.2 Predictability, continued (Final Issue Report excerpt available on Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/HT2AAw) Action Item: PDP WG members should review the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qwbdz_iwAHVVpJwm2RPJK5w07QXxjM9QNn0NAyq…. Question: Prioritize the pros and cons? Suggest letting the Drafting Teams that are putting these into questions for the community consider priority.

2 1

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG Call 02 May 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter May 3, 2016

May 3, 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, 02 May 2016 at 22:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-02may16-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, 02 May 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLDS Subsequent Procedures PDP WG call on Monday, 02 May 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. Jeff Neuman:Hello all! Jeff Neuman:I will play the role of chat monitor today :) Carlos Raul:what? Carlos Raul:Co-chair monitoring whats goin on in the Backbenches????? Carlos Raul:no way Jeff Jeff Neuman:That's the beauty of 3 co-chairs... Carlos Raul::) Roger Carney:yes Christopher Niemi:Yes, there is an echo Richard Padilla:hello all Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):Active link: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/e.+Action+Items Steve Chan:Apologies, I realized that, it's also missing the status and complete date columns. Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):You can view those items in the active link, if you have access. Carlton Samuels:Howdy all Heather Forrest:These calls have been a bit rough for Asia Pacific timezones Carlton Samuels:Its difficult to hear the speaker Carlton Samuels:Yessir Jeff. A little better Robin Gross:these times seem to work for me Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):Or if we are losing people who cannot make the times that we've made for the call. Heather Forrest:A rotation would be helpful to share the pain Carlos Raul:@Heather +1 Heather Forrest:Thanks, Avri! :) Heather Forrest:oops wrong list Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):all for sharing the pain Heather Forrest:This time is good for APAC Carlton Samuels:+1 to rotation. My friend and colleague Cheryl Langdon Orr could say a word Carlton Samuels:Aaah she did! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I just get annoyed when all the calls in a WG Never suit APAC Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):That of course doesn't stop me attnding at unfriendly hours of coure ;-) Rubens Kuhl:Cheryl, Heather: what UTC time range would make easier for APAC ? Carlton Samuels:Don't I know that! Which is why I say you have an abundance of standing here! Carlos Raul:Rubens, lets calculate it the other way around: how many hours of sleep (6?) and between which hours (Midnite to 6am?) and let the system work it out Carlos Raul:shouldn´t take a masters degree in math Heather Forrest:@Rubens - staff have a fabulous Excel chart that we have used in other WGs - it shows the "dead zone" in all the time zones, is colour-coded green, yellow, red Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):Active link: https://community.icann.org/x/Jz2AAw Carlos Raul:@Heather, @Rubesn there you go, the proboem has been around for quite some time Jeff Neuman:@Heather. We have done that here as well. Pwehaps Mr. Chan can send that around Jeff Neuman:"perhaps" Steve Chan:@Jeff, it's not as colorful as the one Heather is referring to Steve Chan:I can look into making it as pretty as that one. Heather Forrest:Great, gang, thanks! If we can avoid any zone in the red that would be wonderful, or at least no group in the red every meeting. Carlos Raul:<Question> Avri can you explain #10 please? Heather Forrest:+1 Jeff re need to clarify "rounds" Carlton Samuels:@Jeff: +1. Not as odd as you'd think! Carlos Raul:Windows Alan Greenberg:Those are rounds, but overlapping rounds Carlos Raul:@Jeff predictable and scheduled rounds: my answer to Jeff it is YES, something like that would be nice rounds Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):I think that depends if applications are accepted in specific periods, but the reviews of the applications could be ongoing, etc. Rubens Kuhl:The word "round" suggests to me that there is no assurance a next procedure will occur, which hurts predictability. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):'Rounds' = 'application opportunities' Carlton Samuels:@CLO: +1. That is baseline hard to misunderstood! Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):+1 to Paul's comments on the concerns from a brand/marketing perspective. Jeff Neuman:I like the music analogy Jay Westerdal:Work load produced by a round needs to be measured. Rubens Kuhl:Considering how long some contention sets from the 2012-round will take to solve, we will probably have overlapping rounds anyways. Harold Arcos:<Q>@Avri: In # 10 You try to say that generic words could be manipulated as brands ?</Q> Carlton Samuels:@Avri: Application opportunities in fixed time frame and where all applications are resolved. Jeff Neuman:@Harold Carlos Raul:we are getting closer to a definition of "pipeline" instead of rounds Rubens Kuhl:Carlos Raul, you might prefer muting phone or AC for now... Jeff Neuman:@Harold, these were points that came up during the last call...they are not Avri's points Carlton Samuels:@Carlos: I'm suggesting a fixed time for applications and round ends when all applications are disposed of! Kurt Pritz:Start with a generic definition of Rounds: a period of time, with a specified opening and closing date, where new gTLD applications are accepted for evaluation. One hallmark of an application round is that the timing of the application submission during the round is not used as contention resolving criteria (i.e., first-come, first served does not apply).Then discuss the allocation rules once a decision is made to have rounds. Rules that apply to allocation might be: length and frequency of rounds; whether they start a t a date certain each year, rules for resolving contention. Carlos Raul:@Kurt: are we talking about "application rounds", separte fro the rest of the process? Jay Westerdal:If a workload from a round takes 2 years, the next round should be based on that load Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):I think we should bifurcate the application process and contention process apart from the overall process, as they are various ways this could all be implemented. e.g. ongoing applications could result in periodic contention sets. Paul McGrady:What we just went through was "one kind of round" but we shouldn't limit use of the word "round" to just that kind of scenario. Harold Arcos:Thanks @Jeff; I remember them but I tried highlight the redaction. I know it is not a Avri pov. sorry for any inconvenience. Carlton Samuels:In my view application is a distinct phase in the round with a fixed beginning and end date. Then there is processing and finally delkegation. These timelines are elastic. But the round ends when ALL applications are adjudicated, from application thru rpocessing to delegation. Or not. Robin Gross:It seems to me we should be first asking if we want new gtlds at all, and ONLY IF the answer is yes, do we determine if we want "rounds" and what they should be. Jeff Neuman:@Robin - that is overall question 1 Harold Arcos:@Carlton: A fixed time, Could not be read as conditioned for others interested? Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):I love bifurcate. Jeff Neuman:We have to proceed with all other overall questions on the assumption that the current GNSO Policy stating there will be additional introductions of new TLDs Jeff Neuman:will occur Carlton Samuels:@Harold: Yessir. But at least everybody knows the same time. Carlton Samuels:@Robin: Your question is one we are pondering in the CCT RT Robin Gross:Thanks for the clarification! Carlton Samuels:We are examinging the premise on which they were forked; demand and competition. Carlton Samuels:Big matter is how de we measure demand? And whose demand are we measuring? Carlton Samuels:@Robin: Would be happy to hear your views on the CCT RT. Carlos Raul:@Jeff by spearating the steps, allowing fro applications will give you a level of demand, but then is the question how long the next step takes Jay Westerdal:accepting, evaluating, and adjudicating should be the first phase in a bifurcated round Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):Several trademark offices deal with contention in various ways. For example, in Israel, you can file a trademark application to establish a priority date, but for terms of who is considered "first" the filing date is irrelevant, and it can be considered the same as s a trademark filed a few months later. TThis could be managed in a similar wary. Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):I'm sorry, my chat is inserting/changing letters. Jay Westerdal:Second phase would be delegating Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):That's right Jeff, overall that is a competition concern. Kurt Pritz:@Carols Julie Hedlund:See the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qwbdz_iwAHVVpJwm2RPJK5w07QXxjM9QNn0NAyq… Carlton Samuels:Are we saying that there will be expressly limited legal recourse defined here? Jeff Neuman:@Carlton - Not sure what you are referring to? Can you explain Carlton Samuels:@Jeff: #2 in Pros Heather Forrest:@Avri - thanks - good suggested way forward Carlton Samuels:It refers a priori 'work out' of legal and application processes.. Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):Best to drafting teams, but agreed, that would be very helpful - some order. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Heather Forrest:+1 Jeff - obvious that the existing rules are lack predictability, and different treatment of similar applications suggests that the lack of predictability affects not only the applications procedures but the evaluation procedures as well Kurt Pritz:Are we discussing pros and cons of predictability or how to acheive it? "Predictability" is our existing policy. From the GNSO Policy: "New generic top-level domains (gTLDs) must be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way." And. "All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore, no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the selection process." Robin Gross:Too many contentions became "beauty contests", totally unpredictable. Carlton Samuels:@Jeff: I beg to suggest that would be a crap shoot. Anybody, not just folks with more money than sense, would wish to reserve the right to judicial review. I should think so long as ICANN is and remains a California public benefit corporation the right to petition the district court cannot be predicted...or denied. Heather Forrest:I'm not a California lawyer but I would expect that denial of judicial review wouldn't be supported in local law Heather Forrest:@Jeff- sorry - not picking on you, just supporting your comment Heather Forrest::) Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):In New York we call that busting balls. Jeff Neuman::) Rubens Kuhl:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act denies judicial review, but some exceptions have been established by courts. And at least the court have the authority to verify the provisions of this act applies. Rubens Kuhl:For instance, do reconsideration and reviews processes fully qualify as arbitration ? Some might believe so, some not. Carlton Samuels:@Community applications on predictability: They were the antithesis of predictable! Robin Gross:yes, it is a more generic principle, community TLDs were just one example, not the only one. Carlos Raul:@CArlton Carlos Raul:Community are the oposite from GENERIC Carlton Samuels:We had so mnay defintions/understandings/expectations of what 'community' means it was enough to give a reasonable person heartburn Robin Gross:thanks, Jeff. Rubens Kuhl:Lack of predictability favors more risk-taking organizations while risk-avese organizations don't like it. Rubens Kuhl:(risk-averse) Robin Gross:yes, thanks - much better Jeff Neuman:I wont take it personally :) Carlton Samuels:@predictability: I'm curious about the categorisation of strings. The elephant in the room is the substance of what is "generic". Carlos Raul:@Carloton, pure generics "died" in the last round. Rubens Kuhl:@Carlton: a string doesn't need to fit in just one bucket. A word such as apple can be generic for describing fruits, or not generic for describing electronic devices and online services. Carlton Samuels:For if the past is any indicator, it seems to some of us 'brands" and "community" especially are what might be politely termed penumbral; definitely in its shadow. Heather Forrest:sorry, all, instead of muting I hung up the call. Back now. Sorry, Avri, I missed some of your response but what I heard at the end sounded sensible. Carlton Samuels:Elsewhere Carlos has suggested predictability be examined best within a 2x3 matrix. Heather Forrest:Agree that "banned" is likely not the term we want to use Heather Forrest:Predictability requires clarity/specificity on all reserved/restricted names, not just generics. Carlton Samuels:@Rubens: Yessir, we are very much aware of that. What we're wrestlking with is when do we put it in one or other bucket? For since it exists, we cannot deny the applicant both ways! Carlton Samuels:Who get the advantage? Philip Corwin:Would "blocked" be better than "banned"? Robin Gross:Blocked works. Richard Padilla:Agree on blocked Carlton Samuels:@Robin: blocked words is more like it. In this context I can think of the issues surrounding .internet Jay Westerdal:Lets define name collision list then. Ahead of round. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):+ 1 Alan Heather Forrest:@Jeff - thanks, that's what I thought but wanted to confirm Steve Coates (Twitter/BC):+1 on Jeff's comments on more than just a list. We need a process. And an appeal process, if that's possible. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Jeff, we had to have learned a few things ;-) Steve Chan:FYI, Reserved Names is a distinct Subject, section 4.3.1: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.3.1+Reserved+Names+List Jay Westerdal:sensored words. ;) Carlton Samuels:Use of "censored" connotes content management...which makes ICANN have the vapors! Rubens Kuhl:Nope, to the Registry Amendment process. Rubens Kuhl:Registry Agreement Amendment process to be more precise. Jeff Neuman:FYI - Have a nasty thunderstorm here, so if I get disconnected that is why, but I am still on for now Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: Here too and tornado in the area! Jeff Neuman:I think we should do AOB Carlton Samuels:Thanks all. Bye all Carlos Raul:bye bye Rubens Kuhl:Thanks @ll! Sara Bockey:Thanks all Heather Forrest:thanks, everyone! Christa Taylor:thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone, talk again soon... bye for now. Richard Padilla:Thanks all later Harold Arcos:Thanks all Christopher Niemi:Thanks Robin Gross:thanks - bye Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone! Iliya Bazlyankov:Thanks and bye!

1 0