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

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