August 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Survey on Newcomer Tools
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Dear ICANN Community member, We need your input to improve GNSO newcomer and training tools. GNSO Council has directed<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201607> staff to develop a survey to assess the familiarity that the community has with the different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness. Staff would kindly request that you complete the attached survey available here<http://www.clicktools.com/go?iv=1063kkc3v1m98>. Please provide your response by 11 September 2016. Should you have any further comments please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, David Tait David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org

3 3

Letter from Steve Crocker to GNSO Council Chair
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

All, I came across this letter in passing and thought it was useful to send to the group as it relates to our work. One of the items I would like to ask each work track to think about is the key question raised here:, namely within the work tracks, "Are there a set of critical issues that can be identified to be addressed prior to a new application process?" Or, is it the view of the Community that the entire PDP must be completed prior to a new process? I believe the identification of these issues is a critical first step of the work tracks and will help to produce work plans for the respective tracks. I am cc'ing GNSO Council leadership on this email to keep them in the loop. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

4 3

LAST CALL on CC1 / No Call Monday
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

All, The co-chairs met today and decided that because no additional CC1 responses came in this past week that we would cancel the Monday full group call on the 15th. However, the Work Tracks will begin as scheduled next week on the 16th (Work Track 1) and the 18th (Work Track 2). Please look out for a cancellation notice for Monday's meeting as well as agendas for the first calls of Tracks 1 and 2. The Full Group will meet again on Monday, August 22nd. Also, I would like to issue a Last Call on responses to CC1 by Friday, August 19th. Please let us know if there will be any difficulties in making this new (third and final) deadline. If we do not receive responses by the 19th, we will assume that you respective constituency/Stakeholder Group/ Advisory Committee would like to sit this comment period out. Thank you to the GAC and Registries for already submitting your comments. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Avri Doria Co-Chairs

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Letter from Steve Crocker to GNSO Council Chair
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 9, 2016

Aug. 9, 2016

Resending as I mistakenly put Volker on this email as opposed to Donna. Sorry for the duplication. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 1:44 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: James Bladel (jbladel(a)godaddy.com) <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest(a)acu.edu.au>; Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> Subject: Letter from Steve Crocker to GNSO Council Chair All, I came across this letter in passing and thought it was useful to send to the group as it relates to our work. One of the items I would like to ask each work track to think about is the key question raised here:, namely within the work tracks, "Are there a set of critical issues that can be identified to be addressed prior to a new application process?" Or, is it the view of the Community that the entire PDP must be completed prior to a new process? I believe the identification of these issues is a critical first step of the work tracks and will help to produce work plans for the respective tracks. I am cc'ing GNSO Council leadership on this email to keep them in the loop. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

1 0

Mp3, UPDATED Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG 08 August 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 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, 8 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08aug16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08aug16-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/_ACsAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 8 August 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, Monday, 08 August 2016 16:00 UTC. Jeff Neuman:All - We will start in 3 minutes Jeff Neuman:1 minute.... Karen Bernstein:Good day everyone Richard Padilla:Hi all Christa Taylor:yes Paul McGrady:yes Christa Taylor:lol Emily Barabas:connecting with her now Freida Tallon .Sky:Hello All Avri Doria:i cannot hear. will have to do something. i heard during check. Paul McGrady:We are. A few more days Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):IPC membership call tomorrow, most likely a topic for discussion. Cecilia Smith:I reached out to the Chair o& Policy coordinator and they said they would send out, but I haven't seen anything. I will follow up this morning. Nathaniel Edwards:Apologies for late arrival Paul McGrady:Happy to do so. Will post to Council list. Jeff Neuman:@Avri - Yes. We have good participation on the lists, but not necessarily during the calls Cecilia Smith:Correction, BC will send out to group for discussion, not sure if/when response will be returned to WG. Donna Austin, Neustar:The RySG comments support the introduction of new gTLDs in the future. Jeff Neuman:Can we post a link to the RySG comment to show their response Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: It is on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/RySG%20comments%2…. Karen Bernstein:Isn't the whole purpose of this to decide whether there should be second round? Karen Bernstein:Ok Christa Taylor:The different categories could also tie in to application fees Carlton Samuels:@Christa: +1 VANDA:@carlton , yes agree too Carlton Samuels:@Avri: There was some baseline attributes to geographic, just not itemised in one place in the GB Carlton Samuels:@Jeff: This WG would be remiss if we didn't address the idea/concept/category generally called "community". Avri Doria:Community was one of the categories in the AGB. we may want to discuss how it was done, but it is not new as a category Carlton Samuels:@Avri: Soo true. But both ALAC and the GAC had concerns about definition and structural elements. VANDA:guess due the problem some community had with the previous work on colecting support ... Robin Gross:I also have concern about the way the concept of "community" has evolved at ICANN. Donna Austin, Neustar:I just found this text in the RySG response as part of the reply to 2c: We do not believe that regulated and highly-regulated TLDs should be treated as a separate category of TLDs from the application process as these categories were solely derived from GAC Advice and not self-designation by the applicant. Paul McGrady:Will dial in VANDA:Ia gree with Donna Robin Gross:I believe we should consider doing away with community as a category in the future, in part, due to its arbitariness. Robin Gross:arbitrariness Paul McGrady:On the phone line now, ready to try again. Carlton Samuels:@Jeff: Definition on community for clarity is the ALAC's position Karen Day-.JMP:+1 Paul Steve Coates:For generics, I think we should spend some time discussing definitions. Paul McGrady:Thanks Avri Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff, which is the same for regulated and highly regulated. Paul McGrady:But Spec 11 didn't exist when the AGB was published. The issue here is notice to new applicants, rather than surprises. VANDA:my point shouls be informed but not established as a category Paul McGrady:I'm agnostic on what we call it, but if closed generics need not apply, we just need to be up front about it. VANDA:@paul - agree Jeff Neuman:@paul - Agreed the rules need to be clear Paul McGrady:Avri - agree. Laura Watkins:Agree and think that makes sense but the only caution I would say that we should avoic being too prescriptive - there should be options for applicants that don't fit into set categories Donna Austin, Neustar:I think they're called Donna Austin, Neustar:generic Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry Avri, I was being flippant Paul McGrady:This is a big issue. Can we agree to talk to indecision today pending additional responses from the other Cs and SGs? Christa Taylor:+1 Donna Grace Mutung'u:rounds should be more predictable...maybe every three -five years to allow those catching up with the Internet opportunity? Donna Austin, Neustar:yes, an ongoing process Donna Austin, Neustar:Correct Jeff Jeff Neuman:I agree it is two points Kurt Pritz:Thiis is the current policy: "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." VANDA:+ 1 Donna, ongoing process to allow specially developing countries to be more prepared. Carlton Samuels 2:The A/C room has been flacky since morning for me VANDA:for me too.... Donna Austin, Neustar:No objection from me. Good to have the discussion. Steve Coates:Terrible time logging in today. Carlton Samuels 2:I thought we were looking at engagement in the applciation process? That is VERY early in the process, no? Carlton Samuels 2:@Donna: That would be helpfu but in the ALAC's view the engagement process takes on a wider perspective; we need more discussants from different places in the circle. Carlton Samuels 2:@Avri: The latter, during application process Carlton Samuels 2:@Avri: Yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Avri Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I suspect ALAC would agree with this point Donna we were under impressed with thd 'outreach' VANDA:we had NO outreach in this south region here.. I personally did some and got some new applicants but nothing really organized outreach. Paul McGrady:Outreach can always be improved. Donna Austin, Neustar:RySG comment: Notwithstanding the ultimate goal of a continuous process, the RySG does not support the notion of placing unnecessary limitations on future applicants. This would be anti-competitive, has the potential to inhibit innovation: and, as such, is antithetical to the purpose of introducing new gTLDs. Paul McGrady:Should we ask Staff if they can handle 10,000 applications? Mary Wong:This would be a question for Akram/GDD :) Paul McGrady:Thanks Mary! Thanks Avri! Paul McGrady:I predicted 596. Boy, was I wrong, Nathaniel Edwards:I agree. Enforcement/community/objections costs will be out of control for 10,000+ applications. Paul McGrady:Great call today Avri. Thanks for keeping us on track. VANDA:very productive emeting, thanks Avri! Christa Taylor:Thank-you Avri! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx everyone, bye for niw then... THANKS Avri more taalk whn it is NT 0330 Richard Padilla:bye all Cecilia Smith:Thanks you! Karen Day-.JMP:goodbye thanks Freida Tallon .Sky:Thanks and Bye all

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG 08 August 2016 16:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 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, 8 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08aug16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08aug16-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/_ACsAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 8 August 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, Monday, 08 August 2016 16:00 UTC. Jeff Neuman:All - We will start in 3 minutes Jeff Neuman:1 minute.... Karen Bernstein:Good day everyone Richard Padilla:Hi all Christa Taylor:yes Paul McGrady:yes Christa Taylor:lol Emily Barabas:connecting with her now Freida Tallon .Sky:Hello All Avri Doria:i cannot hear. will have to do something. i heard during check. Paul McGrady:We are. A few more days Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):IPC membership call tomorrow, most likely a topic for discussion. Cecilia Smith:I reached out to the Chair o& Policy coordinator and they said they would send out, but I haven't seen anything. I will follow up this morning. Nathaniel Edwards:Apologies for late arrival Paul McGrady:Happy to do so. Will post to Council list. Jeff Neuman:@Avri - Yes. We have good participation on the lists, but not necessarily during the calls Cecilia Smith:Correction, BC will send out to group for discussion, not sure if/when response will be returned to WG. Donna Austin, Neustar:The RySG comments support the introduction of new gTLDs in the future. Jeff Neuman:Can we post a link to the RySG comment to show their response Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: It is on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/RySG%20comments%2…. Karen Bernstein:Isn't the whole purpose of this to decide whether there should be second round? Karen Bernstein:Ok Christa Taylor:The different categories could also tie in to application fees Carlton Samuels:@Christa: +1 VANDA:@carlton , yes agree too Carlton Samuels:@Avri: There was some baseline attributes to geographic, just not itemised in one place in the GB Carlton Samuels:@Jeff: This WG would be remiss if we didn't address the idea/concept/category generally called "community". Avri Doria:Community was one of the categories in the AGB. we may want to discuss how it was done, but it is not new as a category Carlton Samuels:@Avri: Soo true. But both ALAC and the GAC had concerns about definition and structural elements. VANDA:guess due the problem some community had with the previous work on colecting support ... Robin Gross:I also have concern about the way the concept of "community" has evolved at ICANN. Donna Austin, Neustar:I just found this text in the RySG response as part of the reply to 2c: We do not believe that regulated and highly-regulated TLDs should be treated as a separate category of TLDs from the application process as these categories were solely derived from GAC Advice and not self-designation by the applicant. Paul McGrady:Will dial in VANDA:Ia gree with Donna Robin Gross:I believe we should consider doing away with community as a category in the future, in part, due to its arbitariness. Robin Gross:arbitrariness Paul McGrady:On the phone line now, ready to try again. Carlton Samuels:@Jeff: Definition on community for clarity is the ALAC's position Karen Day-.JMP:+1 Paul Steve Coates:For generics, I think we should spend some time discussing definitions. Paul McGrady:Thanks Avri Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff, which is the same for regulated and highly regulated. Paul McGrady:But Spec 11 didn't exist when the AGB was published. The issue here is notice to new applicants, rather than surprises. VANDA:my point shouls be informed but not established as a category Paul McGrady:I'm agnostic on what we call it, but if closed generics need not apply, we just need to be up front about it. VANDA:@paul - agree Jeff Neuman:@paul - Agreed the rules need to be clear Paul McGrady:Avri - agree. Laura Watkins:Agree and think that makes sense but the only caution I would say that we should avoic being too prescriptive - there should be options for applicants that don't fit into set categories Donna Austin, Neustar:I think they're called Donna Austin, Neustar:generic Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry Avri, I was being flippant Paul McGrady:This is a big issue. Can we agree to talk to indecision today pending additional responses from the other Cs and SGs? Christa Taylor:+1 Donna Grace Mutung'u:rounds should be more predictable...maybe every three -five years to allow those catching up with the Internet opportunity? Donna Austin, Neustar:yes, an ongoing process Donna Austin, Neustar:Correct Jeff Jeff Neuman:I agree it is two points Kurt Pritz:Thiis is the current policy: "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." VANDA:+ 1 Donna, ongoing process to allow specially developing countries to be more prepared. Carlton Samuels 2:The A/C room has been flacky since morning for me VANDA:for me too.... Donna Austin, Neustar:No objection from me. Good to have the discussion. Steve Coates:Terrible time logging in today. Carlton Samuels 2:I thought we were looking at engagement in the applciation process? That is VERY early in the process, no? Carlton Samuels 2:@Donna: That would be helpfu but in the ALAC's view the engagement process takes on a wider perspective; we need more discussants from different places in the circle. Carlton Samuels 2:@Avri: The latter, during application process Carlton Samuels 2:@Avri: Yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Avri Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I suspect ALAC would agree with this point Donna we were under impressed with thd 'outreach' VANDA:we had NO outreach in this south region here.. I personally did some and got some new applicants but nothing really organized outreach. Paul McGrady:Outreach can always be improved. Donna Austin, Neustar:RySG comment: Notwithstanding the ultimate goal of a continuous process, the RySG does not support the notion of placing unnecessary limitations on future applicants. This would be anti-competitive, has the potential to inhibit innovation: and, as such, is antithetical to the purpose of introducing new gTLDs. Paul McGrady:Should we ask Staff if they can handle 10,000 applications? Mary Wong:This would be a question for Akram/GDD :) Paul McGrady:Thanks Mary! Thanks Avri! Paul McGrady:I predicted 596. Boy, was I wrong, Nathaniel Edwards:I agree. Enforcement/community/objections costs will be out of control for 10,000+ applications. Paul McGrady:Great call today Avri. Thanks for keeping us on track. VANDA:very productive emeting, thanks Avri! Christa Taylor:Thank-you Avri! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx everyone, bye for niw then... THANKS Avri more taalk whn it is NT 0330 Richard Padilla:bye all Cecilia Smith:Thanks you! Karen Day-.JMP:goodbye thanks Freida Tallon .Sky:Thanks and Bye all

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 08 August 2016
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 08 August. 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. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 08 August 2016 1. Work Track (Sub Team) Planning – initial meetings in August Action Items: Invites have been sent out. The schedule is being finalized. 2. CC1/Overarching Issues Preliminary Findings (https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfV…) a. Updates on CC1 comments: ALAC asked for an extension to mid-August. IPC indicated they need a few more days. BC said it will be forthcoming. Action Items: 1) GNSO Council Liaison, Paul McGrady, will remind Councilors of the need for participation from their representatives on the PDP WG calls. 2) Staff will update the Google document based on this discussion and it will be listed as a "preliminary draft". (DONE – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfV…) 3) PDP WG members should feel free to comment directly in the Google Doc. b. Draft Findings and Recommendations: 1) Additional new gTLDs in the future – Anticipated outcome(s): No changes to current text. 2) Categorization or differentiation of gTLDs – Anticipated outcome(s): Add a bullet that there is agreement that the WG should create, in the overarching issues process, the set of candidate categories to discuss in the groups -- such as the AGB plus de facto ones. Notes: · Decide fairly soon on a draft set of categories. · Different categories could also tie in to application fees. · RySG Comments: Accepting original two categories and the two that were added. No discussion in the RySG comments on how to satisfy GAC comments about types of strings. · Consider doing away with "community" as a category in the future due to its arbitrariness. · How to address de facto categories based on GAC advice (such as "closed generic"). Could be a legal issue (work track 2) as well as for "regulated" and "highly regulated". Guidance to applicants on allowing or not. · Does every different attribute result in a different category? 3) Future new gTLDs assessed in "rounds" Anticipated outcome(s): Suggested additional bullets: The WG agreed that there should be an ongoing process that is clearly defined, with the understanding that there may be one or two rounds. The WG further agreed that following these preliminary rounds the process will go to a steady state of first come, first served. 4) Predictability should be maintained or enhanced without sacrificing flexibility – Anticipated outcome(s): No changes to current text. 5) Community engagement in new gTLD application processes -- Anticipated outcome(s): No changes to current text. Notes: Suggestion (Paul McGrady/IPC): Only those who participated in the PDP could suggest a change. Question (Donna Austin, RySG): How to encourage people who do have an interest in the program to get engaged early? 6) Limiting applications in total and/or per entity during an application window -- Anticipated outcome(s): No changes to current text.

1 0

CC1 Comments Received by 08 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

Dear PDP Working Group members, Please see the wiki at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59645660 where the CC1 Comments received thus far are listed. We have received comments from the GAC on 29 July and most recently the Registry Stakeholder Group on 05 August (attached). The ccNSO pointed to a previous comment on the issues at: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/disspain-to-dengate-thrush-21nov09-en.pdf. The ALAC has asked for an extension to mid-August. If you know of any other comments that we may have missed, please let us know. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Proposed Agenda
by Emily Barabas Aug. 5, 2016

Aug. 5, 2016

Dear Working Group members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, August 8 at 16:00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Work Track (Sub Team) Planning – initial meetings in August 4. CC1/Overarching Issues Preliminary Findings continued (https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfV…) 5. Accreditation Programs continued 6. AOB If you require a dial-out or will be an apology please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda
by Jian C.Zhang Aug. 3, 2016

Aug. 3, 2016

What? Isn't it supposed to start at 1300 UTC? That's 2300 Beijing time. Did you change the time and failed to notify the participants? Jian-Chuan Chang Sr. Research Fellow KNETCo. Ltd. Tel: +86-10-8218-4187 Fax: +86-10-6250-6502Email: jczhang(a)knet.cn ----- 原邮件内容 ----- 发件人: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> 收件人: "Jian C.Zhang" <jczhang(a)knet.cn> 抄送: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> 发送时间:Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:11:09 -0400 主题:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda The called commenced about 2 hours ago and ended about 30 minutes ago. On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jian C.Zhang<jczhang(a)knet.cn>wrote: Hi, Chan, could you share the link of adobe connect? I have entered the newgtld,but seems wrong. Jian-Chuan Chang Sr. Research Fellow KNETCo. Ltd. Tel:+86-10-8218-4187 Fax:+86-10-6250-6502Email:jczhang@knet.cn ----- 原邮件内容 ----- 发件人: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> 收件人: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> 发送时间:Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:25:34 +0000 主题:[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 1 August 2016 at 1300 UTC. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Work Track (Sub Team) discussion and planning 4. Competition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) – Possible input to their draft applicant survey (if possible, please review the attached document before the WG meeting) with CCT-RT Chair Jonathan Zuck 5. CC1/Overarching Issues Preliminary Findings (https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfV…) 6. Accreditation Programs cont. 7. AOB Best, Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile:+1.310.339.4410 tel:+1.310.301.5800 fax:+1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

6 6