September 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 3 October 2016 at 2000 UTC
by Steve Chan Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 3 October 2016 at 2000 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Update from WT Leaders 4. GNSO Council letter - Update on GNSO Council call 5. Continued discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1 6. Work Track Coordination 7. AOB The latest version of the CC1 Review Tool is available on the Wiki here https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw. As .xls - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/CC1%20Review%20To… As PDF - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/CC1%20Review%20To… If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email 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/

2 2

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 19 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-19sep16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08sep16-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/Px6sAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 19 September 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 19 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Wiki Member page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ogp1Aw Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/Px6sAw Avri Doria:can we get audio support in the AC please. Michelle DeSmyter:try now Avri Doria:thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I was using 'holding our breath" in terms of the "anticipation' Avri, *not* suggesting any sort of delay... Perhaps Aussies use the term differently Rubens Kuhl:No objection. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):all good Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):You csn do ST4 update Rubens Rubens Kuhl:Will do, hope my computer audio is clear enough. Kavouss Arasteh:pLS KINDLY DIAL ME UP Kavouss Arasteh:Avri Kavouss Arasteh:Pls advise to dial me up Rubens Kuhl:I tried to speak but it cleary didn't make it. Kavouss Arasteh:I have asked to be dialed up Rubens Kuhl:Yes, everything covered. Michelle DeSmyter:yes Michelle DeSmyter:operator is dialing now Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):GREAT your turn next time then ;-) Kavouss Arasteh:Is it a decision made by someone that I should be excluded from the meeting Kavouss Arasteh:Who dared to make such a decison Phil Buckingham:Avri - you are very very quiet Kavouss Arasteh:Vri Phil Buckingham:thanks Avri - much better Kavouss Arasteh:pls kindly advise to dial me up Avri Doria:we have advised and the attempt is being made. Kavouss Arasteh:Avri pèlease register my strong complaint and serious objection that I am excluded to participater at this meeting Avri Doria:I will register it, but I also note that staff is trying to connect you to the meeting Alexander Schubert:But you are online, right? Just plug in a headset and you re fine! Avri Doria:and i reiterate what Jeff said, no one is trying to exclude you. Alexander Schubert:Use a mobiole phone for example! Alexander Schubert:If you have a good enough Internet connction, of course .... jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Just to recall GAC input on related questions: "The starting point for development of policy on further releases of new gTLDs should first take into consideration the results of all relevant reviews of the new gTLD round and determine which aspects and elements need adjustment." Avri Doria:Staff, please add a note to minutes both of Kavouss Arasteh issue and on the repsonse made by Jeff and me; Rubens Kuhl:Kavouss, in my non-US experience one of the easier ways to join ICANN meetings audio is to dial the US toll-free number from Google Voice or Skype. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):And (also from our Helsinki decisions): "All measures available to the Board should be used to ensure that a comprehensive and measured approach to further releases of new gTLDs is taken in a logical, sequential and coordinated way rather than through parallel and overlapping efforts and/or timeframes that may not be agreed by all relevant interests." Kavouss Arasteh 2:Dear All Kavouss Arasteh 2:Pls kindly dial me up Alexander Schubert:Rubens: If the INternet connection is good enough for Skype - then why not simply using the Adobe audio? Steve Chan:@Avri, we'll get the note in - we can't type at the same time Rubens Kuhl:Alexander, Adobe audio just failed for me, so I'm not the one who will be advocating for that... ;-) Alexander Schubert:Hmmmm. Maybe wrong Audio Settings? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):did you want a dial out Rubens? Rubens Kuhl:CLO: I should have wanted it before. Now it's too late. ;-) Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: Your objection has been included at the top of the notes. Kavouss Arasteh 2:THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I AM SURPRISED HOW THIS HAS HAPPENED Rubens Kuhl:Kavouss, if you are not hearing, you will notice in the recordings that your issue was not ignored. Rubens Kuhl:I think Jorge is causing the echo... jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):sorry if I did Julie Hedlund:@Avri andJeff: The operator has successfully reached Kavouss. Rubens Kuhl:Avri and Alan: would NCSG and ALAC be amenable to completing policy but having the implementation done in parallel ? Robin Gross:The politices are too much intertwined and interdependent to be dividing the issues into now and later baskets. Alan Greenberg:I cannot speak to an ALAC position on this without consulting. However how could one do the Alan Greenberg:implementation Alan Greenberg:Sorry. willl repeat Alan Greenberg:I cannot speak to the ALAC position on this without consulting but I would need to understand how the "implementation" which last time meant writing the AG, could be done in parallel with the opening of a round (which presumes the AG is complete. Alan Greenberg:@Robin, I was not proposing splitting, just saying that it was the only way I could parse the letter. Robin Gross:Alan, I didn't think you were proposing it, but it does seem to be something we are discussing. Alan Greenberg:agreed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):not in favour of 'splitting' Rubens Kuhl:Jeff spoke 'round'. Many times. Many dollars for charity. Phil Buckingham:Rubens, I agree. Ideally we need to do policy issues and implementation issues in parallel, but unfrtunately there are too many overlapping issues Avri Doria:As I see that Kavouss is now the particpant of record, is it possible to lower the original Kavouss hand from the queue? Paul McGrady:@Jeff, isn't that a better question for the RPM WG? Avri Doria:Kavouss 2 will be the next speakr. Can other who have spoken lower their hands? Paul McGrady:@Jeff, is next Round expectancy in the 2007 principals or just in the Applicant Guidebook (which is a very robust implementation document)? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):tend to agree Paul Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):re RPM Alexander Schubert:All are completed - just 19 strings in the air. Alexander Schubert:The 2020 round was announced for 2013/2014. So b 2020 is is alrady 6 to 7 years delayed. Kavouss Arasteh 2:Alan+1 Kavouss Arasteh 2:We can not have paralel process Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Alan re UDRP Tom Dale:Some of the current review activity is not solely within the GNSO community, for example the CCT review, ongoing ICANN work on metrics etc. Jeff Neuman:Jorge - Is that a new hand? I assumed it was not, but if it is, let me know jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):sorry... :S Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we qre being asked to repond to GNSO not the Board though Kavous Kavouss Arasteh 2:I am sorry, I meant Council NOT Board Paul McGrady:@Jeff@Avri, I can make that request on th Council list as Liaison to this group if more time is needed. Kavouss Arasteh 2:Yes I am sorry, Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: I have corrected that in the notes. Kavouss Arasteh 2:I meant COUNCIL and NOT Board jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):As to the response to the Council: perhaps a factual summary on where we are as a group could help them in ascertaining the "ripeness" of fast-tracking or not certain issues for the present time Phil Buckingham:Agree Paul .Should we take the FInal AGB Jan 2012 add in changes since , so we have a revised AGB as of now . Those changes need to classified into policy or implementation ?? Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: The notes state "Council" now. Thank you. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):instead of asking and taking the floor, could you take up this suggestion in the notes?: "jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): As to the response to the Council: perhaps a factual summary on where we are as a group could help them in ascertaining the "ripeness" of fast-tracking or not certain issues for the present time" Paul McGrady:@Phil, perhaps or perhaps some of the changes which depart from the Paris Policy Principles should be affirmatively rejected by the community, rather than legitimized by baking them into the next revised AGB. Julie Hedlund:@Jorge: I will include your text in the notes. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Julie: thanks! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):well said Greg Rubens Kuhl:I think split defines it well... Paul McGrady:@Avri said what I was going to say on process of reporting back to Council. I'm happy to pass along the non-consensus on splitting or just providing commentary on a note that the Co-chair send. Steve Chan:On process, if it was determined that the WG wants to split it's work, that would require a modification of the charter via the GNSO Council. Steve Chan:Otherwise, the WG is expected to consider all elements in the charter. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):sounds right to me Paul Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):fine Jeff Paul McGrady:1. No consensus on splitting work; 2. Committed to our workplan; and 3. Prepared to further discuss this in Hyderabad. Jeff Neuman:@Paul - yes, I think that is the crux of it Rubens Kuhl:"Splitted on splitting" Paul McGrady:Thanks Avri. I'll look for the note from the 2 of you. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):In Hyderabad we should take care to involve all the community in the discussion... this looks very much like a high interest topic, right? Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:wE HEAR YOU jEFF Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I guess so Jorge Emily Barabas:Subject 2 begins on page 4. Everyone should have scroll control. Emily Barabas:Click the "+" sign to zoom in Emily Barabas:(at the bottom of the screen) Steve Chan:In the Agenda pod, you can find links to the documents to view on your own computer. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Kavouss: the GAC included this GAC 2010 text in its reply to the "overarching questions" - and stated that these issues remain relevant to future new gTLD processes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I guess Alan we should note ere that also comming out of discussions in 2010 with GAC ALAC also tended (If memory serves) to support Catagories and efficient / effective use therof jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):A new ALAC inout would certainly be helpful :-) jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):input Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Understood Jorge and of course it is 6 years ago and substantially a new ALAC now Alan Greenberg:We STRONGLY supported categories. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):hence, the use of such new input - that's also why we discussed and agreed in the GAC that we should recall the 2010 advice as we still considered it useful Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yup Avri Doria:the process in the last round cae too late and still cost applicants a bunch. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):agree that we still have work to be done for fostering the regional/geographic diversity of registries Vaibhav Aggarwal:I agree Paul McGrady:+1 Greg. IPC wasn't trying to say that auction proceeds are the proper subject of this team, nor was IPC trying to say that it thinks auctions, necessarily, have to be a feature of Round 2. We were just trying to be inclusive and thorough in our response. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Sure did Avri very dissapointing indeed Phil Buckingham:Do nt we should any auction proceeds or process in Round 2 . @ Greg , I agreed with this approach . Rubens Kuhl:Had to drop now. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Just got disconnected Rubens Kuhl:Will catch up with recording... bye all. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye Rubens Phil Buckingham:sorry - dont think we should have any auction proceeds or process in a Round 2 . Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Back in Audio thanks Phil Buckingham:Thanks Alan for update Kavouss Arasteh 2:Request to secretariat, Paul McGrady:@Alan, will that Charter go to GNSO Council next or is this Board driven? Kavouss Arasteh 2:Pls remove my statement referring that I might have been excluded intentionally. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):mute please. Kavouss Arasteh 2:I wish that statement de deleted from the note Greg Shatan:Perhaps we should replace auctions with pistols at 20 paces. Very "Hamilton." Vaibhav Aggarwal::-) Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: Could you clarify what you would like deleted? Staff will be happy to do so. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed Avri Headphines delliver the noise *very effectivly*! Alan Greenberg:@Paul, like with other CCWGs, it will go to the AC/SOs for first comments and then after any needed changes for ratification. Once ratified the CCWG will be formed. There has been extensive Board involement in the charter creation process and we wil have confirmation that they agree to the terms of the charter and the following CCWG, but they do not have formal Board approval rights. Kavouss Arasteh 2:tHE PART THAT i SAID,2 i MIGHT HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY OR WILLINGLY EXCLUDED TO ATTEND " Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: Many thanks for the clarification. Staff will delete it forthwith. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):I would like to add that according to the GAC 2010 advice reiterated now, categories are seen as a means to simplify the application process. Hence please consider redrafting the conclusion refered to the GAC as follows: "No consensus on additional categories, but GAC in favor AS IT CONSIDERS IT helps TO simplIFy. Registries are split..." Julie Hedlund:@Jorge: Staff will make that change. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):WT4 has that outreac to ACSO's etc., as part of its work plan Yes Avri Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Julie:Can you please help me understand staff's position on deleting from the record statements that were made during the meeting? It's my understand that the record of a meeting is to be accurate and complete, which means that it should include all statements made. (My question is general and for my understanding.) jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks Julie for taking up my comment Alan Greenberg:Not Monday... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):And f curse te MP3/recording and any transcripts are "as writ" Julie Hedlund:@Kristina: Staff was responding to the request, but has no formal position and in fact these are just informal notes. The transcript and recording are not altered. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Julie: OK, thanks. Julie Hedlund:Staff would seek guidance from Avri and Jeff whether staff should strike the objection from the informal notes. Alan Greenberg:Nov 3.- Thurs. Paul McGrady:@Staff, it would be super-helpful to have calendar invites for the in-person in Hyderabad, just so that we don't mess up the complex timezones jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):+1 Paul Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):+1 to Paul's request, please. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Paul Kavouss Arasteh 2:tKS aVRI Greg Shatan:Monday falls on Thursday this time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):doubt many of us have Avri Vaibhav Aggarwal:yes that's a good idea Steve Chan:@Paul, others, I think I've asked about this before and was told that that staff does not do this, but I will doublecheck Paul McGrady:Thanks Steve. It would be very helpful if you could. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):All Good Thx Bye for now Alexander Schubert:tnx Robin Gross:Thanks, bye. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks, bye

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 19 September 2016
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 19 September. 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 or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes 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, 19 September 2016 1. Review Agenda Action Item: Change the order of the items in the agenda to move #5 to #3. 2. Work Track Sub Team Status Updates: · Sub Team 1 -- Sara Bockey: Meeting 20 Sept at 2000 UTC. No new updates from last meeting. · Sub Team 2 -- Michael Flemming: Discussed the schedule at the last meeting. Michael and Phil will work on the schedule and provide an update to the Sub Team. Third meeting on 22 September. · Sub Team 3 -- Karen Day: Met twice and co-chairs are in place. Last call discussed the priorities and which items to tackle first. Needed more information to map GNSO recommendations and guidelines to the AGB. Will pick up on third meeting on 27 September. · Sub Team 4 -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Had a second call. Looking at materials and specific work. Determined some plans of actions, such as reaching out to other parties in ICANN concerning specifics on clarifying questions on IDNs. Also reach out to Universal Acceptance Study Group. 3. Discussion – Letter from the GNSO Council re: the ICANN Board letter Jeff Neuman: Seeking a response by 25 September. On the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 29 September. Questions: 1. Do we respond? 2. If we do respond do we have thoughts on this issue, i.e., bifurcating the work of the group analogous to the Work Stream process (WS 1 and 2) Action Item: Jeff and Avri will give Paul a note and Paul can explain it further to the GNSO Council. Discussion Notes: · Alan: Need to understand what they are asking before we can respond. I cannot speak to the ALAC position on this without consulting but I would need to understand how the "implementation" which last time meant writing the AG, could be done in parallel with the opening of a round (which presumes the AG is complete. · Jorge Cancio (GAC): Idea that the letter is a bit unclear. Need to have some further clarification on the intent and purpose of the letter. Already very complex. Not sure helpful to add complexity. · Jeff Neuman: The AGB said that there would be subsequent rounds after the 2012 application window closed. In theory around April/May 2013. In Helsinki the Board said that they would like to get started on the next round per the AGB. So, the Board is asking if anything needs to be solved before the next application window and are there anything that can wait. Example: PDP on RPMs. Does the UDRP review need to be done? Could be more appropriate for the RPM PDP WG. · Kavouss Arasteh: Could put a deadline to start a second round. This issue has been discussed many times. GAC has mentioned that until all the difficulties are solved we should not start a second round. Do not rush. · Alan Greenberg: Coment re: doing the implementation in parallel with a new round. The implementation in the last round was writing the AGB. Can't do that in parallel. Need to understand what is in our jurisdiction. Need clarity from the Board exactly what they would envision. · Avri Doria: How to respond to the letter by the 25th. · Kavouss Arasteh: Could decide to write back to the Board saying we need more time because we are in the middle of the discussion of the substance. Discuss in Hyderabad in the SOs and ACs. · Jeff Neuman: It is a Council deadline and we could ask them for more time. Discuss as an agenda item in each Work Track. · Paul McGrady: I could make that request to the Council as the Liaison. · Greg Shatan: What is pertinent is to do the work in front of us for the procedures for the next round. Going down this round to delay all the work, unless we could look at limited alternatives. Many items are intertwined. · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): As to the response to the Council: perhaps a factual summary on where we are as a group could help them in ascertaining the "ripeness" of fast-tracking or not certain issues for the present time. · Avri Doria: We have two ways of responding and include the fact that there is no consensus for one way or another: 1) through the Liaison; 2) or Jeff and Avri could write a note to Council that there is no consensus and we can continue to work on this. Splitting it now makes everything take longer. Work Track Sub Teams are already looking at ordering. Premature for them to take this up now. · Steve Chan: If the WG decides to split then the Charter needs to be amended. · Paul McGrady: Can deliver the message -- in the timeframe provided we are not able to reach a consensus on whether the work should be split up and we are committed to our work plan. Paul McGrady: Can deliver the message -- in the timeframe provided we are not able to reach a consensus on whether the work should be split up and we are committed to our work plan. 1. No consensus on splitting work; 2. Committed to our workplan; and 3. Prepared to further discuss this in Hyderabad. · Kavouss Arasteh: Agree with sending a note that there is no consensus at this time. Discuss in Hyderabad. 4. CC1 Discussion: Subject 2: Categorization or differentiation of gTLDs (for example brand, geographical, or supported/community) in ongoing new gTLD mechanisms. See the CC1 Review Tool on the wiki at: - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/CC1%20Review%20To…) Discussion Notes: Jeff Neuman: Already some recognition of categories in gTLDs. 2a.R1: GAC response. Kavouss Arasteh: Categorization may be helpful provided it provide simplification, not difficulty. 2a.R2: Registries response and 2a.R3: IPC comments: · Jeff Neuman: Auction funds not in the purview of this PDP WG. · Greg Shatan: This speaks for itself. Goes to the point of looking at different approaches for different types of applications -- not strong support for a Brands only round (or objection to it). · Kavouss Arasteh: Don't understand "underserved jurisdiction". Don't agree with IPC on extending the auction. · Greg Shatan: We are not suggesting any extention of the auction concept, but that the proceeds could be used to subsidize applications from underserved jurisdictions, those parts of the world that are "under-represented". · Alan Greenberg: The subsidy process last round maybe didn't work. Could be an intersection with the CCWG on Auction Proceeds. On Registries comments, interesting to hear how we could do that. · Jeff Neuman: There was a split in the Registries on categories. No consensus. · Kavouss Arasteh: On the auctions the issue was raised how the money would be spent. · Jeff Neuman: CCWG Charter Drafting Team is working on a charter for a CCWG to address the auction funds. · Alan Greenberg: Sent to the ACs/SOs a draft charter for comment. Hope to ratify by or at Hyderabad. Then a CCWG will be charged with coming up with a process. · Jeff Neuman: Summary -- Agreement that the categories in the AGB should go forward. No consensus on additional categories, but GAC in favor as it considers it helps to simply. Registries are split. IPC weighs in on Brands category. No consensus on additional categories, but GAC in favor if helps simply. Registries are split. IPC weighs in on Brands category. 5. Hyderabad Planning Discussion Notes: · Steve Chan: 4-hour working session on the first day, 03 November. Consider how to allocate that time. Could be 1 hour to each work track. · Avri Doria: How we respond to each CC1 comment. Have a draft to discuss. Consider the possibility getting out CC2 questions out before or just after.

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 19 September 2016 at 1500 UTC
by Steve Chan Sept. 16, 2016

Sept. 16, 2016

Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 19 September 2016 at 1500 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Discussion – Letter from the GNSO Council re: the ICANN Board letter (Both the letter from the ICANN Board and from the GNSO Council are attached) 4. Continued discussion: CC1 Review Tool (PDF Attached and available via the links below) 5. Work Track Status Updates 6. AOB a. Planning for ICANN57 The latest version of the CC1 Review Tool will be made available on the Wiki here https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw. As .xls - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/CC1%20Review%20To… As PDF - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/CC1%20Review%20To…) If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology please email 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

FW: Request for input from the GNSO Council regarding the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
by Jeff Neuman Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

All, Please find enclosed a letter we received today from the GNSO Council Chair. I have reproduced the text below for those not wanting to open the PDF doc. The letter asks for our input by September 25th so that the Council can discuss on its September 29th call. This is obviously not much time, so discussion is encouraged on the list. I am also going to ask that each of the Sub-team chairs cover this letter on their next calls and we will also discuss this on our next full group call on Monday the 19th. Please let us know if you have any questions. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12 September 2016 GNSO COUNCIL REQUEST FOR INPUT REGARDING NEW GTLD SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURES Dear Stakeholder Group, Constituency and new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Chairs, On 5 August 2016, the GNSO Council received a letter from the ICANN Board requesting feedback on the timing of subsequent procedures for new gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now seeking input from Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies and the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG to help inform the Council’s response to the Board. The Council anticipates an initial review of this input during its meeting on 29 September in view of finalizing its response during the 13 October meeting, so the earlier your input is received, the better but it should be received no later than 25 September. In its letter, the Board asked the GNSO Council to provide its perspectives on the work plan of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP and the timing of a new application process for gTLDs: The Board is interested in the GNSO’s view of its current work in light of the existing policy recommendations and related review activities…For example, assuming all other review activities are completed, it would be helpful to understand whether the GNSO believes that the entirety of the current Subsequent Procedures PDP must be completed prior to advancing a new application process under the current policy recommendations. The Board is cognizant that it may be difficult to provide a firm answer at this stage of the process as the reviews are still underway and the PDP is in its initial stages of work, but if any consideration has been given in relation to whether a future application process could proceed while policy work continues and be iteratively applied to the process for allocating new gTLDs, or that a set of critical issues could be identified to be addressed prior to a new application process, the Board would welcome that input. The Board would also welcome any elaboration on the expected time frame outlined in the PDP Work Plan, as well as any additional points the GNSO might wish to clarify for the Board in its efforts to support the various areas of work underway in the multistakeholder community. The Business Constituency has already held discussions about the Board’s question and shared its views with the Council. In addition, the ALAC liaison to the GNSO Council gave ALAC input during the Council’s last meeting. Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies and the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are encouraged to review this input in formulating responses within their own groups. The GNSO Council anticipates that this issue will be a topic of community discussion at ICANN57 in November and therefore seeks to provide a response to the Board prior to ICANN57. We look forward to receiving your input. With best regards, Donna Austin, GNSO Vice Chair James Bladel, GNSO Chair Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice Chair 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: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:27 PM Subject: Request for input from the GNSO Council regarding the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Dear Jeff and Avri, As you know, the GNSO Council received a letter from the ICANN Board on 5 August requesting feedback on the timing of subsequent procedures for new gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now seeking input from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, Stakeholder Groups, and Constituencies to help inform the Council’s response. Please see the attached letter from the GNSO Council with additional information regarding its request. Note that the deadline for feedback is 25 September. Steve, Julie, and I look forward discussing how we can support the Working Group in preparing a response. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

3 2

Update on Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review - ICANN
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Sept. 12, 2016

Sept. 12, 2016

Just in case you hadn't seen this: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/update-on-competition-consumer-trust-and-co… There are some interesting infos, e.g. on the value of categories etc. Best regards Jorge

2 2

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

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 08 September. 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 September 2016 1. Leadership and updates of the Sub Teams Discussion Notes: · Work Track 1: Sara Bockey: Beginning work on work track topics. · Work Track 2: Michael Flemming: Looking at Work Track 1 approach. Need SOIs updated. Looking at the Work Plan and prioritization. Looking at topics. Lively topics. · Work Track 3: Jian Zhang: TBD. · Work Track 4: Cheryl Langdon Orr -- Similar track -- looking at timeline, universal acceptance issues, etc. Reordering of prioritization. 2. Call times/rotation Discussion Notes: · Can't accommodate everyone. · Can't find times that are perfect for everyone. · Recordings/readings -- do recordings and at least two readings. Action Item: Look again at attendance for times and consider whether to move the times. 3. Document Views Action Item: Make documents more readable (font size) and suitable for printing. 4. Continued Discussion on Community Comment 1 Discussion Notes: 1.c: Are ongoing mechanisms for the introduction of additional new gTLDs necessary to achieving sufficient diversity (e.g., choice and trust) in terms of domain extensions? Please explain. 1c.R1: · Donna Austin: Note an unreasonable question. Should try to do that. · Alan Greenberg: Hard to do this without seeing the conclusion of the PDP. · Avri Doria: We need further clarification and where should it be done. Should we talk about it in this group? Does this fit into the Work Track? Is it intertwined? Draft what we want in terms of diversity. GAC has made some suggestions. Helpful if anyone from the GAC or ALAC would like propose some thoughts or take this on. · Tom Dale, GAC Secretariat: Happy to help. · Donna Austin: Shouldn't read the GAC response in isolation. Might be different interpretations of this question. · Avri Doria: Look at them as a group and answer them all. Ic.R2: · Avri Doria: This becomes an input into why we need a continuing mechanism. · Donna Austin: One of the potential mechanism for having more diversity is the subsequent round. An ongoing mechanism is important. There are some benefits (from the RySG position). · Jeff Neuman: Interlinked with Work Track 1 particularly communication. Also applicant outreach. Should help with diversity. Announcing a date certain would help. · Avri Doria: As we build a work plan we might be able to provide an approximate date. · Alan Greenberg: There is no question about demand, it is not a diversity issue, but maybe a trust issue. · Paul McGrady: Notion of second registration - make sure at the end of the day that we have an adequate program to allow diversity to happen and not to be wrapped up in the second level marketplace. · Paul McGrady: Diversity needs to be defined in a way that includes new uses other than just more sales of second levels. Referring to the fact that in 2012 round there wasn't a differentiation between .brand model and others. Could develop a more streamlined model in the subsequent procedures. · Kristina Rosette: Disagreed with Alan's contention. Geographic diversity in primary location does allow for broader diversity. · Avri Doria: Diversity --- how it relates to other kinds of diversity. Can be more geographical. Need to explore this in Work Track 1. · Jian Zhang: Add language on diversity. If there are more internationalized TLDs people might think more -- language and culture could be taken together. · Avri Doria: Diversity in script and language will not be dealt with in one track -- for example Track 4. Diversity needs to be defined in a way that includes new uses other than just more sales of second levels.. 1d.R1: · Is it too early in the review cycle of the previous round to determine the full range of benefits of the 2012 round of the new gTLDs? Should that impact the decision to introduce additional new gTLDs and/or the timing of ongoing mechanisms for new gTLDs? · None of the groups that commented said that the policy shouldn't be changed, the policy of an ongoing mechanism to accept new gTLDs -- we shouldn't stop anything because we can realize all the benefits. · Diversity needs to be defined in a way that includes new uses other than just more sales of second levels. 1d.R2: Avri Doria: Summary -- Shouldn't unnecessarily delay. Id.R3: · Avri Doria: Summary -- Need more information. Still in the round. · Kavouss Arasteh: What time frame is too early? · Greg Shatan: We are still in mid-stream. We are trying to redesign an airplane in mid-air. Many have not fully opened for business. We do need need to consider the fact that we are looking at a moving target. · Jeff Neuman: After .biz was launched it took 4-5 years to see usage. We can't say in 2 years we will know better. It may take a number of years, but hard to define. · Michael Flemming: Need to look at delegation and process, while there are still a few left. So we have to highly consider "benefits" in the relative aspect of how categorized TLDs use them. Looking at the application process and where we are at in that to start measuring benefit cannot be done equally across the spectrum. 1.e: What additional considerations should be taken into account before deciding on ongoing mechanisms for new gTLDs (e.g., to cancel onoing mechansims for new gTLDs via policy changes? 1e.R1, 2, 3: · Get on with it. Make sure we have covered existing problems and emerging problems. · Jeff Neuman: Caution against spending too much time on the hypothetical. We have experience to see what could happen with different mechanisms. Needs to be a balance. · Jian Zhang: Chinese market: hard to reach universal acceptance on fast or slow. In China many companies don't think it is too early; the feel they didn't act quickly enough in the first round. Whether we should have fast track for no controversial debate. · Jeff Neuman: Highlight all cases we did not anticipate (and Greg Shatan). · Kavouss Arasteh: Be careful about fastrack, may not be fast. 1.f: Any other issues related to this overarching subject? 1f.R1, 2, 3: No comments on the responses.

1 0

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures call on Thursday, 08 September 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 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 Thursday, 08 September 2016 at 3:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08sep16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08sep16-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/ohWsAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 08 September 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, Thursday, 08 September 2016 at 3:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Wiki Member page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ogp1Aw Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/ohWsAw Kavouss Arasteh:Hi every body Jeff Neuman:hello Kavouss. Thanks for being on so early in your day Kavouss Arasteh:PLS KINDLY ADVISE TO DIAL ME UP Kavouss Arasteh:Hello jeff Kavouss Arasteh:Pls advise for dial up Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there Kavouss - the operator should be dialing you in the next minute or so Jeff Neuman:Can we put a link up to the cc1 document on the right side of the screen Emily Barabas:Yes, one moment. Emily Barabas:we will also bring it up the AC room. Jeff Neuman:2 minute warning :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Jeff I am still waiting for my dial out so only in the AC Room ATM but I will be audio enabled at some stage I assume ;-) Philip Corwin:Greetings colleagues Kavouss Arasteh:Dear Chair Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi Philip Kavouss Arasteh:pls put the document disussing on the screen Philip Corwin:Hello Cheryl. Hope all is smashing ;-) Jeff Neuman:All - Just waitng for operator to start the recording :) Kavouss Arasteh:It is a very inconvenient widdow Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):All just fine here in AU thanks Phil Philip Corwin:There's no way I can read anything in that window...larger font please Kavouss Arasteh:can you make tjhe doc. more bigger Avri Doria:you shaould have also received the PDF in the email on the list. Steve Chan:It's also available as a link on the right-hand side: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59645660&preview=/… Emily Barabas:Everyone should be able to zoom on this document using the plus and minus signs at the bottom of window Emily Barabas:And scroll up and down, left and right as needed Kavouss Arasteh:TOO FAST SPEAKING Sara Bockey:Sorry Kavouss! I was trying to speak slowly. I'll do better next time. Michael Flemming:I need to call in Alan Greenberg:That link seems to open with the wiki viewer. One that goes directly to the PDF is https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/CC1%20Review%20To… Emily Barabas:Thanks Alan, I will correct in the agenda, as well Michael Flemming:Hi Julie, its two "m"s in the last name, thanks Michael Flemming:For the sake of the Notes Michael Flemming:I am called in Kavouss Arasteh:Why the provided document is so much congested in font Julie Hedlund:@Micheal -- Got it! Julie Hedlund:Sorry Michael! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):It is of course an *excellent* time slot for Asia Pac Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we normally get to attend ICANN Calls between 0100 and 0500 local times Justine Chew:This time slot is under exceptional circumstances, no? Justine Chew:Yes, CLO, this is an EXCELLENT time slot for Asia Pac. :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we can of course find other times suitable for APAC and less pauinful for other Rwgions *but* I do need to note APAC usually gets to have the 'bad end ofd the stick Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bad end of the stick it should read Kavouss Arasteh:you are very very kind and your actions are highly appreciated Kiran Malancharuvil:Taking a middle of the night call every once in a while is a necessary evil with ICANN. Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):@CLO There is an Australian expression "Rough end of the pineapple" Kavouss Arasteh:Pls kindly do not chategorize European attendees UNFLEXIBLE Michael Flemming:I did not use such words, but thank you. Emily Barabas:The original versions of all comments are available on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59645660 Donna Austin, Neustar:Of course this only becomes more difficult in a few weeks time with daylight saving changes. Jian Zhang_KNET:@Emily the two 800 tele numbers do NOT work Jeff Neuman:Thanks for the reminder Donna :) Jian Zhang_KNET:only the 400 numbers work... I mean China numbers Kavouss Arasteh:Let us review the matter to make it more convinent ,if possible Kavouss Arasteh:Be positive Emily Barabas:We will work on making the document more readable for those who would like to print Kurt Pritz:@ Tom Dale: which end is the rough end? they both seem unpleasant Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):@kurt Pritz, I just report the idiom, I cannot speak from experience. Emily Barabas:Jian -- were you able to dial in or are you still having trouble? Jeff Neuman:Welcome Back Steve! Emily Barabas:Welcome back Steve! Emily Barabas:We missed you! Donna Austin, Neustar:Welcome back Steve Steve Chan:THANK YOU EMILY AND JULIE!! Jeff Neuman:+1 Avri - Emily and Julie did great to help us over the weeks Julie Hedlund:@Avri -- Special thanks to Emily! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Well said Avri ++++ Sara Bockey:Yes, thank you Emily and Julie! Wecome back Steve Kavouss Arasteh:Avri, Kavouss Arasteh:Pls advise whether the doc, you are referring is on the screen Steve Chan:@Kavouss, yes, we are on line 1c.R1 Kavouss Arasteh:is that O.R1? Steve Chan:1c, top of page 3 Emily Barabas:For those who prefer to view this document in excel, it is now on the wiki here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59645660 Donna Austin, Neustar:I think the GAC has made some suggestions, we could potentially build on that. Julie Hedlund:@Avri -- Tom Dale has his hand up Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Diversity is also an issue for CCWG-ACC WS2 Donna Austin, Neustar:I think the IPC comments were addressing consumer trust Jeff Neuman:Diversity in registrants is but one form of diversity. But diversity in usage by consumers is another. Michael Flemming:Dotbrand even in itself is not just a one way usage, the use of the TLD itself has a very diverse ecosystem. Paul McGrady:Diversity needs to be defined in a way that includes new uses other than just more sales of second levels. Jeff Neuman:@Paul - Agree. Emily, can we reflect that in the notes Michael Flemming:+1 Emily Barabas:Yes, we will make sure it is captured Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: I am taking the notes and will include it. Greg Shatan:I support Paul's comment. Paul McGrady:+1 Kristina. Kavouss Arasteh:It would good if we have a non exhaustive list of diversity Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):+1 to Avri (streamlining application process could increase diversity) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed Jian Jeff Neuman:Good point Jian.... Michael Flemming:Should we look at diversity froma Community standpoint, as well? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Definitely, Jian. Lottery (priority number) preference to IDN applications demonstrated that, I think. Jeff Neuman:I think we should collectively offer a definition of diversity in the full group and then farm out certain portions that relate to the Work Tracks Kavouss Arasteh:Did you decide to have list of diversity so far discussed Michael Flemming:Agreed, diversity will extend across all of the individual Work Tracks. Jeff Neuman:@Kavuouss - I believe that we should offer our own list of diversity factors (and should make that an action item) Jian Zhang_KNET:@Jeff agree! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yup Jeff Neuman:Kavuouss said it better than I did :) Donna Austin, Neustar:I think I'd just say that I think it largely supports what Kavouss said. Jeff Neuman:I agrree that the comments that were submitted were pretty clear. Greg Shatan:you read it well, Avri. Paul McGrady:Well writtem + late at night for many = a quiet crowd. Michael Flemming:Yes Jeff Neuman:yes Donna Austin, Neustar:Kavouss asks a good question. 1229 registry agreements have been executed to date. Kavouss Arasteh:wE BADLY HERAING YOU AS THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL LEVEL OF hum Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: Staff are trying to capture the summary in the chat. Kavouss Arasteh:Thank for clarication Grec and Jeff Paul McGrady:@Donna, perhaps but contracts aren't the same thing as use. Perhaps .brands would be further along if we didn't have to spend months and months just getting recognized as distinct category via Spec. 13. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Paul, agreed but it is one measure of where we are in the process. Michael Flemming:So we have to highly consider "benefits" in the relative aspect of how categorized TLDs use them. Looking at the application process and where we are at in that to start measuring benefit cannot be done equally across the spectrum. Paul McGrady:@Jeff, how about concrete issues such as if we end up with the scale of applications some have mentioned (10,000?), which will create new pressures on Staff. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Not to put words in the IPC's mouth, but were they referring to reasonably foreseeable? Jeff Neuman:@kristina - Probably....but just trying to make sure Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Would be helpful to get that clarification. Paul? Greg? Greg Shatan:We should also identify corner cases that weren't anticipated but did occur. Jeff Neuman:We should highlight all cases we did not anticipate that actually happened...agree Paul McGrady:e.g. "Surpise! No closed generics after all." Jeff Neuman:Paul - IMO that was reasonably forseeable :) Paul McGrady:surprise Paul McGrady:Exactly. Jeff Neuman:But spending 1.5 years debating what we would do if someone applied for .murder, .terrorism or .nazi was a little overkill :) Kavouss Arasteh:if the session is continued , I am disconnected Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I have a vague recollection of the Fast Track ccTLD IDN process not being so fast. Am I remembering correctly? Jeff Neuman:Pun definately NOT intended Greg Shatan:Oy. Paul McGrady:It wasn't foreseeable that ICANN would do a 180 on it, but all of the chaos caused by gaps/late opportunities to adjust the Guidebook after application window closed should have foreseable and locked down before publication. Let's not make the same mistake. Jian Zhang_KNET:The fast track cctld IDN was supposed to move faster... Donna Austin, Neustar:@Kristina, the non-policy process was fast, but perhaps the take-up was not so fast. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Apologies if I've missed it, but will we circle back once we get ALAC and NCSG input? Jian Zhang_KNET:That's a lesson we should learn Emily Barabas:Monday 19 September 19 at 15:00 UTC Avri Doria:we will circle back in any case and will fold in any new comments at that time. at least that is the way i see it. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Thanks, Avri. Sara Bockey:Thank you all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Good Call thanks everyone Talk again soon (probabkly in a WT session ... Bye for now then... Paul McGrady:Thanks Avri Great call! Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Thanks. Michael Flemming:thx Greg Shatan:tx & bye!

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 08 September 2016 at 3:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Sept. 7, 2016

Sept. 7, 2016

Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Thursday, 08 September 2016 at 3:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Work Track (Sub Team) Status Updates 4. CC1 Review Tool 5. AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology please email gnso-secs(a)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

8 7

Provision of back-end registry services
by Austin, Donna Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

Hi All A working group of the RySG has been formed to consider a number of topics being discussed as part of this PDP. On Friday I posted the following email to the list, which resulted in quite a bit of discussion. I'm working through the ensuing discussion and will attempt to provide a summary for this group. Sara, I think RSP Accreditation will be discussed as part of WG 1 and request that this input be taken into account. I repost my email to this list for information and also to encourage more discussion on the topic. ___ As RSP Accreditation was identified as a high priority, and as Neustar is one of the leading RSP as a result of the new gTLD program, I'd like to start a discussion on the path forward. I've just finished listening to the recording from the GDD summit on the topic of certification of back-end registry providers. As some of you may recall, during that session Sean Kaine from Neustar requested that we step back from the solution, ie. RSP Accreditation and try to identify the problems we're trying to solve in order to be sure that we have the correct solution. Sean also acknowledged as part of his intervention that accreditation may well be the answer, but let's be sure we understand what problems we're trying to solve first. I acknowledge that many may consider this to be a dissenting point of view, but I would ask this group if we could at least have the discussion. I understand that many believe these discussions have been had before, but I would argue that those were largely absent the experience we have had since as a result of the implementation of the new gTLD program and 1000+ registry operators going live. I think it would also be helpful to define what we mean when we say 'accreditation'. It is possible that it means different things to different people and in this regard it would be helpful to have a common understanding. It may be that we come up with a few different versions of what 'accreditation' means and find that some of these are more palatable than others. I admit that I don't have a fully developed idea of what 'accreditation' actually means in this context, but I do expect that there are a number of ways that 'accreditation' could be achieved. Some of the concerns that Neustar has with accreditation are as follows: * The potential to create unnecessary layers of bureaucracy in order to achieve accreditation * ICANN being responsible for the development and implementation of any accreditation program-I think we'd all agree that ICANN does not have a good track record in this regard. * Ability to maintain product differentiation * Creating another contracted party within ICANN-if a contract is required and fees are to be paid to ICANN in order to be accredited then RSPs could potentially create their own stakeholder group within the GNSO, ie a third party in the CPH * What are the implications, if any, on the Registry Agreement? To help us move forward in the manner I'm suggesting, I've identified some of the problems I believe we're trying to solve acknowledging that this list is not exhaustive: * The RSP needs the ability to interact directly with ICANN with regard to technical issues. * Streamline the 2012 new gTLD processes for any future round: o Remove the need for the same RSP to undergo the same PDT for every registry operator o Streamline the application process as it relates to the technical requirements o Make provision for applicants to select RSPs after securing the TLD o Find a more efficient way to swap out RSPs Following the discussion at the GDD Summit, ICANN staff committed to synthesize the discussion, and come back to us with next steps. I don't believe this has happened, but based on some of the chat on our call earlier this week it does seem that some work that is going on in this regard. I think it would be helpful to our discussion to understand what the status of what that work is and where it's headed. Looking forward to everyone's thoughts. Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

8 11