November 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 28 November
by Julie Hedlund 28 Nov '17

28 Nov '17

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 28 November. 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 will be provided separately. For reference see the documents at: Drafting Team Discussion continued – Different TLD Types (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ… Drafting Team Discussion continued – Predictability Framework (Wiki Page: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8… Drafting Team Discussion continued – Applications Assessed in Rounds (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw and Working Document:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckU… Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. SOIs: None. 2. Work Track (WT) Updates from the WT co-leads: Work Track 1: -- Last call was on variable and fixed costs. -- Next call is applicant support and applicant guidebook. Work Track 2: -- Call last week on vertical integration. Reviewed CC2 comments. Asking the full WT for input. -- Got data from Compliance and need some follow-up information. Drafted and shared some new questions. Work Track 3: --Next meeting: Community based applications and community applications. Last discussion before moving on to the written phase of our evaluation. Work Track 4: -- Work Track 4 canceled the last meeting because of lack of deliberation on the models. -- Flesh out the various models more in the WT. Work Track 5: -- Meeting on 29 November at 0500 UTC. -- Working on a Terms of Reference. Need to decide these. -- Need to agree on the letters back to the ccTLD, GAC and ALAC. Action ongoing. -- In the meeting on 30 November the WT will be Discussing the risk model as a working model in the meeting. Slides will be shared for the meeting. WT5 timeline, you can see in the slides shared from the 15 Nov meeting on page 18: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/74580758/SubProWT5_15Nov20… 3. Discussion on Working Group Timeline -- Goal is to get the Preliminary Report out by mid-April of 2018. -- Timeline for Work Tracks 1-4, not Work Track 5. 4. Drafting Team Discussion continued – Predictability Framework: Discussion: -- Language in the framework is quite vague. -- We have incorporated unpredictability. -- Aspects of the new gTLD program may require a more nimble program than contemplated. -- Look at what happens after the normal end date of a non-gTLD policy. -- Tried to define a "minor process update" -- no changes to AGB, and do not need to involve the community (proposed strawperson). --- Special Implementation Review Team for new gTLDs subsequent procedures? -- Should there be a panel to advice ICANN staff after the program has already launched? -- IRT is collaborating with the community -- not just a pre-selected group. Standing panel may need to be empowered to consult with other entities. Trying to come up with something that is more predictable, with a more formal way for the SSAC to get feedback -- separate from or complementary to the public comment forum. -- An IRT is not the community, but is meant to be the surrogate com -- The phases are assuming that people viewing it understanding the distinctions. -- A lot of questions about boundaries -- look at page 6 of the document. -- Look at email and the Google doc: think about questions that are to be discussion -- if we did have an IRT/standing committee panel, how many members would we have and what would be there presentation/background? >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): The Strawman Solution was nimble- but not exactly popular with some. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: There are numerous references in this draft framework to staff "collaboration with the community" and mention of various options. unless it is clear that staff has to let the policy determination be made by a Standing IRT, there is too much discretion on the issue of whether or not policy is involved. This issue and various case studies of problems that arose in the 2012 round was studied very carefully in the Policy and implementation Working Group. It is not a good idea to be asking staff to make the determination as to whether or not policy is involved. COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): if operations are seriously affected by the change Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): slight change in the rules might cause it Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: The issue is what is or is not a minor process update. COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): like small change to Letter of Credit Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I don't think it is needed , if ICANN .org oversteps or it is not minor then it fits with other parts of the framework Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: There are numerous references in this draft framework to staff "collaboration with the community" and mention of various options. unless it is clear that staff has to let the policy determination be made by a Standing IRT, there is too much discretion on the issue of whether or not policy is involved. This issue and various case studies of problems that arose in the 2012 round was studied very carefully in the Policy and implementation Working Group. It is not a good idea to be asking staff to make the determination as to whether or not policy is involved. COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): if operations are seriously affected by the change Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): slight change in the rules might cause it Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: The issue is what is or is not a minor process update. COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): like small change to Letter of Credit Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I don't think it is needed , if ICANN .org oversteps or it is not minor then it fits with other parts of the framework Michael Flemming: Is there an option in Google Docs to see a post-suggested form of the document? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - Exactly Michael Flemming: The link Steve provided has the suggestions on it. Michael Flemming: So a clean copy with the suggestions reflected is what I was inquiring about. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Moving to Michael Flemming: Thanks, Steve. I wasn't sure if there was a view format for that like in Word. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Pages Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): The question then becomes what changes are "procedural" and what changes are "substantive". Once again it's about who makes that determination. The Policy and Implemtation WG decided it was impossible to determine in advance differences in policy versus implementation but now it appears we are attempting to override all that work. This is a failure to learn from past mistakes and a failure to accept the work done by the Policy and Implementation Working Group, which was very carefully done. "Collaborating with the community" and "staff will work with the community" and "communicate with the affected parties" is very vague stuff unless there is a formal standing IRT process that is required. COMMENT Steve Chan: @Jeff: Expedited PDP, GNSO Input Process, GNSO Guidance Process Jim Prendergast: or Unilateral Right to Amend contract by ICANN Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): +1 Jim , good example Jim Prendergast: yeah it was 2013 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): 5 Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): I think it should be something like SSC where members represent the particular parts of community Justine Chew: yes, all good points requiring consideration and discussion -- roles and membership in IRT, that is. Steve Chan: New gTLD Program Implementation Review Report, mentioned by Jeff, here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-01-29-en Annebeth Lange: You are talking about staff making changes, but how about situations where ICANN Board make changes? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT : I support the Standing IRT - all issues encountered by staff in implementation should be raised with the Standing Panel so no one accuses staff of making policy. If it's actually pure implementation, it won't even arise as an issue for discussion. COMMENT Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I thiink it is a good idea Hadia Elminiawi: I think it is a good idea Annebeth Lange: I agree, it seems like a good idea. Greg Shatan: I think it is a good idea. Sophia Feng: It is not okey Jeff Sara Bockey: Agree. Standing IRT is a good idea. Sophia Feng: It should be standardized and any changes should be communicated properly Christa Taylor: If a process/service/etc. isn’t meeting the requirements as expected than ICANN should be able to fix the issue without delay. Changes to policy/process that is outside of expectations or required due to circumstances than I think it could be helpful in expediting the situation Michael Flemming: A good idea. But, I want to understand what we are discussing here better. An IRT is a bit more restrictive but can be open as well. I don't know background of how IRTs are normally formed, but we are discussing the requirements for what that IRT would look like, right? Michael Flemming: After program launch. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): You can use the green tick if you agree with the General Concept of a Standing IRT (if we do beleive it is worth considering further then we can go on to fine tune qualitites and qualifications for Membership etc., Sophia Feng: Yes it is good idea, Michael Flemming: That definitely provides better clarity. Standing means that it is functional past program launch. Michael Flemming: Thank you for the clarity and that is a very good idea. Justine Chew: agree with need for IRT -- membership should be relatively small to keep it manageable and comprise of both people who are well versed with operational and policy knowledge. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Requiring expertise in backend registry operations excludes numerous members of "the community". it would necessarily weight changes in favor of contracted parties. This does not recognize that issues that arise during implementation are far broader than operations issues - e.,g. the Strawman Solution, Specification 13 for brands, PICs to address GAC Advice as to safeguards, etc etc etc Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): it would effectivly be an "oncall group post launch Sophia Feng: What's the procedure of structuring and selecting the panel members to make it more efficient should be considered as well Justine Chew: people with policy knowledge could be drawn from members in PDP WG in order to remind IRT on background of policy where applicable Hadia Elminiawi: @cheryl why post launch? why not before? Quoc Pham: I remember - RDAP Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): You might all also refer to the General information here to assist your deliberations https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01ju… Quoc Pham: also changes to WHOIS output requirements Michael Flemming: I think if we looked at the next page as well, that might offer more clarity to at what point the standing IRT would be involved. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with hadia re pre-launch Standing IRT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): fully constituted GNSO PDP would take years , durign which applicants bleed money till the bancrupcy stage Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): the term Implementation indicates post PDP but it could form pre launch I supose Hadia Justine Chew: don't see why it can't be pre-launch standing IRT, it would be great for ICANN to be able to say they have standing IRT to deal with implementational issues as they arise. Michael Flemming: Perhaps this should form after the PDP final report and for staff to use as a consulting resource for drafting the AGB? Michael Flemming: And functions post-launch as well. Quoc Pham: i guess we need to draw boundaries on what the standing panel covers. we should be careful that the standing panel themselves don't become a roadblock, it should be advisory but not necessarily be authorative Steve Chan: @Jeff, I think Alan had his hand up first. Jeff Neuman: @Quoc - Agree - So lets come up with those boundaries Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): You might all also refer to the General information here to assist your deliberations https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01ju… Greg Shatan: FWIW, I don’t think the strawman was “policy,” which just means its a bad example for these purposes.... Annebeth Lange: Perhaps looking to the way a lot of the ccTLDs do it? I use NORID, as registry for .no, as an example. Since the registry is acting on the behalf of the Local Internet Community, the registry cannot unilaterally change the terms & conditions for the registrants unless there is only a minor, procedural point. If of vital importance we have to have a public consultation. If important, but not vital, we ask our Advisosry Board, consisting of participants for the Local Internet Community. But if our Board instruct us to change something, we have to do it. Jeff Neuman: Action Item: Call this something different :) Alan Greenberg: @Greg, yes. There were a number of changes that were made that can easily be construed as policcy, since there wwa no other mechanism to handle such a channge at that point in time. Times have now changed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Standing Community Implementation Advisory Group/Panel? Michael Flemming: If these are appointed/elected members, I think Panel is more appropriate Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Greg and Alan - I may agree with the observation that the Strawman Solution was implementation. Some on GNSO Council so strongly disagreed with that - that a letter was written to the Board objecting to it and stating that the Board absolutely had to consult again with GNSO when it made such changes. In fact, Jeff authored that letter so it should be obvious from this one example how easy it is for reasonable people to disagree as to what is policy and what is implementation. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): for appointed members there is a need for support process Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Yes Steve in the doc I referred to earlier the WG for that though log and hard on matters such as how to populate and constitute an IRT Greg Shatan: Standing Panel for Implementation Guidance, Oversight & Transparency (SPIGOT). Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): where the consistuancy expresses support to particular members / appoint them Justine Chew: just to clarify, in my previous comments re IRT, I was referring to this new panel (post IRT) which name has yet to be set. :-) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): LOL Greg - go with the FLOW Christa Taylor: How about urgent or major types of changes in operations? A criteria list with points may be one method to determine where it sits w/in the categories i.e. costs, level of risk, timeline impact on applicants, etc. Annebeth Lange: This is how we do it when changes are done: https://www.norid.no/en/regelverk/norpol/ Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): numbers heavily depend on the model Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Re Composition - Alan's point is very relevant - IRT represents the community. Greg Shatan: The multi-non-stakeholder model doesn’t make much sense.... We can’t avoid Greg Shatan: interests; we do need to balance them out. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): full transparency does not go well with confidentiality Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): There are always ways to try and manage those tensions I suspect though Maxim Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): we just need to look to and suggest some ;-) Hadia Elminiawi: Ok rhanks Jeff Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Focus on composition and requirements for Standing IRT makes sense. Again, consultation with this Standing Panel should not be optional where something that is characterized as an "issue" is concerned. Such consultation should be mandatory if there is an ISSUE that arises during implementation. Jeff Neuman: Thanks @Anne Jeff Neuman: I think we should put something like that in this proposal

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 28 Nov '17

28 Nov '17

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the AC Recording, MP3 recording, and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uZlEB MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-28nov17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8agq2s0lc5/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday, 28 November 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):Hello All Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Hi all... Bruna Santos:hello All Annebeth Lange:Good morning! Jeff Neuman:Hello all! Jeff Neuman:5 minute warning! Vanda Scartezini:hi all ! good night, morning, evening to everyone. Martin Sutton:m, Martin Sutton:morning all Vanda Scartezini:hope thanksgiving to whom is a relevant date has been great! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair)::-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):early afterneen here in AU but Morning Martin:-) Vanda Scartezini: -12 hours here Cheryl! nice to hear from you! Karen Day:Good evening all Karen Day:Martin glad to see your alarm working at o'dark thirty! Jeff Neuman:1 minute warning Annebeth Lange:Early morning in Oslo, dark and snowy outside :-) Jeff Neuman:Light on attendance so far, huh Martin Sutton:thanks Karen... Michelle DeSmyter:I will have the operator redial you, Cheryl Jeff Neuman:Welcome all - we will start in 1 minute Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I sent a message to Emily asking for a dial-out. Is Emily the wrong person to ask? Michelle DeSmyter:Hi Anne, I will send you a private caht Michelle DeSmyter:chat Justine Chew:bad echo over Michael Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):more like background voice Vanda Scartezini:yes bad echo Jeff Neuman:Did we announce that Sophia was appinted officially as the new co-leader with Michael? Jeff Neuman:appointed Jeff Neuman:Congrats again to Sophia :) Justine Chew:uh oh, echo is back Michael Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):just live with it Vanda Scartezini:this is a relevant point for this region here Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION Waht does "full integration" mean? QUESTION Michael Flemming:Hi Anne, thanks for the question. Full integration would be for Code of Conduct exempt TLDs and Spec 13 TLDs. It would essentially get rid of 2.9 of the RA so that they would not be required to use a Registrar to register domains. Michael Flemming:There is a lot of support for this based upon CC2 comments. We are asking for further feedback from the group in regards to this point. Jeff Neuman:@Anne - Michael did a lot of shorthand there Michael Flemming:Yes, I did. Jeff Neuman:It means being a registry and registrar for your own TLD without the need to structural separation Jeff Neuman:As set forth in the Code of Conduct. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):So Spec 13 would be modified to state no registrar required? Jeff Neuman:It also means the abolishment of parts of the Registry Agreement like Section 2.9 in the Code of Conduct and potentially one of the PICs in spec 11 which requires the use of only 2013 ICANN Accredited Registrars Jeff Neuman:@Anne - that is what will be discussed Vanda Scartezini:I have raised this alterntive to Board at the beginning of this year as the only solution fro new gTLD ind eveloping regions Michael Flemming:Jeff&s analysis is correct, but based upon the CC2 comments, the perception is that brands shouldn't have to use a registrar. Hadia Elminiawi:Good morning from Cairo, apologies for joining late Sophia Feng:We have seen quite some upports on this in the CC2 comments Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Greetings from Seattle - apologies for joining late. Michael Flemming:Martin, can't hear Christa Taylor:Really faint Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):quite low volume Vanda Scartezini:Not only brands IMO, other new gTLDs in developing regions will need this full integration solution Jeff Neuman:@Vanda - All still being discussed. Strongly recommend you attend WT 2 :) Martin Sutton:sorry, audio issue Vanda Scartezini:yes Michael Flemming:Vanda, that is some feedback I don't thnk we received yet. Would you mind feeding that into WT2? Martin Sutton:thank you Annebeth Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):PM your number to staff to get a dial out perhaps Martin Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Creates a bit of an issue as to RDS if brands can register all their distributors and suppliers and distributors can sell directly to consumers from that domain name registration. does the proposal result in no WhoIs information even under whatever happens with RDS? Vanda Scartezini:will do for sure. I am not following full WT 2 since I thought Tony Harris was following and we have had this discussion some time ago during some survey about new gtLDs in this region. But will do Michael Flemming:Thank you, Vanda. I will resend the question once you have joined so please let me know. Jeff Neuman:FYI - Letter response is still being worked on...so note sent out yet Vanda Scartezini:will do Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Also o WT4 (as I was distracted by static) I may not have reminded everyone that the next call is 30th Nov at 2000 UTC Jeff Neuman:sorry - not sent out yet :) Justine Chew:<Question>when would the draft terms of reference for wt5 be shared with the group</question> Sophia Feng:looking forwards to it Jeff:) Martin Sutton:Annebeth covered all we needed, thank you Michael Flemming:@Anne, that is a point we have not addressed yet. We will need to tweek this and other details as we move along but right now we are trying to get a feel for where we are at. Jeff Neuman:We are just converting from Work to Google Docs :) Justine Chew:okay, thanks! will need it for tomorrow ;-) Michelle DeSmyter:We are having the operator dial him now Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):perfect Jeff Christa Taylor:Just right Christa Taylor:;-) Martin Sutton:had tried to use iPad but now dialled in, apologies for the lack of communication! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Reminder to mute yor lines if not speaking ;-) Hadia Elminiawi:will work track5 need to catch up with the presented tineline? Steve Chan:Sorry Jeff, do not have the WT5 timeline handy. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):We can but try :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Of all the DT's this one is the one we are closest to drawing to some completion on, so be great to further it as far as we can today... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):You all have scroll control on this document... When Jeff refers to any specific page material he will reference the page number for you of course ;-) Steve Chan:For those that are curious about the WT5 timeline, you can see in the slides shared from the 15 Nov meeting on page 18: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Excellent thank you Steve Hadia Elminiawi:@steve thanks Heather Forrest:Apologies for joining late! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):The Strawman Solution was nimble- but not exactly popular with some. Steve Chan:I think the link to the document in the agenda being shared got jumbled somewhere along the line. If you'd like to follow along with the Google document, please view here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Not Implementation Recommendation Team. ;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):We need to replace IRT with the long form - agree Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Jeff is at the top of Page 3 now Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):well end of para 1 on p3 Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: There are numerous references in this draft framework to staff "collaboration with the community" and mention of various options. unless it is clear that staff has to let the policy determination be made by a Standing IRT, there is too much discretion on the issue of whether or not policy is involved. This issue and various case studies of problems that arose in the 2012 round was studied very carefully in the Policy and implementation Working Group. It is not a good idea to be asking staff to make the determination as to whether or not policy is involved. COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):if operations are seriously affected by the change Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):slight change in the rules might cause it Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: The issue is what is or is not a minor process update. COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):like small change to Letter of Credit Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I don't think it is needed , if ICANN .org oversteps or it is not minor then it fits with other parts of the framework Michael Flemming:Is there an option in Google Docs to see a post-suggested form of the document? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - Exactly Michael Flemming:The link Steve provided has the suggestions on it. Michael Flemming:So a clean copy with the suggestions reflected is what I was inquiring about. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Moving to page 4 now Steve Chan:@Michael, one option is tp create a copy for yourself and accept all changes? Michael Flemming:Thanks, Steve. I wasn't sure if there was a view format for that like in Word. Jim Prendergast:Random Draw Steve Chan:If folks don't mind, I'd like to sync to document to make sure we are all in the same place. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Thanks Jim Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Go ahead Steve save me telegraphing ages ;-)] Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Pages Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):The question then becomes what changes are "procedural" and what changes are "substantive". Once again it's about who makes that determination. The Policy and Implemtation WG decided it was impossible to determine in advance differences in policy versus implementation but now it appears we are attempting to override all that work. This is a failure to learn from past mistakes and a failure to accept the work done by the Policy and Implementation Working Group, which was very carefully done. "Collaborating with the community" and "staff will work with the community" and "communicate with the affected parties" is very vague stuff unless there is a formal standing IRT process that is required. COMMENT Steve Chan:@Jeff: Expedited PDP, GNSO Input Process, GNSO Guidance Process Jim Prendergast:or Unilateral Right to Amend contract by ICANN Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):+1 Jim , good example Jim Prendergast:yeah it was 2013 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):5 Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):I think it should be something like SSC where members represent the particular parts of community Justine Chew:yes, all good points requiring consideration and discussion -- roles and membership in IRT, that is. Steve Chan:New gTLD Program Implementation Review Report, mentioned by Jeff, here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann… Annebeth Lange:You are talking about staff making changes, but how about situations where ICANN Board make changes? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT : I support the Standing IRT - all issues encountered by staff in implementation should be raised with the Standing Panel so no one accuses staff of making policy. If it's actually pure implementation, it won't even arise as an issue for discussion. COMMENT Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I thiink it is a good idea Hadia Elminiawi:I think it is a good idea Annebeth Lange:I agree, it seems like a good idea. Greg Shatan:I think it is a good idea. Sophia Feng:It is not okey Jeff Sara Bockey:Agree. Standing IRT is a good idea. Sophia Feng:It should be standardized and any changes should be communicated properly Christa Taylor:If a process/service/etc. isn’t meeting the requirements as expected than ICANN should be able to fix the issue without delay. Changes to policy/process that is outside of expectations or required due to circumstances than I think it could be helpful in expediting the situation Michael Flemming:A good idea. But, I want to understand what we are discussing here better. An IRT is a bit more restrictive but can be open as well. I don't know background of how IRTs are normally formed, but we are discussing the requirements for what that IRT would look like, right? Michael Flemming:After program launch. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):You can use the green tick if you agree with the General Concept of a Standing IRT (if we do beleive it is worth considering further then we can go on to fine tune qualitites and qualifications for Membership etc., Sophia Feng:Yes it is good idea, Michael Flemming:That definitely provides better clarity. Standing means that it is functional past program launch. Michael Flemming:Thank you for the clarity and that is a very good idea. Justine Chew:agree with need for IRT -- membership should be relatively small to keep it manageable and comprise of both people who are well versed with operational and policy knowledge. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Requiring expertise in backend registry operations excludes numerous members of "the community". it would necessarily weight changes in favor of contracted parties. This does not recognize that issues that arise during implementation are far broader than operations issues - e.,g. the Strawman Solution, Specification 13 for brands, PICs to address GAC Advice as to safeguards, etc etc etc Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):it would effectivly be an "oncall group post launch Sophia Feng:What's the procedure of structuring and selecting the panel members to make it more efficient should be considered as well Justine Chew:people with policy knowledge could be drawn from members in PDP WG in order to remind IRT on background of policy where applicable Hadia Elminiawi:@cheryl why post launch? why not before? Quoc Pham:I remember - RDAP Quoc Pham:also changes to WHOIS output requirements Michael Flemming:I think if we looked at the next page as well, that might offer more clarity to at what point the standing IRT would be involved. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with hadia re pre-launch Standing IRT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):fully constituted GNSO PDP would take years , durign which applicants bleed money till the bancrupcy stage Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):the term Implementation indicates post PDP but it could form pre launch I supose Hadia Justine Chew:don't see why it can't be pre-launch standing IRT, it would be great for ICANN to be able to say they have standing IRT to deal with implementational issues as they arise. Michael Flemming:Perhaps this should form after the PDP final report and for staff to use as a consulting resource for drafting the AGB? Michael Flemming:And functions post-launch as well. Quoc Pham:i guess we need to draw boundaries on what the standing panel covers. we should be careful that the standing panel themselves don't become a roadblock, it should be advisory but not necessarily be authorative Steve Chan:@Jeff, I think Alan had his hand up first. Jeff Neuman:@Quoc - Agree - So lets come up with those boundaries Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):You might all also refer to the General information here to assist your deliberations https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf… Greg Shatan:FWIW, I don’t think the strawman was “policy,” which just means its a bad example for these purposes.... Annebeth Lange:Perhaps looking to the way a lot of the ccTLDs do it? I use NORID, as registry for .no, as an example. Since the registry is acting on the behalf of the Local Internet Community, the registry cannot unilaterally change the terms & conditions for the registrants unless there is only a minor, procedural point. If of vital importance we have to have a public consultation. If important, but not vital, we ask our Advisosry Board, consisting of participants for the Local Internet Community. But if our Board instruct us to change something, we have to do it. Jeff Neuman:Action Item: Call this something different :) Alan Greenberg:@Greg, yes. There were a number of changes that were made that can easily be construed as policcy, since there wwa no other mechanism to handle such a channge at that point in time. Times have now changed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Standing Community Implementation Advisory Group/Panel? Michael Flemming:If these are appointed/elected members, I think Panel is more appropriate Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ Greg and Alan - I may agree with the observation that the Strawman Solution was implementation. Some on GNSO Council so strongly disagreed with that - that a letter was written to the Board objecting to it and stating that the Board absolutely had to consult again with GNSO when it made such changes. In fact, Jeff authored that letter so it should be obvious from this one example how easy it is for reasonable people to disagree as to what is policy and what is implementation. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):for appointed members there is a need for support process Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Yes Steve in the doc I referred to earlier the WG for that though log and hard on matters such as how to populate and constitute an IRT Greg Shatan:Standing Panel for Implementation Guidance, Oversight & Transparency (SPIGOT). Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):where the consistuancy expresses support to particular members / appoint them Justine Chew:just to clarify, in my previous comments re IRT, I was referring to this new panel (post IRT) which name has yet to be set. :-) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):LOL Greg - go with the FLOW Christa Taylor:How about urgent or major types of changes in operations? A criteria list with points may be one method to determine where it sits w/in the categories i.e. costs, level of risk, timeline impact on applicants, etc. Annebeth Lange:This is how we do it when changes are done: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.norid.no_en_regelv… Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):numbers heavily depend on the model Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Re Composition - Alan's point is very relevant - IRT represents the community. Greg Shatan:The multi-non-stakeholder model doesn’t make much sense.... We can’t avoid Greg Shatan:interests; we do need to balance them out. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):full transparency does not go well with confidentiality Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):There are always ways to try and manage those tensions I suspect though Maxim Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):we just need to look to and suggest some ;-) Hadia Elminiawi:Ok rhanks Jeff Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Focus on composition and requirements for Standing IRT makes sense. Again, consultation with this Standing Panel should not be optional where something that is characterized as an "issue" is concerned. Such consultation should be mandatory if there is an ISSUE that arises during implementation. Jeff Neuman:Thanks @Anne Jeff Neuman:I think we should put something like that in this proposal Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):bye all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Ohh I amm often chastised for tlking too much (I can live with that of course) Greg Shatan:It may be a side effect of the time zones, that we are not talkative.... Michael Flemming:Yes Heather Forrest:Thank you Jeff and Cheryl - Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Bye all Justine Chew:cheers then! talk more on the mailing list. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Bye for now and thank you all for joining us today...Bye for now then... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you. Hadia Elminiawi:bye all thanks Christa Taylor:Thanks. Goodnight all! Annebeth Lange: Bye Aslam G Mohamed:bye all good night Greg Shatan:Other than Jeff and APAC. Greg Shatan:Good night.

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 28 November 2017
by Steve Chan 22 Nov '17

22 Nov '17

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Tuesday (note, this is Monday evening for some), 28 November 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Please note, this call is scheduled for 90 minutes. Welcome/SOIs Work Track (WT) Updates from the WT co-leads Discussion on Working Group Timeline Drafting Team Discussion continued – Different TLD Types (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…) Drafting Team Discussion continued – Predictability Framework (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YqLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8…) Drafting Team Discussion continued – Applications Assessed in Rounds (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw and Working Document:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckU…) AOB Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office 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://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

to whom THANKSGIVING is a relevant occasion.....
by Vanda Scartezini 22 Nov '17

22 Nov '17

Wish you and loved ones a Thanksgiving full of joy and peace!!! [cid:image001.png@01D3638C.A15FD5A0] kisses to all Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.

1 0

Work Track 5 - Informal mentors/buddies wanted
by Emily Barabas 21 Nov '17

21 Nov '17

Sent on behalf of the WT5 Co-Leads Dear Work Track 5 and Working Group members, During the Work Track 5 call on 15 November, the leadership team proposed starting an informal mentorship/buddy program to support WT5 members who are new to participating the PDP process. Are you a WT5 member and/or Subsequent Procedures WG member who is experienced with the PDP process and/or WT5 subject matter and would like to volunteer as an informal mentor/buddy for other members? If so, we would like to hear from you. As mentioned above, this would be an informal commitment. You could devote as much or as little time as you want to supporting other members. You would simply be a point of contact for newcomers to answer questions about process, norms, and subject matter. Staff can assist in connecting potential buddy pairs. At this point, we are not asking for any firm commitment, but simply want to better understand if there is sufficient interest from potential mentor/buddies to go forward. Please email gnso-wt5-buddy(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-wt5-buddy@icann.org> before our next WT meeting on 29 November 2017 if you think you might be willing to assist. Kind regards, Annebeth, Christopher, Olga and Martin WT5 Co-Leads Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

2 1

Translations Available: Call for Volunteers - Work Track 5
by Steve Chan 14 Nov '17

14 Nov '17

Dear WG Members, Please note that the translations of the Call for Volunteers for Work Track 5 have recently been published. If you believe that any of your colleagues may find the translations useful, please feel free to them know that the translations are now available: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-10-22-en Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office 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://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Working Group Newsletter - November 2017
by Emily Barabas 14 Nov '17

14 Nov '17

Dear Working Group members, The November edition of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group newsletter is now available: https://gnso.icann.org/en/news/working-group-newsletters/newsletter-new-gtl…. Please feel free to share this newsletter with individuals and groups who may be interested in the Working Group’s activities. An archive of previous editions of the newsletter is available on the WG wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001970> and on the GNSO website<https://gnso.icann.org/en/news/working-group-newsletters>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 13 November 2017 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland 13 Nov '17

13 Nov '17

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3, AC recording, and chat transcript below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 13 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC. MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-13nov17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p13p8og272j/<https://participate.icann.org/p13p8og272j/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=5e8ad2fd87050750…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** 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/tplEB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 13 November 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 13 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Vanda Scartez:hi eveyone. I am without mic in my computer so I am in the phone bridge and following by adobe. thanks Vanda Scartez:I am at liston only option in Adobe. Karen Day:good afternoon. Anyone else having a lot of static on the dial in line today? Vanda Scartez:yes Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Good evening from Norway! Vanda Scartez:good afternoon Annebeth! sunshine here... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Morning from AU :-) Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:The winter is approaching here in Oslo. Minus 1 today. Jeff Neuman:i am dialing in Julie Bisland:thank you, Jeff Karen Day:@Annabeth... brr... I will cease complaining about our 50F in North Carolina now :) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):We can but try Christine Farley:I'm new. Heather Forrest:Phil should go first Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Heather is of course newly appointed Chair of GNSO Council Heather Forrest:I am fighting audio Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):and congratulations Phil Aslam G Mohamed:phew! at last got the audio. hello all. Heather Forrest:I'm on now Vanda Scartez:congratulations I hope! Phil Marano:I have an updated SOI, which may have got lost in the ICANN 60 mix. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Vanda Scartez:congrats heather Heather Forrest:Thank you! Very happy to continue with the WG Philip Corwin:Thanks very much, and very happy in my new role -- only regret is that I won't get to work directly with Heather as Council Chair. Heather Forrest:Likewise Phil, though I wish you all the best. Verisign is lucky to have you Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Yes it went very well IMO Alan I agree with your thanks to our Co-Leads presentaions :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I agree Jeff it went very well wth the GAC and ALAC Tom Dale:GAC members were appreciative of having a session on specific topics. Emily Barabas:The recording of the ALAC session can be found here for those who missed it: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sched.co_CbIx&d=DwIFaQ&… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Or just call it now Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Rubens and I both agree to cancell Emily Barabas:And here is the transcript for the GAC session: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sched.co_CbHx&d=DwIFaQ&… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):We will put some work out to the list though people ;-) Christa Taylor 2:The feedback and ideas received from the GAC and ALAC was really good and also highligted the importance of having the sessions Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Excellent if most of them partiicipate :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Wd 2000 UTC Steve Chan:Work Track 5 Members list is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):the Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/new-gtld-wt5/ Tom Dale:GAC members' interest/sign-up is still growing (as we speak). Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):forthcoming shortly Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):the letter I mean Phil Buckingham:Jeff, As Michael is not on the call , would you be able to provide an update on my replacement for WT2 Co Chair. Thanks Martin Sutton:@Tom - good news, would be good for them to join the cal on Wed Heather Forrest:Perfect - thanks Jeff and Cheryl. Let me, Donna and Rafik know if we can do anything to help. We'll use your letter to answer the ccNSO letter that was addressed to Council rather than the PDP WG Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):nothing from me ... Looking forward to gtting started Jim Prendergast:nice to see so many GAC members signed up for WT5 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): glad you have improved in voice Annabeth but still yake care Jeff Neuman:@Phil - I am going to wait on that until after the WT 2 call next week Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):We will be accomodating to all our newbies ...noted Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Jeff and I will be there to help :-) Steve Chan:Note, a second communications tools classroom session has been added for 21 Nov at 10:00 UTC Emily Barabas:Note, a second webinar on tools has just been scheduled for Tuesday 21 Nov at 10:00 UTC, a more APAC-friendly time. Steve Chan:Thanks Emily :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Great! thanks Emily Tom Dale:GAC members have been urged to attend the "training" call. I did one some years ago and thought the work put in by GNSO staff to be very good. Phil Buckingham:Jeff , OK thanks . Good approach. Emily Barabas:Sorry Steve :) Heather Forrest:Perfect, Emily- thanks. Communications Tools Classroom should be an excellent start for those not familiar with PDP participation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):indeed and we can of course alway offer the classroom af=gain as needed... Aslam G Mohamed:10 am UTC is kinda unfriendly to the East Coast :( Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes it depends where you are in the vastness of APAC :-) Emily Barabas:There is a session tomorrow at 21:00 UTC, as well. The two sessions will be the same. Emily Barabas:@Jeff the 10:00 UTC session will be next week Aslam G Mohamed:that helps Emily. thanks. being new ... Emily Barabas:Tuesday the 21st Jim Prendergast:will they be recorded for those unable to make the session in real time? Greg Shatan:It would be ironic, Jim, if they were not recorded, as recordings are amongst the communication tools.... Jim Prendergast:haha Emily Barabas:Yes, the webinars will be recorded :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):for WTs 1-4 Mike Rodenbaugh:query why the gap of 4 months from Jul to Nov next year? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):clearly WT 5 is on a different timeline Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):PC on the prelim to Jun then the adits (if required) from the PC input pre Finl Report Mike Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):45 days for the PC on preliminary Donna Austin, Neustar:just checking, the original timeline was that the Final Report was to be delivered to Council in July 2018? Phil Buckingham:what would be the format of the final report ? Mike Rodenbaugh:won't we have already done that before the preliminary report? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):that has had to slip Donna Mike Rodenbaugh:that = consensus call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):this is *just* achievable Donna Austin, Neustar:I understand there are reasons for the slip, I'm just checking that the original thinking was July 2018. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):yes Avri ad Jeff appraised Council of this in ICANN 59 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Full Consensus, Concensus, Strong Support, Support etc., as per GNSO PDP Guidelines Jim Prendergast:yes Jim Prendergast:thanks Mike Rodenbaugh:thanks Steve Chan:@Jeff, no, we did not prepare one yet for WT5 Julie Bisland:@ christopher, your line is breaking up Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):some audio delay for CW Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):but I think we understand Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Jeff, do you mean preliminary recommendation or initial report? Aslam G Mohamed:will someone be circulating the goals for at 5? Aslam G Mohamed:Wt5 Aslam G Mohamed:thx Vanda Scartez:no question is all clear Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):of a non-alcholic beverage, right, Jeff? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair)::-) Aslam G Mohamed:we will know shortly if that is water;) Olga Cavalli - WT5 - GAC:Hello I do not see messages in the chat, so this is just trying if it works for me Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Yes Olga working Olga Cavalli - WT5 - GAC:Oh I do not see my chat message :( Aslam G Mohamed:hi Olga. it’s interesting to see GAC participation. Dot gTLD issues can now be preempted! Heather Forrest:Re 'rounds', do we have more current info on delegation rate than https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_t… Heather Forrest:thanks Jeff Paul McGrady:@Jeff, also need to discuss if we will have reviews between rounds or if the reviews will be while rounds are ongoing - noting the delta between 2012 and 2017 & counting Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Yes we are still awaiting responses on this Heather Alexander Schubert:So at 15k applications we have a 15 year pause till round 3? Alexander Schubert:Application fee should triple in the next round - to have the 3rd round soon! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):thus our asking the question(s) as Jeff is outlining Alexander Schubert:Holland auction model: Alexander Schubert:Go in with high fees - lower over time. Alexander Schubert:Non-profit public-benefit applicants could be prioprioritized! Kurt Pritz:Christopher raises a good point. Isn't one of the working groups considering participation in one of their work tracks? Alexander Schubert:Uups: prioritized..... Christopher Wilkinson:@Olga: Emily Barabas:For those who prefer to follow the discussion using the Google Doc, please use this link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… Christopher Wilkinson:@Olga: Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:By looking at which regions in the world that got new gTLDs in the first round, it could be useful to think differently this time and take the undeserved regions more into consideration. Christopher Wilkinson:The general chat to Everyone is working, but Private Chats are not working. Alan Greenberg:It seems to be for me. Alexander Schubert:Chris: Private chats have seperate windows..... Vanda Scartez: Annebeth - another issues may be needed for underserved regions to incentivate applications - this will depend on the success of some gTLDs applied Vanda Scartez:at first round Kurt Pritz:I am sorry I don’t know the detail of the letters to SSAC, RSSAC and ICANN about delegation rates. Were they asked to point to any analysis that they have done either before or since the first round? Alternatively, can anyone point to analysis (e.g., perhaps in a staff review of ICANN correspondence from SSAC)? I think there were conclusions that the 1000/year rate was ‘safe’ but no analysis. Julie Bisland:If you're having trouble with seeing chats, please try closing the AC window and logging back in. Vanda Scartez:i do not think it will add any value to the process Jeff Christopher Wilkinson:IDN only roung? Steve Chan:@Kurt, please see the bottom of the following link to see the letters sent to the SSAC, RSSAC, and OCTO/GDD: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Philip Corwin:Have to depart/bye Robin Gross:It hasn't come in in WT3. Christa Taylor 2:Also not raised in WT1 Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:By having a brand round first, we will run into problems with geographical names Vanda Scartez:@Annebeth -Agree. I do not beleive in separate rounds Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):it has not prevailed in any proposed outcomes... Christopher Wilkinson:By definition the startups and innovators are under-represented. It is a question of correcting for the 'voice'. Robin Gross:We'd need another WT to sort out the "only" round... Christa Taylor 2:Stand corrected - brand round has been brought up Donna Austin, Neustar:The full WG has not had a substantive discussion about 'categories' either, but perhaps when we do, submission periods may come up as part of that discussion. Vanda Scartez:@christopher - we had some good strat ups but they face a huge auction process - few survived Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):fair point Martin, Alan Greenberg:There may well be a measurable demand for a separate round for a variety of groups, but for EACH group, it is FAR harder to develop a critical mass. Donna Austin, Neustar:The discussion about 'applicant support' could potentially recommend a clear and free application window for such applicants. Kurt Pritz:Thanks, Steve. You mean the part that says: “We would also appreciate input on the total number of TLDs that could be delegated without negative impact to root server performance. In a 2009 study, the then deployed software was seen as being capable of handling at least 100,000 TLDs. We expect that improvements in DNS software, RAM sizes and processor speeds will likely result in a higher capacity if retested under current circumstances.’ Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Very true Donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I did not catch who was trying to speek then either Jeff Julie Bisland:Kavouss' line dropped, and he's been added back to the audio only. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Ahh Kavouss only n audio I suspect Aslam G Mohamed:Welcome Kavous. Julie Bisland:I"ll have the Operator chat with him privately Aslam G Mohamed:We heard you a lot in Abu Dhabi! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Thx Julie Steve Chan:@Kurt, it's been a while since I've looked at those letters, but that seems to be the part relevant to your question. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to drop to get to a meeting in another building at the half hour. I'll read the transcript to catch up on the last 15 minutes. Thanks, all. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Bye Kristina Aslam G Mohamed:Bye Kristina Julie Bisland:please mute your line if not speaking :) Paul McGrady:It would also encourage squatting. A brand owner launching a new brand would have to file their gTLD application on the same day that they file their first trademark application- spending the money on a new gTLD when they aren't even sure that the relevant PTO will grant them the trademark. Alexander Schubert:Competition! Competition drives innovation - FCFS eliminates competition. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I agree, Alan. Aslam G Mohamed:how do you mute Julie? Alexander Schubert:If in month one 5,000 applications come in - and it takes 3 years to process them; in those 3 years pent up demand justifies a next round to allow competition to happen. Donna Austin, Neustar:Why not have a two week application window at the current fee? Alexander Schubert:Window length is irrelevant - could be 10 seconds. Same result as 10 weeks. Kurt Pritz:While I think that all of the concerns regarding FCFS raised by Jeff and others can be addressed, I think data from the most recent round is required to resolve them. Now that the last round is several years in the review mirror, the data we have is stale - i.e., the market has evolved considerably and in ways unknown to us. We have to have a couple rounds in close succession to develop the information needed to launch a FCFS operation. Alan Greenberg:@Jeff, my line dropped, but my answer is that it might depend on whether the list of applied for names, and by whom is released. Jeff Neuman:Thanks Kurt. We have to design certain models to see whether the concerns can be addressed. Alexander Schubert:Agree with Christopher on concerns of speculation! Aslam G Mohamed:Whatever the model it should prevent squatting and support the brand owner getting the relevant gTLD. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Sorry, have to leave. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Bye Annabeth Paul McGrady:@Jeff, will put my comment on the list instead. Jeff Neuman:thanks Paul Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I am finding it a little difficult to discerne all that Kavouss is saying please if someone has clearer audio retype a precis Phil Buckingham:@ Kurt , I agree . We need detailed market analysis of what has happened since 2012. to establish future demand. From that we can establish an application price for each "category". Jeff Neuman:I will also draft an email setting forth some specific questions...... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):interesting concept Martin... Kavouss Arasteh:The arguments submitted may given the impression that FCFS is in favours of underserved region which is not the cae Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Donna Austin, Neustar:To Martin's point, the discussion about 'categories' becomes paramount to deciding whether the type of application should be a factor in deciding whether separate application windows should be available to address underserved region applicants etc. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):indeed Donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):discussions continue... Donna Austin, Neustar:FCFS to become a steady state after some initial rounds have been undertaken Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Thanks everyone... good to get started in these debates again :-) Bye for now... Julie Bisland:Next meeting for new gTLD Subpro WG: Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Alexander Schubert:Bye Christa Taylor 2:Thank you Martin Sutton:Thanks Jeff et al Vanda Scartez:thanks all my condolences to Iran due the 7.3-magnitude earthquake! Robin Gross:Thanks Jeff and all. Bye! Aslam G Mohamed:ciao Justine Chew 2:Cheers Phil Buckingham:thanks Jeff Christopher Wilkinson:@B'ye averyone. CW

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 13 November
by Julie Hedlund 13 Nov '17

13 Nov '17

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 November. 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 will be provided separately. For reference the document under discussion is at: Applications Assessed in Rounds (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7…) Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. SOIs: -- Heather Forrest: Updated SOI to reflect taking up the position of GNSO Council Chair. -- Phil Corwin: Became an employee of Verisign. Stepped down from the GNSO Council. Will update SOI. -- Phil Marano: Has an updated SOI, which may have got lost in the ICANN 60 mix. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Phillip+Vincent+Marano+SOI -- Christopher Wilkinson: No longer have a relationship with EURID. Have updated the SOI. 2. Update from ICANN60: Work Tracks 1-4: -- There were a number of sessions where the topic of subsequent procedures and additional rounds came up. -- Two sessions on Subpro: 1) issues from Work Track 1-4; open items such as applicant support programs, outreach, notion of communities, need for financial evaluations/business model evaluations, etc. -- Work Tracks will take up issues raised at ICANN60 in upcoming meetings. -- Work Tracks 1 and 3: Topics covered in the GAC, including applicant support programs and outreach, importance of communities/dividing up communities. -- Meeting with ALAC to talk about applicant support and role of communities. See the recording of this session: http://sched.co/CbIx. -- Continue to liaise with the other organizations and advisory committees for upcoming meetings. 3. Update on Work Track 5: -- Met at ICANN60; talked about how WGs operate, scope, and terms of reference. -- Not an official work track meeting. Call for Volunteers is still open until 20 November. Over 100 participants signed up, and 50 or so as observers. Work Track 5 Members list is here: https://community.icann.org/x/UplEB -- Meeting on 15 November at 2000 UTC. -- Working on a draft response back to the ccNSO, ALAC, and GAC on their conditions. -- Annabeth Lange sent an email urging people to attend the Communications Tools Classroom session tomorrow at 21:00 UTC on 14 November. A second webinar on tools has just been scheduled for Tuesday 21 November at 10:00 UTC. 4. Discussion on Working Group Timeline for Work Track 1-4: -- March 2018: Work Tracks complete preliminary recommendations. -- April 2018: Complete and publish Initial Report for public comment. -- June 2018: Public comment closes. -- July 2018: Complete report of public comments. -- November 2018: Final Report considered by full WG for consensus call. -- December 2018: Deliver final Report to GNSO Council. -- Any recommendations coming out of the WG need to be assessed on the level of consensus in the Final Report. For the Preliminary Report we will discuss if there are preferred options and request input on them in the Public Comment forum. 5. Timeline for Work Track 5: -- No official meeting yet. -- Work Track leaders did discuss a goal timeline. -- Goal to get a Preliminary Report out in June 2018 and to aim for a Final Report either in conjunction with the report on Work Track 1-4 recommendations, or shortly thereafter. 6. Drafting Team Discussion continued – Applications Assessed in Rounds (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7…) -- Agree on predictability; no undefined gaps, choice of application must address potential impact; should not negatively impact stablity/quality, or operational effectiveness/feasibility. -- Need to consider: method or data to help estimate demand; scaling to accommodate application volume; discussions about CDAR report impact; process if applications exceed threshold in a given period of time. Questions/Discussion: -- Problem statement does not express the problem. More reference to evaluation of the last round. -- Essential that the next opening to gTLDs should be restricted to those who were underrepresented in the first round. -- Work Track 1 is looking at applicant support and outreach. Will come back to the issue of whether there should be prioritization. -- Problem statement seems one sided. Does not acknowledge concerns that could come from a continuous flow type of model or how the periods are beneficial. -- Things like community prioritization don't work unless you have rounds. On "prioritization" difference if used with community applications as opposed to having rounds for particular categories. -- Have been opportunties to raise the issue of different groups or types having a distinct round, but we are lacking a specific demand and won't see that until a window opens up. Rounds versus First Come, First Served (see Pros and Cons on page 4): -- Coupled with the issue of pricing. If costs are too low then first come, first served would be more problematic since it would encourage speculation -- would have it in rounds or first come, first served. Alternatively, if the cost was high enough that you don't see the speculation issue then could go to a first come, first served, approach. -- Need to look at whether FCFS would lead to speculation. -- Wondering whether even if it is FCFS or rounds the underserved regions from the last round will want to be address in future processes, such as ability to reserve or place a hold. >From the chat: Heather Forrest: Re 'rounds', do we have more current info on delegation rate than https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new… Paul McGrady: @Jeff, also need to discuss if we will have reviews between rounds or if the reviews will be while rounds are ongoing - noting the delta between 2012 and 2017 & counting Paul McGrady: It would also encourage squatting. A brand owner launching a new brand would have to file their gTLD application on the same day that they file their first trademark application- spending the money on a new gTLD when they aren't even sure that the relevant PTO will grant them the trademark. Alexander Schubert: Competition! Competition drives innovation - FCFS eliminates competition. Kurt Pritz: While I think that all of the concerns regarding FCFS raised by Jeff and others can be addressed, I think data from the most recent round is required to resolve them. Now that the last round is several years in the review mirror, the data we have is stale - i.e., the market has evolved considerably and in ways unknown to us. We have to have a couple rounds in close succession to develop the information needed to launch a FCFS operation. Alan Greenberg: @Jeff, my line dropped, but my answer is that it might depend on whether the list of applied for names, and by whom is released. Jeff Neuman: Thanks Kurt. We have to design certain models to see whether the concerns can be addressed. Aslam G Mohamed: Whatever the model it should prevent squatting and support the brand owner getting the relevant gTLD.

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 13 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Steve Chan 10 Nov '17

10 Nov '17

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 13 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Please note, this call is scheduled for 90 minutes. Welcome/SOIs Update from ICANN60 Update on Work Track 5 Discussion on Working Group Timeline Drafting Team Discussion continued – Applications Assessed in Rounds (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7…) [time-permitting] Drafting Team Discussion continued – Predictability Framework (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YqLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8…) AOB Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office 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://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0