February 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

- Community Comment 2 Next Steps
by Steve Chan April 4, 2017

April 4, 2017

Dear WG Members, As you probably know, the WG is currently drafting its second request for community comment. The WG co-chairs and co-leaders of the work tracks encourage you to review the draft Community Comment 2 (CC2) questions and make suggestions in the document to amend language, add questions, omit questions, etc. The WG is collaborating via Google Docs, which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…. Attached, please find an extract of the questions in Word, for those that are unable to access Google Docs. The intention is to distribute and publish these questions for public comment before ICANN58. To do so, here is the suggested path forward: · Members review and suggest changes. Some WTs may choose to discuss during their meetings, but we hope to conclude this phase on 24 February. Your contributions are critical to ensuring your voice is heard! · The full WG reviews CC2 on 27 February. This will be considered the first reading of CC2. · An additional full WG meeting will be scheduled for 6 March, where CC2 will be reviewed and be considered the second, and presumably final reading. Assuming agreement is reached on the 6 March meeting, CC2 would then be published for public comment, as well as distributed to the chairs of the various Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, and Advisory Committees. If you have any questions, please let staff or the WG leadership know. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   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/

12 16

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 27 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

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, 27 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/l7HDAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-27feb17-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/l7HDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ——————————————— Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 27 February 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 27 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Alexander Schubert:At the top there is "Attendees" - to the right of it a drop down menue! There "Ediit" - and you can change the name! vanda scartezini:hi all carnival here. lots of noise, will be just listen the call. Sara Bockey:Perfect! Rubens Kuhl:Not today... avri doria:especially during carnival week Carlton Samuels:@Vanda: I applaud your devotion to duty :-) Carlton Samuels:For I would be at least looking out the window! Rubens Kuhl:Avri, baby is making more noise than the carnival folks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ahh Carnival and sleeping babies.. not easy to manage Rubens... good luck Gg Levine (NABP):Was WT3 strawman proposal provided? Emily Barabas:WT 4 is scheduled to have a call on Monday 6 March at 15:00 UTC Steve Chan:There is actually a WT4 call scheduled for 6 Mar at 15000 UTC. It was moved up in the week so that it could take place, hopefully before everyone departs. If it ends up not working out, it can of course be cancelled. Michael Flemming:Not at all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ok Steve noted Gg Levine (NABP):Great idea, Avri. Justine Chew:+1 Avri. Or insert a glossary section. Alexander Schubert:There is an echo! Michael Flemming:Susan, can you mute your speakers? Alexander Schubert:Maybe a speaker not muted? Susan Payne:not my speaker Arshad Mohammed:I hear echo too Michael Flemming:Oh, sorry. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):it certainly did cause concerns Susan Alexander Schubert:Everybody not speaking simply muting the mike, please. Susan Payne:ok, thanks Steve jeff neuman:Perhaps we can add a sentence on the terminology. I can work on that. Michael Flemming:rogue speaker Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):s note, makes sense Avri Greg Shatan:I put in some risks. Greg Shatan:Agree with that result, Avri. Steve Chan:If anyone else would like to review in the Google doc, it's available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… jeff neuman:Or maybe we accidentally deleted it Greg Shatan:I prefer the elimination of the single model answer. Greg Shatan:We should not be amatuer antitirust economists. Greg Shatan:amateur Greg Shatan:I practiced antitrust law for 12 years, so I am particularly sensitive to doing this. jeff neuman:Greg - The WG has done some thiking on this issue and it would be good to let everyone know why we are discussing this issue jeff neuman:Greg - I will work withyou Greg Shatan:Will you provide model answers for the other questions? Greg Shatan:Why is this question different from all other questions? jeff neuman: @Greg, i see it more as providing context for why we are asking the question. Greg Shatan:OK jeff neuman:but yes, lets take offline Greg Shatan:That OK was for Avri. jeff neuman:So, I am fine with removing Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):As someone who is currently going through the Material Subcontracting Arrangement Assignment process, the lesson I'm learning is that we really need an RSP accreditation/certification program. Alexander Schubert:Too far away from the mike! Alexander Schubert:Can't hear you! Rubens Kuhl:If we are confused in what the question means, the community will be more confused. jeff neuman:Agree with Rubens, lets make sure we note that Trang Nguyen:1.1.10 seems to assume that the RSP program would be structured like the existing pre-del testing? Christa Taylor:Sounds like a good add jeff neuman:Trang, I agree that it makes that assumption, so we can clarify the question jeff neuman:to take out that assumption Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):on the applicant support: couln't there be an open 1.2.4. question requesting any other suggestions for improving it? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that could be useful Jorge Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Picking up on Jorge's suggestion, shouldn't we add an open "any other comments on this topic" question for every subtopic? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree @Avri re terms definitely Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):definition Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):makes, sense, Kristina Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup jeff neuman:Hard to understand Kavuoss Trang Nguyen:Application changes are sometimes needed for applicants to address issues raised against their applications, for example to address GAC early warning. Gg Levine (NABP):Apologies -- I need to drop off early for another call. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Good points from Greg in distinguishing the concept from its implementation jeff neuman:I think i understand the points Greg raised, but we could use Greg's help to restructure the questions Rubens Kuhl:I also have to drop early. Looking forward for the transcript if one is planned, or hearing the recording if not. jeff neuman:@Greg - ICANN has not been permitted to comingle the newgtld funds and ICANN's overall funds vanda scartezini:will need to drop in 5 minutes. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):They are true. Application fees don't go into reserve, as I understand it. Greg Shatan:My comments assume that "cost recovery" was in fact the basis of the pricing. I think that's right but I can't cite a source. jeff neuman:Cost recovery was indeed the principle, but it was based on a guess as to what the costs would be Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Regarding agenda item 5: I would like to reiterate my apologies for missing the Copenhagen sessions of this PDP WG. Unfortunately they conflict with important GAC (or GAC-led) sessions. Maybe in future meetings we would need to allow for compatibility of schedules with key PDP WG meetings, such as this PDP... Greg Shatan:To the Notes: "lobbying may have been included" Christa Taylor:i.e. people were concerned if the cost recovery fees were too low or too high Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that would be great Jorge I am also conflicted a lot but have been able to prioritise WG s best I can jeff neuman:Ok, lets remove the word "strict" Christa Taylor:i.e. no other activities would be included to increase the price over some minimum Greg Shatan:We should clarify that we are talking about TYPES of costs and not AMOUNTS of costs. Mary Wong:@Jorge, thank you and understood. Unfortunately, as you know, conflicts are unavoidable - for the GNSO PDPs, the first day (Saturday) was set aside so that each of the three most recent PDPs (including this one) could have a 3-hour face to face meeting, but the GAC is also having meetings through Saturday. For the Wednesday meetings, the GNSO sessions had to be scheduled to take into account staff support and other conflicting sessions, and again, unfortunately, the GAC has sessions throughout that day as well. Christa Taylor:agree to the removal of 'strict' Greg Shatan:Wow. I didn't get that implication at all, from the text. Christa Taylor:thanks! The gap between cost recovery and application fee - but will work on re-wording. My apologies. Phil Buckingham:agree remove strict , but add in a fixed and variable cost recovery fee ? Christa Taylor:Thanks Greg....point taken. Will work on adding the background/implications jeff neuman:Thanks Greg. jeff neuman:agree Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Mary: thanks for that info. And, yes, sure I understand. Just saying that for key PDPs as this one a treatment akin to "high interest topics" or "cross-comm meetings" would be sensible if we want other parts of the community attending and actively participating Greg Shatan:Apologies for many comments.... Alexander Schubert:Why LOWERING? It should be higher! Otherwise we get swamped by gTLD tasters and investors trying to capitalize on private auctions (which should be prohibited in the first place). Greg Shatan:Agree -- that clarification makes sense -- that it's about the length of the window. Mary Wong:@Jorge, cross community discussion topics and high interest topics are for the community to suggest :) :) Christa Taylor:Perhaps 'first submitted' Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good point Jeff Laura Watkins (Nominet):Agress Crista or "in irde Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Mary: yes... in would be interesting to include under such HITs meetings such as the key PDP F2F - which could at times be more useful than an ad hoc meeting on a given topic Laura Watkins (Nominet):order of receipt Alexander Schubert:Order of receipt leads to benefiting portfolio applicants who submit run of the mill applications! Laura Watkins (Nominet):Alexander - I meant as an alternative phrase to replace "1st come 1st served" jeff neuman:I believe we should eliminate question 1.7.3 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):please be mindful of the IGF Open consultations and MAG meeting covering Wednesday to Friday this week avri doria:apologies if i went through too slowly. Mary Wong:1700 - 1830 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@jeff/@avri: on ICANN 58 I guess GAC Sec will approach you to invite you (and any interested WG members) to the GAC sessions on new gTLDs Mary Wong:New gTLD Program Reviews (general): Monday 13 March at 13.45 avri doria:yes Jorge, think we have received the invitation. avri doria:we == Jeff and I. since they are open meetings all members should look at particpating. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):indeed, open door policy continues... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone bye for now then... Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks, all - bye! Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks all and bye! Carlton Samuels:Thanks all! vanda scartezini:thanks you all Greg Shatan:Bye all! vanda scartezini:could make till the end - good meeting Phil Buckingham:thanks Avri .

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting 27 February
by Emily Barabas Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 February. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/x/l7HDAw. Kind regards, Emily ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items: ACTION ITEM: If people have comments that they make on the call, it would be helpful if they could also insert a written note in the CC2 document reflecting that comment. ACTION ITEM: All WG members should read through text and suggest edits in the document. Notes: 2. SOIs - no updates 3. Work Track Updates WT 1 (Sara Bockey) - meeting tomorrow: will focus on systems, communications, and the AGB. If the WG sends questions back to the WT for clarification, the WT will address the questions on the WT call. WT2 (Michael Flemming) - Call this week will focus on Closed Generics and any questions about CC2 from the full group. WT3 (Karen Day) - Currently looking at string related issues. Next week’s meeting will focus on confusing similarity objections, sword tool, and community applications. WT4 (CLO) - Last week, guest presenter Don Hollander spoke about UA. 4. Community Comment 2 (CC2) first reading (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…) - Page 1, no questions or concerns - Avri added a comment on pg 2 regarding accreditation, no concerns expressed EDIT: Spell out all acronyms in the text when used for the first time. - Question: are we required to use the term accreditation by the Charter or can we use an alternate term, such as certification? Answer: this is the term used in the Charter, but we may not be required to use it. We may want to keep the words as they were in the original document, but add a note describing alternate terminology or a footnote about use of terminology, in general. ACTION ITEM: If people have comments that they make on the call, it would be helpful if they could also insert a written note in the CC2 document reflecting that comment. - Page 3, comments are largely clarifications, no additional comments - Page 4, no additional comments - Page 5, no additional comments - Suggestion for clarification on sentence just before 1.1.1, add to the text after the word “operators” the words “acting as its own RSP.” EDIT: In text just before 1.1.1, add to the text after the word “operators” the words “acting as its own RSP.” - Page 5-6 comment from Greg Shatan -- include both benefits and risks or include neither. EDIT: Greg Shatan and Jeff Neuman will work together on this paragraph regarding benefits and risks in 1.1.1. - Page 6 - 1.1.6 – Comment: this question is unclear. Response: The purpose of the question is to say that we could take some findings and lessons learned from the other group. The question could be revised or removed. Edit: Remove question 1.1.6. From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): As someone who is currently going through the Material Subcontracting Arrangement Assignment process, the lesson I'm learning is that we really need an RSP accreditation/certification program. - 1.1.8 - Suggestion to change "continuous" to "periodic." Clarification - the purpose of the question is once approved, does there need to be a regular review. EDIT: In 1.1.8, change the word "continuous" to "periodic” and/or clarify further. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: If we are confused in what the question means, the community will be more confused. jeff neuman: Agree with Rubens, let's make sure we note that - 1.1.10 - Request for clarification of the language with respect to grandfathering. Answer: this refers to the grandfathering of entities that already serve as an RSP. EDIT: Clarify text of 1.1.10 with respect to grandfathering of entities that already serve as an RSP. - 1.2 comment on publicity and outreach - suggestion to add a question on this topic. EDIT: Add question on publicity and outreach in 1.2. - 1.2.1.2 - comment requesting clarification on terminology: least developed, developing, developed, underserved. If we are using UN terms, we should mention that. Otherwise we should define terms. EDIT: In 1.2.1.2, explain the origin of the terms used (least developed, developing, developed, underserved, etc). - 1.2.2 - request to clarify the language of this question. What other support mechanisms are being referenced? EDIT: In 1.2.2, clarify language around support mechanisms being referenced. - 1.2.3 - request for clarification on what is meant by success metric. Lack of participation has been cited as an issue. AMGlobal report indicated that even with a perfectly designed program, there may be reasons why prospective applicants may not apply. Question may require additional wordsmithing. EDIT: In 1.2.3, clarify language about success metrics. From the chat: Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): on the applicant support: couln't there be an open 1.2.4. question requesting any other suggestions for improving it? EDIT: Add open-ended question at 1.2.4 requesting any other suggestions for improving applicant support. - 1.3.1 Request to amplify and clarify that changes occured at two different times and the timing of the impact on applicants. Response: different applicants may have had impact at different points in time. Do changes made after the application has been submitted have a particularly negative effect? EDIT: In 1.3.1, clarify language regarding the timing of changes and impact at different points in time. From the chat: Trang Nguyen: Application changes are sometimes needed for applicants to address issues raised against their applications, for example to address GAC early warning. - 1.4 - There is a comment in the document from Greg Shatan on confusion on cost recovery concept and implementation of this concept (throughout the section) - 1.4 - Comment in the document from Donna Austin also speaks to this distinction - Comment: it is difficult to implement a cost recovery model. - 1.4.2 - Comment in the document regarding surplus. Is it true that there was significant surplus? If inaccurate, should be corrected. - Suggestion to change or remove the word " considerable." (no objections to this comment) EDIT: In 1.4.2, remove the word “considerable.” - 1.4.2 - Comment in the text -- lobbying may have been included in that third bucket which was a non-legal cost, but should be clarified if there were other contingencies. EDIT: In 1.4.2, clarify specific costs mentioned in relation to contingency. - 1.4.3 - Comment in the text - what is a strict vs. non-strict cost recovery fee? Reponse: People were concerned if the cost recovery fees were too low or too high. i.e. No other activities would be included to increase the price over some minimum. Suggestion to remove the work "strict." What are the implication of calculating just based on cost recovery vs. cost recovery along with other considerations, such as to prevent squatting and gaming. EDIT: Reword 1.4.3 to clarify the intention of this question. - 1.6.2 – Question in the document regarding application window- response: it was discussed that 3 months may be an appropriate application window in the first round but that a shorter window could be appropriate in the future. EDIT: Reword or remove 1.6.2. This should be a follow-up to an overarching question, not a repeat of a question on overarching issues. - 1.7.1 – Comment: unclear what we are talking about with respect to first come, first serve in this question. Response: this question is asking a hypothetical question as the issue of first come, first serve has not been settled. This is talking about queuing on applications for review (first come, first evaluated). Suggestion for language: "first submitted for order of processing." EDIT: Clarify text in 1.7.1 to explain the use of the term first come, first serve. From the chat: Laura Watkins (Nominet): order of receipt Alexander Schubert: Order of receipt leads to benefiting portfolio applicants who submit run of the mill applications! Laura Watkins (Nominet): Alexander - I meant as an alternative phrase to replace "1st come 1st served" jeff neuman: I believe we should eliminate question 1.7.3 EDIT: Delete question 1.7.3. - 1.8 - No objections to suggested edits -1.9.2 - No objections to moving this question to Applicant Support section. It can remain as an example in 1.9. EDIT: Move 1.9.2 to Applicant Support section of the document. In 1.9.2, change the words "in particular" to "for example." - We may need to schedule an additional call to continue going over CC2 questions. - IGF meeting 9:00-12:00 and 14:00-17:00 UTC Wed through Fri this week. This will be a potential conflict for some people. If we hold another meeting this week, we should try to avoid these times. ACTION ITEM: All WG members should read through text and suggest edits in the document. 5. ICANN58 Planning - F2F on first day of ICANN58- 8:30 to 11:45 – The group plans to use the CC2 questions as a basis for the conversation, explain context and clarify the questions. If there is time we can also get some answers and feedback on the questions. There should be equal distribution of time for each WT. - Wednesday (Day 5) from 17:00 to 18:30 - additional session, community facing and outreach focused. - New gTLD Program Review session will take place on Monday 13 March at 13.45. From the chat: Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): @jeff/@avri: on ICANN 58 I guess GAC Sec will approach you to invite you (and any interested WG members) to the GAC sessions on new gTLDs avri doria: yes Jorge, think we have received the invitation. avri doria: we == Jeff and I. since they are open meetings all members should look at participating. - We are trying to get through two readings so we can put out a clean set of questions by ICANN58. We won't start the clock on the public comment period until after ICANN58. Responses will not be due until the end of April. - It is still possible that the discussion at ICANN58 will result in further clarification and revision of the questions. 6. AOB - None.

1 0

Announcement: Pre-ICANN58 Policy Open House Registration
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-02-27-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Pre-ICANN58 Policy Open House Monday, 6 March 2017 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC Please register via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_vZw8kM&d=DwMGaQ…> by 3 March 2017! 27 February 2017 The Policy Development Support Team is pleased to announce two sessions for the Pre-ICANN58 Policy Open House on Monday, 6 March 2017 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC. The Policy Open House builds on the previous Policy Update Webinar and incorporates more interaction. The focus of each open house session is an active question and answer session with the Policy Development Support Team. The new format will feature: · Decreased Duration | Two 60-minute sessions, rather than two 90-minute briefings · Interactive Format | A question and answer exchange with the Policy Team · Preparatory Materials | The Pre-ICANN58 Policy Report[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> and Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Briefing ICANN58 Edition[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu…> This improved structure will allow the ICANN community to ask questions about policy and advice development work taking place at ICANN58. The Policy Team also welcomes questions through the registration form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_dVbmhQOT8…> and via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. The Policy Team will provide brief overviews and answer questions regarding current work within each Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee: · Address Supporting Organization (ASO) · Address Supporting Organization Address Council Annual Meeting · Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Numbering Services Review Committee Meeting · Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) · Implementation of the Processes and Mechanisms Related to The Empowered Community · Interim Report Cross-Community Working Group: Framework for Use of Country and Territory Names as Top Level Domains open for Public Comment · Policy Development Process regarding the retirement of country code Top Level Domains and the development of a review mechanism for the decisions on delegation, revocation and retirement of country code Top Level Domains · Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) · Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Development Processes (including new generic Top Level Domain Subsequent Procedures, the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All generic Top Level Domains, the Next-Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS) to Replace WHOIS, the International Governmental Organization (IGO)-International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms) · Non-Policy Issues (such as Generic Names Supporting Organization Review Implementation, Bylaws updates and Generic Name Supporting Organization Standing Selection Committee) · Cross-Community Working Groups (including new generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds and Use of Country & Territory names as Top Level Domains) · At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community · The At-Large Review · The work of the At-Large Structures Criteria and Expectations Taskforce · At-Large and Work Stream 2 Issues · Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) · Protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent national names & Protection of International Governmental Organization acronyms · Accountability Work Stream 2 Issues · Input to Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Development Process on Subsequent Procedures for new generic Top Level Domains and Registration Directory Services · Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) · [RSSAC023]: History of the Root Server System · [RSSAC024]: Key Technical Elements of Potential Root Operators · [RSSAC025]: Root Server System Advisory Committee October 2016 Workshop Report · Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update · [SAC091]: Security and Stability Advisory Committee Comment on Identifier Technology Health Indicators (20 January 2017) · [SAC090]: Security and Stability Advisory Committee Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace (22 December 2016) · [SAC089]: Security and Stability Advisory Committee Response to ccNSO Comments on SAC084 (12 December 2016) The open house will run in English and will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Recordings of the sessions will be made available here[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The Policy Team looks forward to assisting the ICANN community prepare for ICANN58! Please register via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_vZw8kM&d=DwMGaQ…> by 3 March 2017!

1 0

ICANN58 Sessions for the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
by Steve Chan Feb. 26, 2017

Feb. 26, 2017

Dear WG Members, With ICANN58 rapidly approaching, staff wanted to make sure that you are all aware of the sessions that are scheduled to take place in Copenhagen for this WG. Below, please find the most pertinent meetings: · GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group Meeting 08:30-11:45 Hall B4.2 · ICANN GDD: New gTLD Program Reviews 15:15-16:45 Hall A3 · GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Community Dialogue 17:00-18:30 Hall C1.4 As with all Working Group sessions at ICANN Public Meetings, all our sessions will be open to anyone to attend and observe, and will be recorded and transcribed. For those who will not be participating in person in Copenhagen, there will be remote participation via an Adobe Connect virtual meeting room, live audio stream and telephone bridge (though please note that these will be in the “ICANN meeting format” and so will have different set ups than our weekly calls – these details will be shared closer to the meeting date). Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   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/

2 2

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 27 February at 1500 UTC
by Steve Chan Feb. 24, 2017

Feb. 24, 2017

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 27 February 2017 at 1500 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Work Track Updates 4. Community Comment 2 (CC2) first reading (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…) 5. ICANN58 Planning 6. AOB 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 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

Pre-ICANN58 Policy Open House - Monday, 6 March 2017 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 2017

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-02-22-en[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Monday, 6 March 2017 - 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC The Policy Development Support Team is pleased to announce two sessions of the Pre-ICANN58 Policy Open House on Monday, 6 March 2017 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC. The Policy Open House builds on the previous Policy Update Webinar and incorporates more interaction. The new format will feature: · Decreased Duration | Two 60-minute sessions, rather than two 90-minute briefings · Interactive Format | A question and answer exchange with the Policy Team · Preparatory Materials | The Pre-ICANN58 Policy Report and Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Development Process Briefings will be published one week prior to the open house This improved structure will allow the ICANN community to ask questions about policy and advice development work taking place at ICANN58. The Policy Team also welcomes questions through the upcoming registration form and via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> . Registration begins on Monday, 27 February 2017. The open house will run in English and will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Recordings of the sessions will be made available here[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> . The Policy Team looks forward to assisting the ICANN community prepare for ICANN58! --------------- David A. Olive Senior Vice President | Policy Development Support Managing Director ICANN Regional Headquarters | Istanbul <mailto:david.olive@icann.org> david.olive(a)icann.org ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers | Hakki Yeten Caddesi | Selenium Plaza | No:10/C K:10 | 34349 | Fulya | Besiktas | Istanbul Mobile +1. 202.341.3611 | Mobile +90.533.341.6550 | Direct Line +90.212.999.6212

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 13 February 2017
by Steve Chan Feb. 14, 2017

Feb. 14, 2017

Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 13 February 2017 at 2000 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Work Track Updates 4. Community Comment 2 (CC2) discussion (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…) 5. AOB a. ICANN58 planning b. Overarching Issues drafting teams reminder (sign-up sheet here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-OoBec_Q6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh6…) 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 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/

5 4

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG on Monday, 13 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 13, 2017

Feb. 13, 2017

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, 13 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/lbHDAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-13feb17-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/lbHDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 13 February 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 13 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Emioly, Hi Michelle Kavouss Arasteh:Is it possible to providing scroll contzrol Kavouss Arasteh:By the way I am disconnectzed Michelle DeSmyter:thank you Kavouss - I will let the operator know to redial you as soon as possible Michelle DeSmyter:stand by... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi all Karen Day:Good afternoon everyone Jeff Neuman:hello... Jeff Neuman:Avri - can you turn up mic Carlton Samuels:Howdy all Christa Taylor:+1 Avri! Michelle DeSmyter:Phil will have audio momentarily Michelle DeSmyter:Phil Buckingham is now connected on the audio phone line Rubens Kuhl:Emily also has her hand up. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx Emily Jeff Neuman:Emily - Thanks...i knew i would mess that up :) Heather Forrest:Thanks, Emily Jeff Neuman:@Heather, did I misstate anything? Jeff Neuman:There have been some articles published recently about trying to move the process along (not to put anyone on the spot), but the best way to move us forward is to actively participate. :) Jeff Neuman:The IDN discussion in WT4 last week was really helpful. I encourage everyone who doesnt fully understand IDN to listen to it. Rubens Kuhl:"Everything you wanted to know about IDNs but was afraid to ask" Emily Barabas:The CC2 Google document is available at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… Emily Barabas:Everyone has scroll control of the PDF version in the center pod Trang Nguyen:@Jeff: Should the EBERO program be factored into the RSP Programs discussion? Trang Nguyen:ok Rubens Kuhl:@Trang some people believe EBERO and COI can be dealt with outside of a formal RSP Program. Some do think it needs to be bundled. Steve Coates:I had to reenter. Worked well the 2nd time. Trang Nguyen:Thanks, Rubens. I guess it all depends on how the program (EBERO) is designed. Susan Payne:now in, thanks Emily Barabas:Apologies for the interruption Jeff Emily Barabas:@Susan, great. Thanks for letting us know. vanda scartezini:sorry to be late, in another call. Phil Buckingham:Apologises for being late ( and Michael 's absence ) . Re WT2 Update ; Re background checks - as discussed on our call last week . Q to ICANN . Could WT2 be provided with the number of applicants that failed the background check @ Trang Does ICANN have this data ? can we discuss on email ? Christa Taylor:Noted and will add for the next call Trang Nguyen:@Phil, apologies I missed the last WT2 call due to a conflict. When I listened to the recording, it was not clear that the WT agreed on a formulation of question to ICANN org? If you and/or Michael could please send the WT's question to the list, we'd be happy to respond. As we have different data that we collect, it would be helpful when formulating the question to indicate the intent/purpose of the question so we can make sure that we provide the appropriate response. Donna Austin, Neustar:I think understanding the audience is an important point. Kavouss Arasteh:This group seems to be very popular as 42 persons attending Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:yes Phil Buckingham:Trang , many thanks . Will do . Rubens Kuhl:@Phil and @Trang, possibly knowing also whether background checks at application time had different results from the ones at contract signing time is also an interesting indicator. Emily Barabas:It does not appear that Denise is back in the AC room. If anyone is connected to her by Skype or other chat, it would be helpful to know if she is still having technical difficulties. Kavouss Arasteh:Avri, there is some echo when you tak avri doria:thanks Kavous. i am using a headet, so i am not sure how i could be casing it. Kavouss Arasteh:May the secretariat kindly include my question in the note and actions to betaken Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: I endeavored to capture it. If it is not sufficient please include additional text in this chat. Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: I apologize because it is hard for me to hear you clearly. Emily Barabas:90 mins Julie Hedlund:90 minutes Rubens Kuhl:@Kavouss All gTLD registries are obliged by contract to serve all accredited registrars on a non-discriminatory basis. But for instance, if the country where registry is established blocks business with some countries, law of the landprevails over ICANN principles. Jon Nevett:I just joined due to a conflict -- sorry I'm late Phil Buckingham:@ kavouss. your question has been noted. WT2 will discuss this on our 2nd March call. re vertical integration . Thanks. Heather Forrest:Apologies, all, I have to drop off now to attend another call. Have a good day! Donna Austin, Neustar:Apologies all, I have to join another call. Olga Cavalli:My apologies I must attend another meeting. Kavouss Arasteh:Tom. we are the only one from GAC if I am not mistaken Steve Chan:I will circulate an email to the group that details the meetings that are currently requested/tentatively scheduled. Karen Day:@Steve is GAC Sub-Pro Session for bi-lateral discussion between the groups? Rubens Kuhl:Jeff has been cut off. Karen Day:Sat at 17:00 Jeff Neuman:Back in...thankanks Jeff Neuman:thanks Steve Chan:@Karen, I believe the intention would be that it is an open session, not just bilateral Karen Day:Thanks, Steve Kavouss Arasteh:But we need to mention that Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):your audio is starting to distort a lot Avri at least for me Emily Barabas:Sign up here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… Steve Chan:FYI, Jeff and Avri volunteered for all of the groups :) Jeff Neuman:Someone is typing into the mic Kavouss Arasteh:What we mean by "Differenrt TLD"? Jeff Neuman:Categories Rubens Kuhl:Different types of TLDs, actually. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):see I thought we were trying to get others/ more people involved not just the existing Rapouteur list Rubens Kuhl:If a phone call is deemed necessary, I suggested asking WT leaders for a slot inside the most relevant WT close to the matter. Rubens Kuhl:(I suggest) Kavouss Arasteh:I have a point to raise under AOB Christa Taylor:There is overlap so might be difficult to have only one WT oversee the activities. Also, please consider our current restraining timelines Kavouss Arasteh:But it would good to have an executive summary of that Report to be made available to the enitre community Carlton Samuels:Bye all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now then.... talk again soon... Kavouss Arasteh:Tks Avri Kavouss Arasteh:Tks JEFF Jeff Neuman:Thanks everyone! Sara Bockey:thanks all Rubens Kuhl:Bye all! Thanks! Christa Taylor:Thank-you. Great call! avri doria:bye Alexander Schubert:Tnx Susan Payne:bye vanda scartezini:thanks to all, good meeting Laura Watkins (Nominet):thanks Phil Buckingham:thanks jeff , avri avri doria:bye all. thanks Susan Payne:thank avri

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Meeting 13 February 2017
by Emily Barabas Feb. 13, 2017

Feb. 13, 2017

Dear working group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 February. These high-level notes are designed to help working group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the transcript or the recording. See the chat record, call transcript, and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/lbHDAw. Kind regards, Emily Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group Audio Only: Apologies: Annebeth Lange, Alan Greenberg, Sara Bockey, Phil Corwin, Kristina Rosette Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. WT Updates 4. Community Comment 2 (CC2) discussion (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLs MHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit?usp=sharing). 5. AOB 6. ICANN58 planning 7. Overarching Issues drafting teams reminder (sign-up sheet here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-OoBec_Q6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh6…) Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Staff will email the group with details of meetings currently requested/tentatively scheduled Notes: 1. Work Track Updates -- Note that all groups need more participation and contribution. Work Track 1 -- Christa Taylor, Co-Chair -- Call later this evening. Topic is accreditation. -- Cost recovery gap. -- Follow on prioritization. -- Touch on systems and communications. -- AGB. -- CC2 questions. Work Track 2 -- Jeff Neuman -- Meeting this week. -- Discussion on Terms and Conditions from policy level, but not a re-write of the text. Whether to include issue of excluding certain claims; other issues. -- CCWG on Use of Country and Territory Names at the Top Level -- might refer some issues to Work Track 2. That group is still meeting and will come out with final recommendations for public comment and will be out following ICANN58. Endeavoring to liaise with them and the GAC on a framework to have this discussion. From the Chat: Phil Buckingham: Re WT2 Update; Re background checks - as discussed on our call last week . Q to ICANN . Could WT2 be provided with the number of applicants that failed the background check @ Trang Does ICANN have this data ? can we discuss on email ? Trang Nguyen: @Phil, apologies I missed the last WT2 call due to a conflict. When I listened to the recording, it was not clear that the WT agreed on a formulation of question to ICANN org? If you and/or Michael could please send the WT's question to the list, we'd be happy to respond. As we have different data that we collect, it would be helpful when formulating the question to indicate the intent/purpose of the question so we can make sure that we provide the appropriate response. Rubens Kuhl: @Phil and @Trang, possibly knowing also whether background checks at application time had different results from the ones at contract signing time is also an interesting indicator. Work Track 3 -- Karen Day, Co-Chair -- Last meeting went through a strawman proposal on changes to the legal rights objection process; this is out for comment on the list. -- Next call is 21 February -- discussing confusing similarity objection process. Work Track 4 -- Rubens Kuhl, Co-Chair -- Had a WT4 call last week that focused on IDNs. Growing consensus on allowing 1 character IDNs in specific instances; allowing for variant TLDs. Specific policies for confusing similarity that may arise. -- Hoping to discuss universal acceptance on next call. -- Next call is on 23 February. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: There have been some articles published recently about trying to move the process along (not to put anyone on the spot), but the best way to move us forward is to actively participate. :) Jeff Neuman: The IDN discussion in WT4 last week was really helpful. I encourage everyone who doesn’t fully understand IDN to listen to it. Rubens Kuhl: "Everything you wanted to know about IDNs but was afraid to ask" 2. Community Comment 2 (CC2) discussion (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLs MHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit?usp=sharing). Work Track 1 -- Overall Process, Support and Outreach 1.1 Accreditation Programs -- "accreditation" means different things to different people; trying to reword. -- Asking if others see the benefits or risks of a program. -- Asking about scalability. -- Relationship between the transfer of RSP for an existing registry operator be considered in scope of the PDP. From the Chat: Trang Nguyen: @Jeff: Should the EBERO program be factored into the RSP Programs discussion? -- Think there are some connections there. Rubens Kuhl: @Trang some people believe EBERO and COI can be dealt with outside of a formal RSP Program. Some do think it needs to be bundled. Trang Nguyen: Thanks, Rubens. I guess it all depends on how the program (EBERO) is designed. 1.2 Applicant Support -- Some issues from the last round -- is there value in suggestions already made? -- What else other than financial support? -- How to make sure there is awareness of the program. 1.3 Clarity of the Overall Application Process: -- Areas of possible revision, such as change requests, customer support, etc. 1.4 Application Fees -- Discussion at last Work Track 1 call. -- Floor or ceiling threshold and how to establish. -- Question as a policy matter of what to do if there is a shortfall or surplus. 1.5 Variable Fees -- Whether different types of applications should have different types of costs. Seems to be support for "one fee fits all". 1.6 Application Submission Period -- Is 3 months an appropriate length to accept applications. Future application windows may not need as much time. 1.7 Application Queuing -- Appears to be support for an evaluation ordering process such as the prioritization draw, instead of first come, first served. -- Prioritization given to IDNs in the last round -- keep that? 1.8 Systems -- Discussion in Work Track 1 on systems used in applications and evaluation processes. Communications with existing registries. 1.9 Communications -- Issues about communications from last round. -- Metrics for success. 1.10 Application Guidebook -- Makes sense to partition the AGB into different audience driven sections or type of application. Question: What is appropriate for discussion in this group on rights protection mechanism and what should be discussed in the RPM PDP WG? There does seem to be overlap. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: I think understanding the audience is an important point. Work Track 2 -- Legal, Regulatory, and Contractual Requirements 2.1 Base Registry Agreement 2.2 RPMs -- Preliminary questions. -- For second-level RPMs just a reference to the PDP WG. There are areas of overlap. 2.3 Reserved Names -- String requirements; string ineligible for delegation, specification 5. -- Work going on in IETF that may or may not have an effect on reserved names. Important to get an overview of that work. 2.4 Registrant Protections -- Relates to COI, EBERO, data escrow, registry performance specifications. -- Background checks (don't have a question yet). -- Question: Registrars having restriction to access to certain TLDs, what action can be taken to remove that restriction - from access to gTLDs in countries? REQUEST: Is it convenient when GAC has a meeting with GNSO that some of the main issues of this question could be put in that meeting? Trying to reply timely to questions that are raised. Answer: Haven't gotten to registry/registrar separation and non-discrimination, separation by country and other factors -- Section 2.8 of these questions. Helpful to have examples. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: @Kavouss All gTLD registries are obliged by contract to serve all accredited registrars on a non-discriminatory basis. But for instance, if the country where registry is established blocks business with some countries, law of the land prevails over ICANN principles. 2.5 IGO/INGO Procedures -- PDP WG already going on. May or may not ask any questions depending on that. 2.6 Closed Generics -- Exclusive use -- allowed? -- How to define "generic"? 2.7 Applicant Terms and Conditions 2.8 Registrar Non Discrimination & Registry/Registrar Separation 2.9 Registry/Registrar Standardization 2.10 TLD Rollout 2.11 Contractual Compliance 2.12 Global Public Interest Work Track 3 – String Contention Objections and Disputes -- 3.1: Feedback is needed on the objections sections, WG members are encouraged to provide input -- Additional WT3 topics: New gTLD Applicant Freedom of Expression (3.2), Community Applications (3.3), String Similarity (3.4), Accountability Mechanisms (3.5) Work Track 4 – IDNs and Technical & Operations -- IDNs (4.1), Universal Acceptance (4.2), Application Evaluation (4.3), Name Collision (4.4), Security and Stability (4.5) 6. ICANN58 Planning -- 3 hour face-to-face WG session scheduled. How should we structure our time? -- Hopefully we will be done with the CC2 questions by ICANN58 and can focus on substantive issues addressed in the PDP -- Additional sessions during ICANN58 tentatively scheduled, community-facing session (90 mins on Day 5, 17:00 to 18:30 local time), possible meeting with the GAC ACTION ITEM: Staff will email the group with details of meetings currently requested/tentatively scheduled -- Question: Will the question be addressed as to whether the GNSO PDP is subject to human rights considerations? -- Answer: This PDP does not determine the framework of interpretation. On a personal level, supportive of the topic being discussed in general. -- Feedback: some reference should be made to human rights, to be consistent with the whole of ICANN. 7. Overarching Issues Drafting Teams (sign-up sheet here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-OoBec_Q6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh6…) -- Three groups are being formed: Different TLD Types (currently 7 signed up); Predictability/Community Engagement (currently 1 signed up); Applications Assessed in Rounds (currently 3 signed up) -- We need more volunteers, especially for the Predictability/Community Engagement team -- Question: How will the groups work? Will there be more phone calls? -- Answer: That will be up to the group. The group can decide to work over email and using shared documents. Phone calls are not anticipated, but the group can determine if they need to schedule a call. The leadership will not set up regular calls for these groups. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: If a phone call is deemed necessary, I suggest asking WT leaders for a slot inside the most relevant WT close to the matter. 5. AOB -- Question: Do you foresee a brief summary about this group and its progress that will be available to the ICANN community? -- This group will be doing a report to the GNSO on the status of this group -- The Policy group puts together a pre-meeting webinar -- GNSO Policy Briefing and SO/AC Policy Briefing documents are circulated prior to the ICANN meeting -- GAC early engagement documents also provide an update on each PDP WG -- The group may want to revisit the idea of a WG newsletter to keep the community and group members up-to-date on activities Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0