March 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 11 March 2017
by Julie Hedlund March 11, 2017

March 11, 2017

Dear WG Members, Please see attached the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 11 March at ICANN58 in Copenhagen. 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. The referenced slides and the latest draft of the Community Comment 2 also are attached. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

3 2

Community Comment 2
by Emily Barabas March 8, 2017

March 8, 2017

Dear All, Please find attached the revised CC2 questions reflecting feedback received in yesterday’s WG meeting. The document is also available on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/Gq7DAw. We will be using this document as the basis for discussion in our face-to-face session on Saturday morning in Copenhagen, beginning at 8:30 AM local time in Hall B4.2. For those of you travelling, I look forward to seeing you soon. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

ICANN News Alert -- Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations For New gTLDs Available for Public Comment
by Steve Chan March 8, 2017

March 8, 2017

Dear WG Members, Many of you will have already received the news alert below, but I wanted to make sure you are all aware that the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Draft Report was published for public comment on 7 March 2017. Links to the announcement and materials are in the message below. Best, Steve From: ICANN News Alert <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> Reply-To: "no-reply(a)external.icann.org" <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:56 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations For New gTLDs Available for Public Comment [icann.org] News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-03-07-en[icann.org] Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations For New gTLDs Available for Public Comment 7 March 2017 LOS ANGELES – 7 March 2017 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today announced the publication of the Draft Report from the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team with its recommendations for the New gTLD Program. Executive summary[icann.org]. [PDF, 71 KB] Summary of Recommendations[icann.org]. [PDF, 1.34 MB] Read the report[icann.org]. [PDF, 3.91 MB] The report examines the extent to which the introduction of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the domain name system. It also assesses the effectiveness of the safeguards ICANN has implemented to mitigate issues related to the introduction of new gTLDs. The report is available for public comment through 27 April 2017. Feedback will be incorporated into a Final Report. Comment on the report[icann.org]. The review team findings include the following: New gTLDs currently account for about 9 percent of registrations in all gTLDs, which suggests that registrants are making use of a broader range of gTLDs. More than half of new registrations of gTLDs have been in new gTLD strings. If ccTLDs are included, registrations are divided roughly into thirds among new gTLDs, legacy gTLDs and ccTLDs. ICANN contractual compliance has reported that 96 percent of registries are performing the analysis that is required to determine if they are being used to perpetrate security threats. At present, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that voluntary public interest commitments do not negatively impact the public interest prior to going into effect. Therefore, it is important for voluntary PICs to be made available to the community during the public comment period of the application process. Outreach programs that were put in place to facilitate and encourage applications from the Global South were thought to be both poorly monitored and largely ineffective. To learn more about the report findings and recommendations, read the blog[icann.org]. More Information The CCT Review Team will meet at ICANN58 and brief the community on its findings and recommendations at their consultation session on 12 March – 9 AM CET in Hall A3. The CCT Review Team work and detailed ICANN58 Program can also be followed via their dedicated wikipage[community.icann.org]. Background The Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team was convened in 2015 under the Affirmation of Commitments. Under ICANN's new Bylaws, the review is now referred to as a "Specific Review". Specific Reviews[icann.org] are mandated by ICANN Bylaws and are crucial to the legitimacy and accountability of ICANN. Specific Reviews serve as ICANN's progress report to the world. The reviews demonstrate how ICANN delivers on its commitments and identify areas where ICANN can improve. Specific Reviews are conducted by members of the stakeholder community who look at past processes, actions and outcomes in order to make recommendations to improve future performance. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation and a community with participants from all over the world. ICANN and its community help keep the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It also promotes competition and develops policy for the top-level of the Internet's naming system and facilitates the use of other unique Internet identifiers. For more information please visit: www.icann.org[icann.org]. This message was sent to steve.chan(a)icann.org from:ICANN News Alert | no-reply(a)external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536Email Marketing by [icontact.com] Manage Your Subscription [app.icontact.com]

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC Recording & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Tuesday, 07 March 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter March 8, 2017

March 8, 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 Tuesday, 07 March 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ha-RAw MP3: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08sep16-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-07mar17-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/Ha-RAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday, 07 March 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Tuesday, 07 March 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:loud and clear. Alexander Schubert:Feels to me like "Groundhog day"...... https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-… Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:loud and clear, avri. Emily Barabas:Please note, we are working with a new Google Document: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… Emily Barabas:If you would like to read along in the Google Doc, please use this link Emily Barabas:The document is not synced Emily Barabas:everyone can scroll Emily Barabas:the formatting of the redline in the pod and the google doc look a little different, but the content of the edits is the same. jeff neuman:I like periodic... jeff neuman:but that is just me Donna Austin, Neustar:agree with Jeff jeff neuman:Should we say "a RSP" or "an RSP" Sara Bockey:a RSP, I think Donna Austin, Neustar:agree with Sara jeff neuman:I know the general rule is you only use "an" before a word that starts with a vowel...but it sounds weird jeff neuman:again that is just me Donna Austin, Neustar:if we spell out RSP it would be 'a registry service provider' jeff neuman:true Alexander Schubert:1.1.7 should be periodic in my opinion - as it doesn't involve any publishing. Steve Chan:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qutP4I6fpyTtH4uSgLqsSFDn7082Guexr7… Steve Chan:Apologies if we've gotten the sentiment wrong, but not a lot of details in the placeholder. Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:support for 1.5.3. as it is worded. jeff neuman:@Steve - you got it right jeff neuman:have some confidence :) Alexander Schubert:In 1.7.1 we should ask in a way that would allow to create this answer: No "draw" needed when we issue a random number during application submission - then use that random number in an algorithm that creates a queue! This who wish to be at the end of the quezuecan indicate at application submission. jeff neuman:SHould we use "category" Alexander Schubert:Sorry typos: "Those who wish to be at the end of the queue can indicate at application submission." Alexander Schubert:Regarding my previous post! Alexander Schubert:In WT2 I still miss any question about 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names ..... Heather Forrest:Interim report of CWG-UCTN has been published for comment Steve Chan:Further to Heather's comment, it was published on 24 Feb here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2… jeff neuman:yes Heather Forrest:To put a finer point on Alexander's comment, the group as a whole has not agreed because the scope of the group's work was very narrow. Certainly the partifcipants have views that need to be discussed here in the PDP. jeff neuman:But we will address that issue when the CWG is done. Donna Austin, Neustar:should there be a note mentioning that country and territory names have been left out of this exercise for x reason Alexander Schubert:Footnote that we deal with it later! Steve Chan:Jeff, you deleted it :) Donna Austin, Neustar:yep Justine Chew:Yes Heather Forrest:Excellent question! jeff neuman:I would like to hear from Paul Heather Forrest:Sorry - slow to post check mark for Option 1. It's wordy, but if there are 'yes' answers out there, this group should hear them jeff neuman:Understood. We can start with a word other than "should" jeff neuman:Structured and/or evaluated? Justine Chew:Yes Steve Chan:Yes, thanks jeff neuman:3.4.6 is new jeff neuman:so let people read jeff neuman:the CCWG on Auction Proceeds is not discussing how auctions work or why they exist jeff neuman:it is only talking about the use of funds jeff neuman:@Avri - correct Julie Hedlund:@Avri: That is correct. Only the funding. Greg Shatan:Actually, they're talking about the mechanisms for deciding how to spend the money. Greg Shatan:Others will then decide how to spend the money using those mechanisms. jeff neuman:only 1/4 of a billion :) Greg Shatan:You got it.... Greg Shatan:Rounding error. Trang Nguyen:4.3.2.3 The AGB criteria did not include evaluation of an applicant's business model. Meaning, Q18 was not evaluated. And the projections in Q46 was not evaluated against the proposed business model in Q18. jeff neuman:I am fine with that Trang Nguyen:yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):if we drop then do ask for the any other comments jeff neuman:Is anybody out there? Greg Shatan:Agree with dropping the question. Martin Sutton:Fine to drop q Greg Shatan:4 3 2 6 ask or both. Greg Shatan:Please see chat Greg Shatan:at application time, at contract signing time, or at both times? Greg Shatan:Sounds good Greg Shatan:I have no voice Greg Shatan:and I must scream jeff neuman:You better get it back before friday ;) Steve Chan:There is a similar question in the technical section. If there are no objections, I'll make the same change there. Greg Shatan:Just not pluigged in. Bonus points for literary reference in my prior interventions.. Trang Nguyen:That timing question probably applies to background screening as well. jeff neuman:no objection Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):fine Paul McGrady:"Additional Questions" Julie Hedlund:Could just say "data"? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):data points refers to any discreet unit of information Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):usually in an analytical context Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):it is an Observation Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:"data points" is quite common as a stan ding expression, I believe. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):can be single or multiple measures Alexander Schubert:Noun 1. data point - an item of factual information derived from measurement or research Rudy Mendoza:agreed Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:yes, please keep it. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):can also be seen as a term in multifactorial statistical analysis Paul McGrady:Excellent Avri! Great run through the document. Martin Sutton:well done Sara Bockey:Great job, Avri! Alexander Schubert:I second Kavouss Martin Sutton:well said Kavouss Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:kavouss' motion seconded! Trang Nguyen:Thanks, All! Bye! Donna Austin, Neustar:well done Avri Alexander Schubert:Bye! Sara Bockey:thanks everyone Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye Martin Sutton:thx, bye Christopher Niemi:Thank you! Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks, all - bye. Heather Forrest:Safe travels, everyone - thanks Avri and Jeff

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 07 March 2017
by Julie Hedlund March 7, 2017

March 7, 2017

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting 07 March. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 07 March 1. SOIs - No changes 2. CC2 - Second Reading: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qutP4I6fpyTtH4uSgLqsSFDn7082Guexr7gU8YD… General Comments: -- Will not start the comment period until after ICANN58 is over. -- Should the discussions next week present us any substantive changes recommend a third reading of at least those substantive. First paragraph: Need to insert the date. 1. Background paragraphs -- no comments. 2. Community Comment Request -- no comments. Last paragraph -- no comments. Annex A -- Work Track Subjects -- no comments 1.1 (Registry Service Provider) Accreditation Programs 1.1.1 - Changed to "Benefits [and] risks..." Rewrite and deletions -- no comments. 1.1.2 - Addition of requirements -- no comments. 1.1.3 - One word change -- no comments. 1.1.4 - Clause at the end added "Please explain." - no comments. 1.1.5 - no changes 1.1.6 - no comments 1.1.7 - no comments -- change to "periodic", change to a RSP 1.1.8 - no comments. 1.1.9 - New sentence and deletion 1.1.10 and 1.1.11 - no comments. 1.2 Applicant Support -- no comments. 1.3 Clarity of Application Process 1.3.1 - rewrite - no comments 1.4 Application Fees - no comments 1.5 Variable Fees 1.5.3 - This is the suggested language: "Should the application fee be variable based on the volume of applications received from a single applicant" If so, how should the fee be adjusted and what are the potential impacts from doing so? 1.6 Application Submission Period -- no comments 1.7 Application Queuing 1.7.2 - Don't know what it means "IDNs or some other group of applications"? Example: brands. ACTION ITEM: Change "group of applications" to "categories". Also, add for example. 1.8 Systems, 1.9 Communications, and 1.10 Applicant Guidebook - no comments 2.1 Base Registry Agreements 2.1.3 - Understand what is meant by "explicitly identified"? Some sections of the application would be explicitly identified as such. 2.2 Reserved Names - -- Still waiting on output from the CCWG-UCTN so we thought it might be premature at this stage since they are doing work on this. The interim report has been published for comment.: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-uctn-interim-paper-2017-02-24-en. -- We most likely won't get any input from CCWG-UCTN. -- Don't need to add a question at this point. -- Will be taking the CCWG-UCTN final report into consideration. >From the Chat: Alexander Schubert: In WT2 I still miss any question about 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names ..... Heather Forrest: To put a finer point on Alexander's comment, the group as a whole has not agreed because the scope of the group's work was very narrow. Certainly the participants have views that need to be discussed here in the PDP. jeff neuman: But we will address that issue when the CWG is done. Donna Austin, Neustar: should there be a note mentioning that country and territory names have been left out of this exercise for x reason. Alexander Schubert: Footnote that we deal with it later! ACTION ITEM: Add a general note in the preamble that some of the work is dependent on other outcomes. 2.3 Registrant Projections - no comments 2.4 Closed Generics - no comments 2.5 Applicant Terms and Conditions 2.5.1 Two Options -- why do we need two options? The options are for us to pick on, not to keep both in the document. Option 1 is from Paul McGrady. [Reading the text.] Option 2 is more brief. [Reading the text.] -- Paul McGrady: Option 2 seems to presuppose the answer. Don't think it reflects reality. -- Do options relate to 2.5.1 or 2.5.2? Relates only to 2.5.1. ACTION ITEM: Go with option 1. 2.5.2-2.5.4 - No comments. 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 - no comments. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 - no comments ACTION ITEM: Renumber 3.3.5 to 3.3.4 and 3.3.6 to 3.3.5 3.3.6 -- "Should the claim to support a community affect other parts of the application process." Don't understand. Read this as saying if it isn't community application should there be a different form of application. But, it also should a community application go through CPE anyway? Meant to say "Should a claim to support a community affect other parts of the evaluation process?" -- "Should" causes difficulty. Maybe "Does" or "Do"? ACTION ITEM: Change to "Do you think a community application should be structured or evaluated differently than other applications?" 3.4 String Similarity 3.4.6 is new. -- Draw attention to the CWG on Auctions. Trying to do some definitions. Do we need to reference that work? >From the chat: jeff neuman: the CCWG on Auction Proceeds is not discussing how auctions work or why they exist. It is only talking about the use of funds. Greg Shatan: Actually, they're talking about the mechanisms for deciding how to spend the money. Others will then decide how to spend the money using those mechanisms. 3.5 Accountability Mechanisms - no comments 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.1 - no comments. 4.3.2 Financial Evaluation Trang Nguyen: 4.3.2.3 The AGB criteria did not include evaluation of an applicant’s business model. Meaning, Q18 was not evaluated. And the projections in Q46 was not evaluated against the proposed business model in Q18. ACTION: Change to "In the prior round, detailed business plans were provided, but not evaluated." 4.3.2.5 -- Comment: Not sure we want to ask this questions because it seems loaded. Should we drop it? No objections to dropping. ACTION ITEM: Drop 4.3.2.5 and renumber. 4.3.2.6 - at application time, at contract signing time, or at both times? ACTION ITEM: Add "or at both times" Also, change on 4.3.1.1 and on the background screening question (anywhere this construction appears in the questions). 4.3.3 - Why is there a general question? It was a general question relating to that category. 4.4 Name Collisions - no comments. 4.5 Security and Stability - no comments. Miscellaneous Questions -- why call them that? Can we call them something else? Could call them "General Questions". These were not specifically part of any of the work tracks. Suggestion is "Additional Questions"? ACTION ITEM: Change to "Additional Questions". -- Question 4: What is "data points"? What do we mean? >From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): data points refers to any discreet unit of information, usually in an analytical context. It is an Observation Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON: "data points" is quite common as a stan ding expression, I believe. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): can be single or multiple measures Alexander Schubert: Noun 1. data point - an item of factual information derived from measurement or research Rudy Mendoza: agreed Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON: yes, please keep it. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): can also be seen as a term in multifactorial statistical analysis. 4. Any Other Business -- WG Chairs trying to create an over the Internet intersessional between ICANN58 and ICANN59 to discuss.

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC Chat & AC Recording for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG on Monday, 06 March 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter March 7, 2017

March 7, 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, 06 March 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9JLRAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-06mar17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p57ijfuutft/ <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/9JLRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 06 March 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 06 March 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Jeff Neuman:thanks! Kavouss Arasteh:There are decicated and devoted peosons all attening art all meetings to assume theier assigned responsibilities Kavouss Arasteh:Good to hear that people lafughting ' Kavouss Arasteh:PLS SHOW THE AGENDA Michael Flemming:The Agenda is on the right. Kavouss Arasteh:distorteed voice Karen Day:lots of audio distortion Ken Stubbs - Afilias:hello all ! Michael Flemming:Avri, could you speak up? Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: The Agenda is in the Notes 5 pod. Michael Flemming:please and thank you. Karen Day:Can barely hear Avri Christa Taylor:better already - can hear you a lot clearer Christa Taylor:No update Christa Taylor:If everyone could review the updates in the questions - that would be great Kavouss Arasteh:DISTORTED AUDIO Kavouss Arasteh:i HEAR DISTORTED VOICE Michael Flemming:PELAS Michael Flemming:PLEASE STOP USING CAPS Kavouss Arasteh:aVRI, MY LINE IS OKAY BUT YOUR AND OTHER VOICES ARE DISTORTED Ken Stubbs - Afilias:why does it matter if he uses caps or not ? Kavouss Arasteh:Sorry for cap Michael Flemming:I think it is more than known that caps have a history for being associated with yelling. Christa Taylor:Kavouss, I can hear everyone clear and the voices are not distorted Christa Taylor:...so far ;-) Kavouss Arasteh:What do ou mean, pls consult swisscom Karen Day:sorry 'bout that! Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:yes Kavouss Arasteh:no it is not okay Christa Taylor:clear and a good level Steve Chan:I'm dialed in and it's choppy and crackly. I wonder if it's better on AC versus phone. Karen Day:I can't understand Jeff. Perhaps those of us on dial in having the issues? Philip Corwin:Audio for Jeff very scratchy Michael Flemming:Its a little muphled but I can hear him. Christa Taylor:Clear here Ken Stubbs - Afilias:please post correct page jeff is referring to Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Adobe audio is fine here Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:no issues hearing jeff Karen Day:Christa are you listening via Adobe or dial in? Alexander Schubert:Very clear here! Ken Stubbs - Afilias:jeff is clear ! Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:clearly Kavouss Arasteh:I have seriou difficulties to hear clear voice. Christa Taylor:Adobe Ken Stubbs - Afilias:will be an echo Susan Payne:can you give us control of the document please Steve Chan:@Susan, the document is unsynced Susan Payne:cheers Steve Chan:Confirmed, much clearer on AC versus dial-in. Michael Flemming:Some of the questions have been deleted. Michael Flemming:We need to renumber them and some of the sections as well. Jeff Neuman:i am back Raymond Zylstra - Neustar:Hi - I can't connect to the audio right now Raymond Zylstra - Neustar:Fine with the answer at this point Alexander Schubert:Now you sound like in a water bowl ... Ken Stubbs - Afilias:this is not good Alexander Schubert:BAD! Alexander Schubert:Loser..... Michael Flemming:Very distorted. Alexander Schubert::D Jeff Neuman:I am back on Adobe Paul McGrady:Can we draw a distinction between an evolution of a business plan and a change in the nature of the registry itself? Ken Stubbs - Afilias:very difficult to understand kavouss Jeff Neuman:@Paul - I think your answer could make the distrinction Ken Stubbs - Afilias:avery is crisp & clear so i have a good connection Michael Flemming:You sound better. Ken Stubbs - Afilias: can hear jeff clear Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):I hear you just fine. Ken Stubbs - Afilias:cannot hear kavouss Michael Flemming:We cannot hear you Kavouss. Donna Austin, Neustar:I have the same problem as Kavouss with regard to Jeff Paul McGrady:Me too. Can hear Kavouss clearly, but Jeff is very fuzzy. Ken Stubbs - Afilias:kavouss need to reconnect Liz Brodzinski:I just hung up and called back in and now can hear Kavouss clearly Karen Day:Will hang up dial in and try to listen from Adobe, but won't be able to speak. Steve Chan:I recommend signing in through the AC audio. I was dialed in earlier and switched to AC and it's much clearer. Michael Flemming:Kavouss, you are able to go in and check the CC2 questions and make suggestions and comments directly. This may help for you to have a chance to review them and offer suggestions directly. Michael Flemming:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-… Ken Stubbs - Afilias:this difference in reception really creates inefficiences in this conference Rudy Mendoza:Jeff is loud and clear through adobe Karen Day:now that I'm listening in Adobe I can hear you. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):distortion over the phone is significant Jeff Paul McGrady:I'm on the phone and it sounds like the Klingons are jamming Jeff's frequency at the source. Ken Stubbs - Afilias:adobe for me gives clarity to both jeff & avery. only prob is kavouss Jeff Neuman:I will try cell Michael Flemming:Yes Ken Stubbs - Afilias:wish icann had a tech monitoring this call. they may be able to avoid this in future if they knew what the issues were. Ken Stubbs - Afilias:can't understand him at all. you may have to repeat or summarize his comments Michael Flemming:I cannot hear Kavouss at all. Is that just me. Michael Flemming:? Martin Sutton:Very difficult to hear Kavouss Susan Payne:me neither Michael Julie Hedlund:@Michael: I can barely her him. Julie Hedlund:hear him Gg Levine (NABP):+1 Donna Austin, Neustar:and I can hear Kavouss fine Michael Flemming:Kavouss, could you please check your connection? Michael Flemming:+1 on that. Michael Flemming:I think "should" is a much more precise in this manner. Michael Flemming:People could believe anything. Donna Austin, Neustar:perfect thanks Jeff Gg Levine (NABP):Jeff is fuzzy now. Paul McGrady:Much better!! Phil Buckingham:jeff is fuzzy Martin Sutton:good Michael Flemming:you sound a lot better Michael Flemming:indeed Martin Sutton:quieter but clearer Karen Day:I think Paul nailed it - Klingons! Laura Watkins (Nominet):much better. still slightly muffled but understandable Steve Chan:Apologies all, staff is trying to determine what is causing the audio issues. Michelle DeSmyter:Please know we are currently working on the audio issues and currently working on the issue Alexander Schubert:These 100 names are escaping the TMCH - so that's why not unlimited! Ken Stubbs - Afilias:whatever you did to correct the audio problems, it worked. can hear kavouss clearly Alexander Schubert:(It is my understanding they escaped the TMCH ... correct me if wrong) Ken Stubbs - Afilias:isn't that opening pandorra's box Michael Flemming:I think the question is correct as it is now. Alexander Schubert:In regard to "reserved TLD names": Work Track 2 also covers section 2.2.1.4.1 = Treatment of Country or Territory Names on Top-Level. Do we cover that later? Rubens Kuhl:As the name suggests, icann-sla-monitoring was suggested by ICANN, although accepted by registries. Paul McGrady:We use "propose"-formative words 3 times in a short space. Can we mess with it to make the question more clear? Michael Flemming:I think it would be great to reword. Kavouss Arasteh:Pls just insert the reference to that amendment Rubens Kuhl:The amendment in question is this one: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… Rubens Kuhl:Note that is not yet approved. Michael Flemming:I think the word breach allows for the individual answering the question to interpret a level of discretion for that at this point. It is rather difficult for us to define it at this point, but with a more formal consultation with ICANN, after we issue the question, I think we will be able to have a better outlook for what would constitute that certain type of breach. Steve Chan:@Jeff, that's right. Michael Flemming:not all countries are formally recongized? Rubens Kuhl:In some countries, different states have different rules... so jurisdiction looks better to me. Michael Flemming:that is why jurisdictions is used, it is much more flexible. Rubens Kuhl:Like California and New York. Michael Flemming:we could do something like countries/jurisdictions Michael Flemming:I am going to leave the room for this one :D Michael Flemming:I agree with Kavouss on this one. You ask for a suggestion to define something and then you ask if modifications are needed to the definition. Michael Flemming:COMMENT: I think its a great question. But Avri's suggestions is good. Laura Watkins (Nominet):Agreed Avri Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Apologies for late arrival. Multiple conflicting calls (as is always the case in the week before an ICANN meeting.) Alexander Schubert:It seems there were problems with the CPE's. So GAC several times called for an appeals mechanism to investigate potential inconsistencies ..... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):General question: Wouldn't we generally be interested in teh respondee's explanation of their answer - regardless of whether they answer "yes" or "no" and regardless of what the question is? If not, it would be helpul to understand why not. Thanks. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):oops. "the respondee's" Christa Taylor:Sorry Jeff, a bit delayed. There is a bit of an overlap with 2.7.3 and 1.3.1 Phil Buckingham:Avri - back tracking thinking about 2.8.1 - wording is not correct IMO Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):replace "issues" with "claimed inefficiencies" Susan Payne:I think on 2.8.3 we should also ask "what safeguards are required" Steve Chan:@Phil, can you elaborate? Not correct in what way? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Can we ask ICANN for facts, namely, the outcome of any PICDRP proceedings? Rubens Kuhl:And it's hard to gather facts to measure deterrence. Do people acted good because they are good or because there could be consequences ? Ken Stubbs - Afilias:+1 susan payne Ken Stubbs - Afilias:@kristina shouldn't this be public info. why shoul;d it not be disclosed Michael Flemming:YAY Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I have to drop from Adobe but will stay on the call. I'll read the transcript and comment on the list. Michael Flemming:Thank you, Kristina. Rubens Kuhl:Some answers to this question will be very entertaining. Phil Buckingham:@ Steve think should read " ..... issues of Registrar non discrimination ( vertical separation ) and registry / registrar/ registrant ownership ( vertical integration ) now that .... Michael Flemming:Can't window be the same as a round? Michael Flemming:Not sure of that distinction. avri doria:rounds has come to mean what we have now. perhaps in the future it will refer to what we are currently taking about, but now it is confusing. Gg Levine (NABP):If so, please explain. Gg Levine (NABP):Sorry; re: 3.1.6. Karen Day:Thanks, Gg. Will make that change Rubens Kuhl:future rounds -> subsequent procedures Alexander Schubert:Like stated before: It seems there were problems with the CPE's. So GAC several times called for an appeals mechanism to investigate potential inconsistencies ..... Heather Forrest:3.3.5 - should we ask for specific examples? Susan Payne:yes Karen Day:Yes, Heather, I think we can add that Donna Austin, Neustar:Apologies all, I have to drop from this call. Paul McGrady:For 3.1.2, if "no" can we also seek examples? Susan Payne:can we give a link to something which explains how they are handled in ccTLDs? to ensiure ebveryone is aware Susan Payne:sorry about typos! Alexander Schubert:The ccTLDs are determined by ISO! Alexander Schubert:So it wouldn't be ICANN but ISO who does that...... Rubens Kuhl:IDN ccTLD has such a process, detailed at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… . Heather Forrest:Note for the notes - the point on 3.4.2 was raised by Kristina Rosette, not Susan Payne Rubens Kuhl:2-char ASCII ccTLDs are assumed to not generate confusion. Heather Forrest:Credit to both! Alexander Schubert:Then let's say it in 3.4.2.: "IDN-ccTLDs" Alexander Schubert:Also we might ask: Should private auctions be prohibited (or: did they created harm - speculation - etc)? Alexander Schubert:I guess in th next rond we will have people applying with nothing other in mind than to "cash in" in private auctions..... Alexander Schubert:rond = round Alexander Schubert:3.5.1 is valid as ICANN always said: "Sorry there is no appeals mechanism - and please do not abuse our other accountability mechanisms" Karen Day:Go for it! Christa Taylor:Minor formatting - line break on 4.3.2.5/.6 Kavouss Arasteh:Consensus by Ehausion Phil Buckingham:additional Q suggestion : Should applicants use an ICANN financial templated model or should they be allowed to provide their own financials model (s) Kavouss Arasteh:Exhaustion Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):well done Avri Kavouss Arasteh:PLS KINDLY CORRECT MISSPELLING THAT i MADE INADERTANTLY Paul McGrady:Well done Jeff and Avri! Lots here to think about. Christa Taylor:Way to go Avri!!! Susan Payne:what is tomorrow's meeting? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thank you all Susan Payne:for the full wg? Martin Sutton:thanks Avri and Jeff Alexander Schubert:Tnx Susan Payne:I completely missed that Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now then Heather Forrest:Thanks, Jeff and Avri. Karen Day:@Susan, yes, full group for 2nd reading so we can get CC2 out the door :) Susan Payne:aha :) Susan Payne:night Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks to both of you, jeff and avri.

1 0

Subsequent Procedures PDP WG newsletter - March 2017
by Emily Barabas March 7, 2017

March 7, 2017

Dear WG members, The Subsequent Procedures PDP WG leadership team is piloting a monthly newsletter to help WG members and the community stay informed about WG progress and learn about upcoming discussion topics. The first installment of the newsletter is attached and also available on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/Mgp1Aw. Input is welcome on improving future editions of the newsletter! Please feel free to share with other groups and individuals that might be interested. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 06 March 2017
by Emily Barabas March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 06 March 2017. 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 or transcript. Please also see the recording and transcript on the meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/9JLRAw. Kind regards, Emily ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Consider having tech support on calls to monitor for problems. 1. SOIs -- No updates 2. Work Track Updates Work Track 1 -- Christa Taylor: No update. If everyone could review the updates in the questions - that would be great. Work Track 2 -- Michael Flemming -- No update per se. Continuing meeting per the schedule. Recently started on the closed generics. Work Track 3 -- Karen Day -- Meets tomorrow at 1500 UTC. Robin Gross will lead the meeting. Continuing work on string related issues: objections, similarity, community-based objections. Work Track 4 -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr -- Met today. Topic was name collisions. Managed to resolve one or two questions and tabled another two. Will continue that work. 3. Community Comment 2 (CC2) First reading continued. (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…) ACTION ITEM: check the numbering and correct, as needed. ACTION ITEM: throughout the CC2 document, ask for an explanation regardless of whether the response is "yes" or "no" -- Trying to make sure that the questions are clear and for others to answer. Section 2.1 Base Registry Agreement: 2.1.1 -- any clarifications (note that numbering needs to be checked) 2.1.3 -- Restrictions relating to sunrise periods. No questions or clarifications 2.1.4 -- One of the issues was that this needs to have examples. Do we need examples? Fine with the answer at this point. Not very clear as drafted. Long sentences that are difficult to properly understand. Re: "Should the application form state" not clear what part of the application. -- Maybe the word "state" is not the most common meaning. Perhaps editing that sentence "should the application form explain..." -- What do we mean by "balance be struck between allowing the [repeat "the] the community"? -- That is ideomatic speech. Could be "balance be found". ACTION ITEM: clarify text in 2.1.4; replace the word “state” with “explain”; change “balance be struck” to balance be “found” From the chat: Paul McGrady: Can we draw a distinction between an evolution of a business plan and a change in the nature of the registry itself? 2.3 Reserved Names (renumber): 2.3.1 re: string requirements and 2.3.2 re: list of Reserved Names: ACTION ITEM: check the references against the Applicant Guidebook and add URLs. 2.3.3 -- Special Use Domain Names -- Is Raymond Zylstra's edit more clear? The question is saying that there is a 6761 procedure in the IETF and they will reserve the name when appropriate according to their procedure ("is appropriate" is correct). the last clause might be dangling. ACTION: Edit for 2.3.3 for clarity. -- The question about whether the Special Use Domain Names -- change it "Do you think that" instead of "Should..." 2.3.5 -- Re: reserved names -- Change to "right to reserve domain name[s]" Comments are answers rather than changes to the question. -- What is the basis to have these names reserved [audio dropped out]..why was the unlimited number of reserved names and where does 100 names come from? - The right came from the registry agreement. It was something that got negotiated in and then was put into the Applicant Guidebook. Specification 5 has the language on 100 names and no limit for reserving any other names subject to releasing them to an ICANN accredited registrar. -- Is this not warehousing TLDs? Perhaps the question is "Do you believe that the 100 and unlimited number should be reviewed?" -- The above comment seems to be an answer to the question, or a response. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: (It is my understanding they escaped the TMCH ... correct me if wrong) Michael Flemming: I think the question is correct as it is now. Alexander Schubert: In regard to "reserved TLD names": Work Track 2 also covers section 2.2.1.4.1 = Treatment of Country or Territory Names on Top-Level. Do we cover that later? 2.3.6 -- Question doesn't seem to be clear. -- Needs to be rewritten for clarity. -- Cross reference to the amendment. -- Before our PDP ends changes to the Registry Agreement will include these new reserved names. ACTION ITEM: clarify and reword. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: As the name suggests, icann-sla-monitoring was suggested by ICANN, although accepted by registries. Paul McGrady: We use "propose"-formative words 3 times in a short space. Can we mess with it to make the question more clear? Kavouss Arasteh: Pls just insert the reference to that amendment Rubens Kuhl: The amendment in question is this one: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/global-amendment-base-new-gtld-regist…. [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>Note that is not yet approved. 2.4 Registrant Protections 2.4.1 re: EBERO, COI, Data Escrow and Registry Performance etc. 2.4.3 re: EBERO funding model 2.4.4 re: Background screening -- Opens up a can of worms. Would have to get into signicant definitions as to what constitutes a breach. Concerned about how it is worded. -- The 4th line -- what do we mean by "information that is not readily available in some jurisdictions". -- Alluding to the fact that it was no always possible to do background screening if the entity was in a country that didn't allow that kind of background to be provided. ACTION ITEM: change "some jurisdictions" to "some countries". From the chat: Michael Flemming: I think the word breach allows for the individual answering the question to interpret a level of discretion for that at this point. It is rather difficult for us to define it at this point, but with a more formal consultation with ICANN, after we issue the question, I think we will be able to have a better outlook for what would constitute that certain type of breach. Steve Chan: @Jeff, that's right. Michael Flemming: not all countries are formally recognized? Rubens Kuhl: In some countries, different states have different rules... so jurisdiction looks better to me. Michael Flemming: that is why jurisdictions is used, it is much more flexible. Rubens Kuhl: Like California and New York. Michael Flemming: we could do something like countries/jurisdictions. 2.6 Closed Generics 2.6.1: no questions 2.6.2: ACTION ITEM: insert the provision from the Registry Agreement, Specification 11, clarify wording of the question. -- Is the question whether to revise the definition? Not clear or seems repetitive. 2.7.1: -- Comment: the question is loaded. Can we make it more neutral? This was never meant to be a blank check for ICANN to violate policy, the text should not imply that this is the case. --ACTION ITEM: change "if yes, please explain" to "please explain," reword to make more neutral. 2.7.2 - Comment: request for clarification on the word "submitted" and clarification on additional mechanisms mentioned beyond accountability mechanisms. - Answer: the accountability mechanisms do not go to the substance of the issue. The question is asking about this. ACTION ITEM: clarify text in 2.7.2. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: It seems there were problems with the CPE's. So GAC several times called for an appeals mechanism to investigate potential inconsistencies ..... 2.7.3 - suggestion: add "consistent with the bylaws" ACTION ITEM: insert "consistent with the bylaws" in the text of this question. Check for overlap between 2.7.3 and 1.3.1 From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): General question: Wouldn't we generally be interested in teh respondee's explanation of their answer - regardless of whether they answer "yes" or "no" and regardless of what the question is? If not, it would be helpul to understand why not. Thanks. Christa Taylor: Sorry Jeff, a bit delayed. There is a bit of an overlap with 2.7.3 and 1.3.1 2.7.4 - Comment: probably a good idea to remove the word "significant." ACTION ITEM: remove the word "significant" from this question. 2.8.1 From the chat: Phil Buckingham: Avri - back tracking thinking about 2.8.1 - wording is not correct IMO 2.8.2 - Comment: clarify that there are other exceptions ACTION ITEM: include the other exceptions to the Registry Code of Conduct 2.8.3 - Question: In the second to last sentence, what do the words "these" "issues" and "address" mean? - Response: leadership team can attempt to clarify text in this question. From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): General question: Wouldn't we generally be interested in teh respondee's explanation of their answer - regardless of whether they answer "yes" or "no" a Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): replace "issues" with "claimed inefficiencies" Susan Payne: I think on 2.8.3 we should also ask "what safeguards are required" ACTION: clarify text of 2.8.3 to be more precise about the issues referenced. For example, replace "issues" with "claimed inefficiencies." Add question: "what safeguards are required"? 2.8.4 - no comments 2.10 - no comments 2.11.1 - no comments 2.12.1 - Comment inserted in the text - "I feel these questions should look for factual inputs. . ." - Response: the request for supporting documentation attempts to get at this. Comment regarding CCT-RT refers to the entire PDP. Will revisit in the second reading. From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can we ask ICANN for facts, namely, the outcome of any PICDRP proceedings? Rubens Kuhl: And it's hard to gather facts to measure deterrence. Do people acted good because they are good or because there could be consequences ? Ken Stubbs - Afilias: @kristina shouldn't this be public info. why shoul;d it not be disclosed 2.12.2 - suggestion: following the term public interest, add "as referred to in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws" - response: with the new reference in the articles of incorporation, we may need remove this question ACTION ITEM: consider if 2.12.1 should be deleted given the new articles of incorporation. 3.1.1 - no comments 3.1.2 - no comments From the chat: Paul McGrady: For 3.1.2, if "no" can we also seek examples? ACTION ITEM: If response is "no," also ask for examples. 3.1.3 - no comments 3.1.4 - comment: decisions made by whom? - response: decisions made by objection dispute panels... - ACTION: clarify that this question refers to decisions made by objection dispute panels. Encourage explanation of response whether it is “yes” or “no.” 3.1.6 – comment: change "rounds" to "application windows" ACTION ITEM: change "rounds" to "application windows" 3.1.7 - split into two questions 3.1.8 - no comments 3.2.1 - no comments 3.3.1 - - Comment: clarify the text "true to the policy" in the second to last sentence. ACTION ITEM: adjust text to clarify the meaning of "true to the policy" in the second to last sentence. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Like stated before: It seems there were problems with the CPE's. So GAC several times called for an appeals mechanism to investigate potential inconsistencies ..... - response: this seems to speak to a possible response and not the formulation of the question. 3.3.2 - no comments 3.3.3 - no comments 3.3.4 - no comments 3.3.5 From the chat: Heather Forrest: 3.3.5 - should we ask for specific examples? ACTION ITEM: ask for specific examples in 3.3.5 3.3.6 - suggestion: include as a sub-question, if we have a proposal on the table, perhaps we can put that out for comment? ACTION ITEM: consider including the proposal for comment. 3.4.1 3.4.2 - Kristina Rosette: question needs to be clear that they should be handled the same, may need to explain the process that ccTLD use. From the chat: Susan Payne: can we give a link to something which explains how they are handled in ccTLDs? to ensure everyone is aware Alexander Schubert: The ccTLDs are determined by ISO! Alexander Schubert: So it wouldn't be ICANN but ISO who does that...... Heather Forrest: Note for the notes - the point on 3.4.2 was raised by Kristina Rosette, not Susan Payne Rubens Kuhl: IDN ccTLD has such a process, detailed at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> . Alexander Schubert: Then let's say it in 3.4.2.: "IDN-ccTLDs" Alexander Schubert: Also we might ask: Should private auctions be prohibited (or: did they created harm - speculation - etc)? ACTION ITEM: clarify the question and link to ccTLD process: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> . 3.4.3 - Comment: replace "noted issues" with "raised concerns" ACTION ITEM: replace "noted issues" with "raised concerns" in 3.4.3. 3.4.4 - no comments ACTION ITEM: add “please explain” to 3.4.4. 3.4.5 From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Also we might ask: Should private auctions be prohibited (or: did they created harm - speculation - etc)? Alexander Schubert: I guess in th next rond we will have people applying with nothing other in mind than to "cash in" in private auctions..... Alexander Schubert: rond = round ACTION ITEM: add this question about the use of auctions to 3.4.5, phrase the question in a neutral manner. 3.5 3.5.1 & 3.5.2 ACTION ITEM: check for overlap with questions in WT2. 3.5.2 - Comment: is this question necessary? - We can be more clear about whether there should be new accountability mechanisms and whether these mechanisms are good. ACTION ITEM: clarify the text in question 3.5.2. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: 3.5.1 is valid as ICANN always said: "Sorry there is no appeals mechanism - and please do not abuse our other accountability mechanisms" 4.1.1 - no comments 4.1.2 - no comments 4.1.3 - no comments 4.1.4 - no comments 4.2.1 - no comments 4.3.1.1 - no comments 4.3.1.2 - no comments 4.3.1.2.1 - no comments 4.3.2 - no comments 4.3.2.1 - no comments 4.3.2.2 - no comments 4.3.2.3 - no comments 4.3.2.4 - no comments 4.3.2.5 - no comments From the chat: Christa Taylor: Minor formatting - line break on 4.3.2.5/.6 ACTION ITEM: add line break on 4.3.2.5/.6. 4.3.2.6 - no comments 4.3.2.7 - no comments 4.3.2.8 - no comments 4.3.1.1 - no comments 4.4.1 - no comments 4.4.2 - no comments 4.4.3 - no comments 4.4.4 - no comments 4.5.1 - no comments 4.5.2 - no comments Misc. questions 1. no comments From the chat: Kavouss Arasteh: Consensus by Exhaustion Phil Buckingham: additional Q suggestion : Should applicants use an ICANN financial templated model or should they be allowed to provide their own financials model (s) 2. ACTION ITEM: Change the word "contract" so it is not confused with a legal contract. 3. no comments 4. no comments

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 6 March at 2000 UTC
by Steve Chan March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 6 March 2017 at 2000 UTC for 120 minutes. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Work Track Updates 4. Community Comment 2 (CC2) first reading continued (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…) 5. 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

DNS WOMEN COCKTAIL Formal INVITATION - ICANN 58 COPENHAGEN
by Vanda Scartezini March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

Dear Women friends from GNSO – NEWGTLD working group. As we already organize here the invitation to all women attending ICANN 58. Attached the formal invitation. Please register yourselves as demanded per hotel rules – just click inside the invitation - Bring your badge for facility. Since the place is not so clear at the invitation here the location: Auditorium Foyer, AC Hotel Bella Sky Copenhagen, Center Boulevard 5 , Copenhagen 2300, Denmark. It will be a pleasure to have you with us! Kisses to all and safe travels. 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. HAPPY 2017! From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, February 27, 2017 at 2:58 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting 27 February 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