May 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg - lists.icann.org

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Jean Guillon May 16, 2017

May 16, 2017

I am also in full agreement that the protection of "Global Well Known Brands" is potentially beneficial to the Internet User and Trademarks. On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander(a)schubert.berlin> wrote: > Hi Jannik, > > I am in full agreement that the protection of "Global Well Known Brands" > such as "Porsche", "Nike" or "DISNEY" is in some way potentially > beneficial to the Internet User. Especially if NOT based on a generic > keyword term. But if a the brand is based on a generic term and NOT > "Globally Well Known" - why does it deserve special protection in the DNS? > Do a search in a few TM databases (e.g. USA, Germany, Brazil) - you find a > TM for almost EVERY generic term. > > So we would need to develop a clear (and easy to implement) threshold for > "Well Globally Known Brand" - one that can't be games easily (so it needs a > cutoff date, a number of countries with registered TMs, etc). > > Thanks, > > Alexander > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jannik Skou [mailto:js@thomsentrampedach.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:53 PM > To: alexander(a)schubert.berlin > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC > > Hi Alexander > > Well I admit that almost any criteria can be “gamed” - still it offers an > opportunity for local regional TLDs to get their TLDs without having to pay > large sums to win an auction against a brand or a portfolio applicant for > instance - and thus IMHO helps promote diversity. > > Should a branded .SUN have priority over an open for profit .SUN? > > In my view the need for additional open TLDs (maybe a part from IDNs) is > very limited, so I can live with such a scenario, in order to provide TM > owners large or small (you would still ned a lot of money to apply for and > operate a TLD so not any small TM owner could participate) to protect their > brand (and thereby also their consumers) by having their own .Brand TLD > (and maybe not having to defend their TM and consumers from fraud/false > affiliation amongst yet more open TLDs. > > As to rounds - I suggested in my public comments that a window must open > every two years (based on existing policies until new policy is developed) > until the community decides to simply open up for applications. > Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss, > > Jannik Skou, MBA > Partner > > Thomsen Trampedach GmbH > Grundstrasse 22a > 6343 Rotkreuz > Switzerland > > T +45.22275696 > M js(a)thomsentrampedach.com > W http://thomsentrampedach.com > > > On 16 May 2017, at 15:31, Alexander Schubert <alexander(a)schubert.berlin> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – > and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit > into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I > must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. > > > > Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” > term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky > elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think > “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They > then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is > a geo location to almost every generic term. > > > > Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At > minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) > countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be > “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. > Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the > entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody > else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term > based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural > meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and > Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, > too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has > a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” > from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there > are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to > apply for a gTLD for them. > > > > And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on > a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would > create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and > down. > > > > So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – > once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF > there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a > policy issue, right? > > > > As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I > like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are > only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real > time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, > annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in > between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now > (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and > smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd > round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the > 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, > then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and > definite schedule! > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alexander > > > > > > > > > > > > From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- > bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM > > To: Rob Hall <rob(a)momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC > > > > And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand > issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not > constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. > > > > Alan > > > > At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: > > > > > >> Greg, > >> > >> Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where > anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? > >> > >> I believe this entire artificial â€œin roundsâ€ that we are doing now > is what is causing most of the issues. > >> > >> I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last > round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, > they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason > for â€œCategoriesâ€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of > another. > >> > >> By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of > the contention and issues. > >> > >> As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a > good idea. Can someone fill me in ? > >> > >> Rob. > >> > >> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > >> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM > >> To: Rob Hall <rob(a)momentous.com> > >> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman < > jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" < > gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> > >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC > >> > >> I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. > anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for > this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) > >> > >> There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough > not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" > version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. > >> > >> There were certainly problems with the community applications (not > really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing > better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different > parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should > learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. > >> > >> Greg > >> > >> Greg Shatan > >> C: 917-816-6428 > >> S: gsshatan > >> gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >> > >> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob(a)momentous.com> wrote: > >> I honestly canâ€™t see the purpose of categories. > >> > >> If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can > apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. > >> > >> The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are > having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just > imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not > learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? > >> > >> Rob. > >> > >> From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton < > martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org> > >> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM > >> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > > >> Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> > >> > >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC > >> > >> That would be helpful. > >> > >> I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as > it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created > unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven > demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular > category, especially where the operating model is very different to the > traditional selling /distribution to third parties. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> Martin Sutton > >> Executive Director > >> Brand Registry Group > >> martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org > >> > >> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > > wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? > It may help our discussions later today. > >> > >> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA > >> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > >> Mclean, VA 22102, United States > >> E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > >> T: +1.703.635.7514 > >> M: +1.202.549.5079 > >> @Jintlaw > >> > >> > >> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- > bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz > >> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM > >> To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC > >> > >> Hi Everyone: > >> > >> In reading the agenda for todayâ€™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet > describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/ > spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff > zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ). > >> > >> It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in > 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs > in the last round because they would be problematic (read, â€œimpossibleâ€ > ) to implement. > >> > >> Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in > the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks > presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy > discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. > >> > >> Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. > >> > >> The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round > was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was > predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. > >> > >> In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: > community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was > problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with > .AFRICA. This wasnâ€™t just a process failure, the task itself was > extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government > approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, â€˜yesâ€™ and the other > â€™noâ€™? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community > applications. > >> > >> The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of > different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application > and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual > compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include > ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. > >> > >> For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, > the creation of categories should be avoided. > >> > >> Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > > Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg > -- *Jean Guillon* 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France *Phone:* +33.631109837 *Skype & Twitter:* jeanguillon *Web:* www.guillon.com

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Jamie Baxter May 16, 2017

May 16, 2017

3 2

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter May 15, 2017

May 15, 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, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/CNTRAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-15may17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p178uck7kt0/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/CNTRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 15 May 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone! Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Hi all! Annebeth Lange:Greetings from Norway! Poncelet Ileleji:hEllo all Nick Shorey:hi folks. Hadia Elminiawi:hello all Christa Taylor:no Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:No - Vanda Scartezini:i am not too Christa Taylor:Michael we can't hear you Julie Hedlund:@Michael: We cannot hear you if you are speaking. Phil Buckingham:his computer froze Michelle DeSmyter:I will send him a chat Phil Buckingham:Continue and come back Jeff Neuman:I would go to WT 3 Phil Buckingham:We have a call on Thursday 18 May 21.00 UTC . We will be opening up the hornets nest that is Vertical Integration. and Vertical Separation . Susan Payne:@cheryl, can non members WT4 join your calls? Susan Payne:Thanks yes, I meant as a one-off, so thanks for confirming Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Thanks for circulating the info on the GDD... it looks as it is growing into policy issues...? Michael Flemming:@Jorge, it includes policy that impacts operations of contracted parties. So it is not completely ignorant of policy but has a larger focus on operations with an interest in policy that will affect operations. Michael Flemming:effect* Martin Sutton Brand Registry Group:Jeff, could the GNSO set a target date? Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, we have an idea of what those items are and will provide a list soon. Michael Flemming:Question: When will the links to the recordings be posted? Jim Prendergast:Recrorded yes - but not posted yet Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Thanks to Jeff for this recap - sounds very much like important policy discussions, but without some important stakeholders being there Donna Austin, Neustar:Jorge - i think that's an unfair characterisation of what took place. discussions took place, no decisions made, understand any policy topics would be done under correct mechanisms. Phil Buckingham:@ Trang - has ICANN started to cost " implementation processes " Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Donna: why unfair? just factually stating that important discussions take place, without important stakeholders Jim Prendergast:And there were no meetings of any policy development groups such as this one. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):May be easiest to think of GDD as a 2+-day meeting of the Registry and Registrar Stakeholder Groups, where members of those SGs who are not participating in this WG asked questions of those who are. Kavouss Arasteh:Jorge +1 Annebeth Lange:Jorge +1 Kavouss Arasteh:People may kindly refrain to characterize views of other to be fair or unfair. Annebeth Lange:Many of the subjects touched upon will also have implications for both governments and ccTLDs Kavouss Arasteh:This is very frustrating Alan Greenberg:There is no excuse for not simultaneously broadcasting meetings like this, and immediately posting them fore later viewing. ANything less is giving preferential access to information to only certain groups. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Fact is that ICANN the organisation and the contracted parties exchange on very sensitive topics - where we all have a stake Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jorge, not decisions were made and over a few days we were discussing a large range of issues that were directly relevant to contracted parties. As Jeff said, it's not dissimilar to GAC discussions. It's all recorded. No decisions were made. Annebeth Lange:Alan +1 Susan Payne:@Alan, I believe the Adobe was open to all Jim Prendergast:For more info on it - see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_gddsummi… Phil Buckingham:thanks Trang . Michael Flemming:I don't get it. The Non-contracted house have Intersessional Meetings where they discuss important policy issues. All that took place was discussion amongst parties with common interests. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):one hour call is quite different to a three day meeting - decision shaping is quite important - everybody knows that Annebeth Lange:Even if decisions not taken, it gives a feeling of a "parallell" ICANN Kavouss Arasteh:Every one should be given the opportunity to express his or her views freely ,openly and timely without being faced with group objection or preventing him or her by any means, what so ever, to stop commenting. Paul McGrady:We need to move on. Martin Sutton Brand Registry Group:@paul +1 Susan Payne:@Jorge most of the 3-day meeting was talking about topics entiirely unrelated to this. I think the converation with Akram could be seen as not dissimilar to the session at last year's ITU where Akram made comments about the timing of future new gTLDs and which were widely reported and was questioned by attendees at that meeting Martin Sutton Brand Registry Group:@susan +1 the GDD was operationally focused, at times it would touch on policy, inevitably Martin Sutton Brand Registry Group:Good to hear Nick Shorey's feedback, I am sure others could attend if they really (really) wanted to. Martin Sutton Brand Registry Group:Steve, this is very helpful, thank you Paul McGrady:Call dropped. Dialing back in. Donna Austin, Neustar:Has any work track discussed categories, or is this something that we are to discuss as a group of the whole. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Avri: could you send out an Email on this table of TLD types and establish a deadline for feedback? Steve Chan:@Donna, it's come up as a related issue, in that categories may impact other topics. But as a substantive topic, I do not believe so. It shoud be discussed in the drafting team ideally. Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Steve Christa Taylor:Categories could impact the development of application fee setting Steve Chan:@Jorge, we shared the link to the Google doc in the agenda, but we'll send around a PDF as well. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Christa, it has the potential to impact fees, applications, evaluation, type of contract and more. Christa Taylor:+1 Donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed! Kavouss Arasteh:Avri, what would be the status of provisional decision Paul McGrady:I like to think of provisional decisions as "bread crumbs" to keep track of where we came from when we get there. Kavouss Arasteh:How and when these provisional decidions are coverted to more definitive as well as any impact of any provisional decision on other provisional decision Paul McGrady:+1 Avri. Kavouss Arasteh:I f the provisional decision making prevent to reach a consensus I have difficulty to accept Kavouss Arasteh:ok if it is a part of consensus building i have no problem Annebeth Lange:I have to leave for another meeting, sorry. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I have to drop for another meeting at the top of the hour. Kavouss Arasteh:Avri, I am sorry to indicate that I have to leave for another meeting Kavouss Arasteh:Bye Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):the GAC is working on an input on the CC2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):as is ALAC :-) Poncelet Ileleji:Avri, leaving for another Meeting, Bye All Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Cheryl: let's copy paste! ;P Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):;-) Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):the PDP F2F is at what time? Steve Chan:@Jorge, I believe it's Wednesday from 8:30-12:00 local time. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks, Steve! guess we'll have GAC Meetings at that time... :-( Vanda Scartezini:thank you all for the work done. and to finish on top of the hour, kisses Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... bye for now then... Alan Greenberg:Thanks all. Christa Taylor:Thank-you Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks everyone, bye! Trang Nguyen:thanks everyone. bye. Karen Day:Thanks everyone, bye! Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks & bay. Hadia Elminiawi:bye, thansk Robin Gross:bye Hadia Elminiawi:thanks Victor Zhang:bye Phil Buckingham:thanks

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 15 May 2017
by Julie Hedlund May 15, 2017

May 15, 2017

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 15 May. 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 document is also attached and excerpts from the chat room are included for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. Work Track Updates: Work Track 1: Christa Taylor -- Tomorrow we have meeting. Continuing discussion on RSP Program. Work Track 2: Michael Flemming -- 18 May at 2100 UTC. Speaking about registrar nondescrimination and vertical integration. Work Track 3: Karen Day -- Having next meeting on 23 May at 1500 UTC. Focusing on freedom of expression, geo names and community issues. Get some feedback on where to focus for the next meeting as to whether to continue to dive in on these issues. Work Track 4: Cheryl Langdon-Orr -- Meets on 25 May at 1500 UTC. Continuing conversation regarding name collisions. We will be having Patrik Faltstrom, SSAC Chair, joining the call. We will be looking at SSAC advice on IDNs and name collisions. Let staff know if you would like the reading list on these topics. 2. GDD Summit Recap -- Held last week, Jeff Neuman and others were there. -- GDD Summit is intended for contracted parties -- registries, registrars, consultants. -- Many of the people are not members of this PDP WG. -- Some don't pay attention to policy processes and may not be aware of the work we are doing. -- There are a number of contracted parties that would like to see a subsequent gTLD procedures sooner rather than later and wanted ICANN staff to set a date. -- Not sure how realistic it is to set a date. -- Comment by Akram Atallah -- There are a number of items that are gating items before we write any procedures, including whether it will be first come, first served. -- Don't want to wait until the policy process is completely over before ICANN org starts to work on implementation processes. -- Asked Akram if he could produce a list of the gating items could be so that we could consider them and in theory prioritize them. -- Other subjects: application fees and whether there should be a refund of excess application fees; transitioning backend registries or assigning from one entity to another. Did not pertain to the RSP Program but there are some parallels. -- GNSO Council could set a target date if they wanted to. -- No policy decisions were made; it was just a forum for contracted parties to express their views. Everything will come back to the policy process. Nothing will happen without bringing it back to this WG. -- From ICANN staff: Developing a list of items, but don't view them as gating items -- just those that would be very helpful for implementation planning as to what the policy direction may be. For example, if it is first come, first served it could fundamentally affect how implementation is structured. -- GDD Summit can provide an insight into the practical operational issues and concerns for contracted parties. -- Of the 2 1/2 days of meetings there were maybe just a couple of hours on subsequent gTLD issues. Most time was spent discussing operational issues. >From the chat: Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Thanks for circulating the info on the GDD... it looks as it is growing into policy issues...? Michael Flemming: @Jorge, it includes policy that impacts operations of contracted parties. So it is not completely ignorant of policy but has a larger focus on operations with an interest in policy that will affect operations. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Thanks to Jeff for this recap - sounds very much like important policy discussions, but without some important stakeholders being there Donna Austin, Neustar: Jorge - i think that's an unfair characterisation of what took place. discussions took place, no decisions made, understand any policy topics would be done under correct mechanisms. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): @Donna: why unfair? just factually stating that important discussions take place, without important stakeholders Jim Prendergast: And there were no meetings of any policy development groups such as this one. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): May be easiest to think of GDD as a 2+-day meeting of the Registry and Registrar Stakeholder Groups, where members of those SGs who are not participating in this WG asked questions of those who are. Kavouss Arasteh: Jorge +1 Annebeth Lange: Many of the subjects touched upon will also have implications for both governments and ccTLDs 3. Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ… and attached as a PDF) -- Other Drafting Teams are looking at the framework for predictability and mechanism for accepting applications. -- Different TLD types: See the document at the link above. -- Document pages 2-3: Tried to identify attributes for specific purposes to try to find commonalities between different types to determine if some should be distinctive types. --Document page 4: Column headings -- specific application submission requirements, registration restrictions, etc. and how they apply to different types of TLDs. -- This is a draft document and does not present conclusions; the document is designed to help the Drafting Team develop proposals. -- There are diverging views on whether their should be categories/types and what they should be. -- Document page 5: Try to determine from the attributes what would be required to change in the application process -- submission, evaluation, contracting, changing attributes. -- In the next two weeks the WG should read through this document. Drafting Team should use the list to start discussing this. -- Need to close off on CC1 and get to our preliminary draft recommendations. -- Have not definitively decided that we would consider 'community' as a separate type. -- Categories could impact the development of application fee setting, applications, evaluation, type of contract, and more. -- Overarching issues have to be put to rest before the Work Tracks can conclude their work. Question: Kavouss Arasteh: How and when these provisional decidions are converted to more definitive as well as any impact of any provisional decision on other provisional decision? -- Provisional decisions could be taken in the group, look at how they impact everything else, come back and review the decisions, may get changed or not, work toward an initial draft and need to come to group consensus on those provisional decisions. Then they have to become draft decisions that go for comment. See how everything ties together; then come with a final recommendation. First step in reaching consensus, but shouldn't be a barrier to reaching consensus. It is part of consensus building. -- 4. Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-20… -- Reminder to all WG members that the comment period for CC2 is 22 May. -- No need to wait for the deadline. You can send in comments now if they are ready. 5. ICANN59 Planning -- Sessions that are scheduled: 1) Geo names sessions -- 90 minutes on Tuesday followed by 90 minutes on Thursday. 2) have a PDP WG face-to-face meeting on Wednesday, 0830 to 1200 (tentative). -- Everyone is invited to the geo names sessions. These are in continuation of the webinar. Walk through proposals. Looking at trying to have a professional moderator to help us with that session to help us try to find a common path forward. -- With respect to the face-to-face session we will have all the CC2 comments and a compilation of the comments.

1 0

Notes from GDD Summit
by Emily Barabas May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

Hi All, Here are some informal notes I took at the GDD Summit, with a focus on issues that touch on policy. Let me know if you have any questions. For those of you who also attended, please feel free to add to these notes. 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 1

Subsequent Procedures Comments to the CCT-RT Draft Report
by Steve Chan May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Dear WG Members, This message is to inform you that the WG’s comments to the Competition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Draft Report have been submitted as a public comment, available here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17/2017-May…. On behalf of the WG leadership, thanks to all who contributed to the drafting of these comments. 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

Proposal to Extend CC2 Deadline
by Jeff Neuman May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

All, Last week the Avri and I received a formal request from the Governmental Advisory Committee to "consider an extension of the deadline for public comments to the Community Comment 2 (CC2) questionnaire." In light of the extensive nature of the questionnaire as well as the desire to get as many responses as possible, Avri and I are inclined to agree to this request. In order to be fair, we believe the extension should be applied to everyone, not just the GAC. Working backwards, it is our desire to have a summary of all of the public comments to discuss at ICANN59 at the end of June. The document deadline for that meeting is 15 business days prior to the meeting (beginning of June). In order to give staff some time to compile the summary in time for the document deadline, we are proposing May 22, 2017 as the new date for comments to be due. This would be a 3 week extension for the entire community. I know this is asking for quick turnaround, but please let us know by no later than April 20th if you have any strong objections to this proposal. Otherwise, we will let the community know about the extension on April 21st. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

13 18

Working Group Newsletter - May 2017
by Emily Barabas May 9, 2017

May 9, 2017

Dear WG members, The May edition of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG newsletter is now available: https://gnso.icann.org/en/news/working-group-newsletters/newsletter-new-gtl…. Please feel free to contact the leadership team if you have any questions. 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

2 2

Deadline 8 May: Final Review of WG Comments on CCT-RT Recommendations
by Emily Barabas May 3, 2017

May 3, 2017

Dear WG Members, Attached please find revisions to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG comments on the CCT-RT Draft Recommendations. This version reflects feedback and discussion from the WG call on 2 May 2017 at 3:00 UTC (recording and transcript available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BtTRAw) For convenience, both clean and redline versions are attached. For those who use Google Docs, you may also review the current redline text here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ…. Please review and suggest any final revisions no later than Monday 8 May. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch. 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 02 May 2017
by Julie Hedlund May 2, 2017

May 2, 2017

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 02 May. 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 document also linked and excerpts from the chat room are included for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. Work Track Updates: -- Work Track 3 and Work Track 4 meet this week. -- No calls next week because of the GDD Summit. -- Follow up the week after with a full Working Group Call. 2. Second Reading of the CCT-RT Comment: See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ… High Level Feedback: See the redline in the document. Comment: Minor comment regarding the word "insight" into the report about procedural elements. Insight into the report to assumptions or conclusions? Incorporates procedural elements into the reports? Change to "detail"? Yes. Make that change. Recommendation 10: (See the document): -- New wording. The question was on the small number of brands and a large number of domains. New language. -- Registration of domain names? Other? -- 3 names have been registered by .brand owners. Wondering why a small number of brand owners are registering. -- Is this in the context of domain of domain name risk registration? -- Section says that the CCT-RT got a sample size from the Trademark Clearing House and got a sample. Found that there were not as defensive registrations that they thought they would find. Without defining costs the WG might want to consider how to reduce the costs for those who are the 4% could be reduced in the trademark TLDs. -- I am not sure why they think this is a real problem, what do they mean by significant costs? No sure why they think that is a problem. We can seek clarification as to why they think this is a problem. They seem to jump to a conclusion. -- I don't know where the redline came from. No all TLDs are relevant to any particular brand. -- It seems that the recommendation seemed to say that there were a small number of brands registering a large number of domains. The redline language asked why they had this analysis. Overall issue of reducing defensive registration doesn't seem related. Seems to be odd phrasing. Issue across the board. ACTION ITEM: Take out the red language. Agree with what they are doing. It seems that they were taking some of the statements made before the round, but didn't do a thorough job of analysis. Ask what they are recommending and what costs they are referring to. Work off line and send to the full WG. >From the chat: Emily Barabas: Using these data, we determined: (1) whether each of the trademarks in our data wasregistered by the trademark holder in least one legacy gTLD; (2) whether the same string wasregistered by the trademark holder in at least one new gTLD and (3) for those strings thatwere registered by the trademark holder in at least one new gTLD, the number of new gTLDsin which the trademark holder had registered the string. We found that 54% of the stringsthat were registered in a legacy gTLD were also registered in at least one a new gTLD. We alsofound that, of these strings, 3 was the median number of registrations in new gTLDs. That is,half of the trademarks that were analyzed were registered in 3 or fewer new gTLDs.121 We alsofound that three-quarter of these strings were registered in 7 or fewer new gTLDs and that90% of these strings were registered in 17 or fewer new gTLDs.122 At the same time, a smallnumber of trademarked strings were registered in a large number of TLDs: 4% of trademarkswere registered in at least 100 Emily Barabas: new gTLDs, and one was registered in 406 new gTLDs. Extrapolating the sample across all marks, we would expect that trademark holders wouldhave made approximately 80,000 total registrations of their trademarks in new gTLDs as ofSeptember 2016, which represents .3% of all registrations within new gTLDs123. We concludefrom this analysis that, although the direct cost of the New gTLD Program for most trademarkholders related to defensive registrations appears to be lower than some had feared priorto the inception of the program, a small fraction of trademark holders are likely incurringsignificant costs. Recommendation 14: It would be helpful if the CCT-RT would reference its Bylaws. Do the changes reflect the request? [To Anne Aikman-Scalese?]: -- We don't know what 1.1a says. The question is whether this fits into 1.1a. -- Strike this out and keep it as section 1.1. Recommendation 33: Changes are okay. Recommendation 34: Add to the high-level overview? May keep it hear or may add to the high-level overview. Recommendation 35: Eliminated most and included in high-level overview. Recommendation 38: Not sure if we should be asking the CCT-RT what it thinks policy should be. Uncomfortable with the second part of the comment. Their point is when PICs are made there should be some reasoning for why they are made. "If not, please provide additional details and clarity." -- Not sure why we say that the wording suggests that the PICs should be early enough for GAC advice. Applicants should be allowed to submit PICs to meat GAC advice. This recommendation assumes that PICs should be available in time to be commented on. --- The timing seems to be related to recommendations 39, which relates to when PICs are related. -- Generally in agreement. 38 only speaks about stating the goals. Seems non-responsive to 38 and should be pulled to 39. The WG is considering a process to modify applications at the time of consideration at the time of application. Reword the recommendation as to PICs. Don't ask them their view on their policy. Ask whether there should be whether commitments could be modified at the time of application or at GAC advice or at time of application. Adding a sentence to Redc 39. -- We will listen to this part of the recording and make sure it is captured. -- Dislike the term "voluntary". They are perhaps applicant specific. -- Make it different from every other agreement that isn't a registry agreement. Once they are forced them by ICANN it is different. Once you sign up for it, it is mandatory. Recommendation 43: Added a sentence for clarification to the last paragraph. Seems to be asking CCT-RT for policy advice. Seems to be a decision we should be making. Recommendation 46: No Comments.

1 0