June 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

FW: Agenda - Cross Community Discussion - Geographic Names at the Top Level Session II
by Steve Chan 29 Jun '17

29 Jun '17

Dear WG Members, FYI, please see the message below sent to the SO/AC leadership on behalf of Jeff and Avri, in relation to the Cross Community Discussion - Geographic Names at the Top Level Session II, at ICANN59. Best, Steve From: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 8:11 PM To: <soac-lead(a)icann.org> Subject: Agenda - Cross Community Discussion - Geographic Names at the Top Level Session II SENT ON BEHALF OF JEFF NEUMAN AND AVRI DORIA, CO-CHAIRS OF THE NEW GTLD SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURES PDP WG Dear all, Thank you to all who participated in yesterday’s session of the Cross-Community Discussion - Geographic Names at the Top Level at ICANN59. An additional session will be held tomorrow, 29 June 2017, from 15:15 - 18:30. In preparation for tomorrow’s session, the facilitators have held “open hours” throughout the day today to solicit input about how to best make use of our time together tomorrow. After numerous conversations, we have developed the attached agenda for tomorrow’s session incorporating feedback from the diverse set of community members. In order to ensure the success of this session, we are circulating the attached agenda as widely as possible. Please take a moment to distribute to your stakeholders. Kind regards, Steve Chan Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 27 June 2017
by Julie Hedlund 27 Jun '17

27 Jun '17

Dear Working Group members, Please find attached the action items and discussion notes from the face-to-face meeting at ICANN59 on 27 June 2017. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording. The meeting slides and chat room are posted to the following page, and the recording and transcripts will soon be available: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-06-27+ICANN59+Johannesburg+-…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

GNSO Policy and Outreach sessions - every morning 08:00 - 08:30 local time ICANN59
by Nathalie Peregrine 22 Jun '17

22 Jun '17

Dear all, As a reminder, GNSO Policy and Outreach sessions will be held at the beginning of each meeting day. During these sessions, the GNSO Policy Support Team will provide a briefing that aims to assist attendees in their preparation for the GNSO topics that are on the agenda for that specific day. This session is intended to be informative and interactive. Please join us with any questions you may have. They will be held from 08:00 – 08:30 local time every day in Committee 4, except for Tuesday 27 June, when that particular session will be held in Ballroom 2. Remote participation is available. Please remember to add these sessions to your schedules (go to https://schedule.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_&d=…>, create a profile and add the sessions you’re interested in) in order to receive all the updates and/or changes. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Update from the Co-Chairs on Geographic Names Sessions @ ICANN 59
by Jeff Neuman 16 Jun '17

16 Jun '17

All, Avri and I just wanted to provide an update to the Working Group on the Geographic Names Sessions on Tuesday and Thursday @ICANN 59. ICANN has retained the services of David Fairman and Julia Golomb from Consensus Building Institute (CBI) to help facilitate the Geographic Names sessions @ ICANN 59 and possibly beyond. In preparation for those sessions, they will be reaching out to those that submitted proposals for the April Webinar as well as several community members to get some background on all of the various positions around this subject. The purpose of their reaching out to these persons is strictly for their own education and to help them understand the complexities of the subject matter. They believe, and we agree, that getting that background will provide for much more fruitful discussions. CBI (a non-profit collaboration and dispute resolution organization based in the US, www.cbuilding.org<http://www.cbuilding.org/>) is assisting us in preparing and facilitating the Johannesburg ICANN59 cross community sessions. As a reminder, the goal of the sessions @ICANN59 is to clarify key geo names at the top level policy issues, build a shared understanding of community interests and concerns, develop options that could gain broad community support, and start down a path to consensus on a comprehensive proposal that can be accepted by the ICANN Community. In preparation for ICANN 59, we are asking that everyone review the materials that we plan to present for discussion at the sessions: * background document: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64077479/Geo%20Names%20Web… * summary of proposals from community members: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sKx_vyFhhscBUyaFMwqirj8r1D6g7IFtUSa…; and * co-chairs' draft additional compromise strawperson: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m69loOZthxrQdcCj1dIUJLkezQXr9rwGxXrechd…. Because of the limited amount of time for these sessions, we are not going to be having a panel rehash the same presentations that were discussed during the webinar. We are therefore asking that everyone come prepared. We especially would like to call some attention to the last document referenced above (the Co-Chairs' draft additional compromise strawperson). After spending some time reviewing all of the proposals, Avri and I have tried to draft a Strawperson that includes a number of elements from most of the proposals we saw. We could not draw from every proposal since some of them were diametrically opposed to each other. That said, this is just a strawperson and not a proposal. Avri and I are not advocates for this document, but we would be happy to answer any questions as to why the draft says what it says. The sole purpose of putting this strawperson together is to stimulate conversation beyond the discussions that have taken place so far. We understand that there are some very strong held positions by many members of the community, but we hope that by putting this together, we can hopefully stimulate discussion on potential compromises. Please let us know if you have any questions and feel free to forward this note to your constituencies, stakeholder groups, advisory committees, etc. Sincerely, Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman Subsequent Procedures PDP Co-Chairs

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 12 June 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 12 Jun '17

12 Jun '17

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, 12 June 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GRLfAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-12jun17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3vb22aeism/ 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/GRLfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 12 June 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call Monday, 12 June 2017 at 20:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… vanda scartezini:hi Everyone! Annebeth Lange:Hi all! vanda scartezini:yes Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:we can hear you Jeff Christa Taylor:Background noise is unusual Bruna Santos:Hello, everyone! Hadia Elminiawi:Hello from Cairo vanda scartezini:christa Majority is not mute on the adobe. it is really huge noise avri doria:ok, then it is not me as i am muted at the moment. Karen Day (SAS):I'm not hearing any background noise at this time Phil Buckingham:Re WT2 - Last meeting ( June 1 ) We put four questions re Global Public Interest . Please take a look . Donna Austin, Neustar:got it. thanks Karen and Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):staff are we 0500 or 1300 UTC for WT4 next week? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):1500 sorry Jeff Neuman:If you were part of a group that submitted comments, can you review to make sure abbreviated version is correct Susan Payne:I thought they weren't abbreviated - didn't Steve say in his email it is verbatim? Jeff Neuman:Yes, sorry...it is just taking provisions that may be out of context Jeff Neuman:for example if one made some general statements up front that applied to all....then that may not be in abbreviated versions Steve Chan:Or perhaps weplaced in the wrong category Susan Payne:ah, ok thanks Jeff Neuman:They did not rewrite anything Emily Barabas:There are a few responses that provided narrative answers without referencing specific questions. Staff tried to place them under the appropriate questions, but it is helpful to check. Steve Chan:* Monday 26 June 2017* 09:00 – 09:30: Update to the GNSO, in Committee 4 Steve Chan:* Tuesday 27 June 2017* 08:30 – 12:00: Working Group F2F meeting, in Committee 4*; 17:00 – 18:30: Cross Community Discussion – Geographic Names at the Top-Level Session I in Bill Gallagher room Steve Chan:* Thursday 29 June 2017* 15:15 – 18:30: Cross Community Discussion – Geographic Names at the Top-Level Session II in Ballroom 1 Annebeth Lange:Seems to be very good prepared. vanda scartezini:indeed. Annebeth... Steve Chan:Correct Donna Austin, Neustar:sure Donna Austin, Neustar:ah, okay, got it. all good Alan Greenberg:We would not need 100,000 to swamp us.... Phil Buckingham:Yes , we set limits Hadia Elminiawi:how do you determine the number of applications above which there would be a problem? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):In order of submission by date and time EXCEPT where there are string contention sets - BUT ONLY AFTER TESTING TO MAKE SURE STRING IS NOT HIGH RISK FOR NAME COLLISION Alan Greenberg:If we assume less than or equal to 1,000, would not apply if much greater. Greg Shatan:100,000 applications would net $18.5 billion in application fees. That could solve a lot of problems. But I can't imagine any market analysis that reasonably foresees anything like that. vanda scartezini:yes , good suggestion Donna. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Greg, I expect that amount of money would likely create many more problems than it solves. Rubens Kuhl:Applications could receive objections, GAC advice... name collision high risk is just one of the possibilities. Alan Greenberg:Not ordering within window was, at the time, a feature and not a bug. vanda scartezini:yes. flood of application is not positive Jim Prendergast:the window was frozen shut for a month because of the "glitch" Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Just because you have a lot of money does not mean you want to suddenly hire a bunch more ICANN staff with no background. Phil Buckingham:Assumption : Ratio of evaluators to applications Christa Taylor:Why can't we determine our capacity limits ahead of time? (ballpark) Donna Austin, Neustar:@Christa, because then you get into the first come first serve debate. Christa Taylor:Ask of ICANN Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Rubens - no reason to even obtain GAC advice if string is HIGH RISK for name collision - it should be a screening mechanism as to eligibility to operate as gTLD - see SSAC comments on CC2 Alan Greenberg:Again, we probably need assumptions. We may need a bifurcated plan with one path forward if there are <N applications and another if much more. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Alan Rubens Kuhl:@Anne, GAC Advice is coming for every string listed on reveal day, no matter it failing one evaluation criteria further down the road... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Rubens - you don't have to waste the GAC's time if a string is really not eligible to operate as a TLD based on security and stability assessments. Christa Taylor:+1 Alan Phil Buckingham:Disagree Alan , we double / treble the number of evaluators ! Rubens Kuhl:@Anne, we can suggest GAC to wait, but they will do it or not based on their working process... and I believe they will go thru the list of strings no matter what. Karen Day (SAS):No predicibility for those that file in next batch Alan Greenberg:If we have no predictability on processing, it becomes a lot easier! ;-) Sara Bockey:I will need to drop at the top of the hour. many thanks to all for the good discussion Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Avri Alan Greenberg:Maybe you don't have to pay the bulk of the fee until your processing slot comes up. Phil Buckingham:Agree Avri . Need an SLA , time processing limit Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Rubens - Assesssment for HIGH RISK strings that should not be eligible shoudl be first and fast. CC2 comment by SSAC was SSAC 94. See this recommendation:The SSAC recommends that ICANN consider the following in the context of the newgTLD program.• Prohibit the delegation of certain TLD strings. RFC 2606, “Reserved Top Level Domain Names,” currentlyprohibits a list of strings, including test, example, invalid, and localhost.4 ICANN should coordinate with thecommunity to identify a more complete set of principles than the amount of traffic observed at the root asinvalid queries as the basis for prohibiting the delegation of additional strings to those already identified inRFC 2606.• Alert the applicant during the string evaluation process about the pre-existence of invalid TLD queries to theapplicant’s string. ICANN should coordinate with the community to identify a threshold of traffic observed atthe root as the basis for such notification. Greg Shatan:Lost sound? Karen Day (SAS):Jeff??? Christa Taylor:Can't hear as well Greg Shatan:We might want to know what caused the most "friction" in the process the first time around, and whether solutions were found. Donna Austin, Neustar:There is a lot of 'chicken'n'egg' in what we're doing. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Donna Jeff Neuman:@Donna - Was thinking that same thing Phil Buckingham:Good Point , Kurt Jeff Neuman:WT4 has asked the SSAC to reconsider their recommendations on the number of entries into the zone per year based on the study of the root that concluded no iseeus avri doria:i appreicate Kurt's point on the only time therre isn't pent up demand and think we should give that timing aspect consideration in any solution. Alexander Schubert:It doesn't make any sense to open the ongoing process after the next window: Say we get 4,000 applications - and ICANN can process 2,000 per year - then it will take anyways 2 years before ANY new application could be processed. During these 2 years of course there will be pent up demand! Alexander Schubert:And pent up demand equals competition! And competition drives innovation and is benefitial for the industry! avri doria:20 minutes left Alexander Schubert:Why would we want to "avoid contention"? Competition doesn't happen without contention. Alan Greenberg:Could not hear Kurt. Could you summarize? Kurt Pritz:Jeff Kurt Pritz:nvm Kurt Pritz:@Alex. it isn't about avoiding contention. it is about when it is feasible to open a continuous application window. Kurt Pritz:sorry about shortening your name Donna Austin, Neustar:@Anne, I think its an idea worthy of consideration, but I'd start at a much higher threshold. Kurt Pritz:the contention would be among the price brackets only Alexander Schubert:Hi Kurt, "Alex" is fine. I am all for continuious process, but as long as processing time prevents new applications from being processed in the first place: Let's close the next window only once additional applications can be processed. Once we see no contention anymore we can go into continuios mode. avri doria:8 minutes remianing Jeff Neuman:ok Donna Austin, Neustar:Depending what we decide for underserved region applications, if there is a waiver on the application fee associated with such an application then the fee is irrelevant. Kurt Pritz:the one lesson from the community round in 2003-4 Kurt Pritz:was that there shouldn't be a community only round avri doria:let's continue the discussion on the list and in the doc https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Well get ready to define what qualifies as Community because the GAC will advise priority round for community applications and things won't move forward until that issue is resolved. We need to resolve it before the Board says "work out your differences please". Jeff Neuman:Yes, Even if to just document the interdependencies, that is extremely helpful! vanda scartezini:thank you quite itneresting call... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... bye for now then... Alexander Schubert:Thanks, bye! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you Christa Taylor:thank-you Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks! Karen Day (SAS):Thanks, bye all Hadia Elminiawi:thank you all, bye Bruna Santos:thank you, bye

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 June 2017
by Julie Hedlund 12 Jun '17

12 Jun '17

Dear Working Group members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s meeting. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording. The meeting recording and transcripts will soon be available at: https://community.icann.org/x/CtTRAw. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 1. Work Track Updates Work Track 1: Christa Taylor -- Call on 13 June at 0300 UTC. -- Topic Review and Progress (Systems, Communications, Application Fees) -- CC2 Application Fees Work Track 2: Michael Flemming -- Meeting this week 15 June 2100 UTC. Last meeting before Johannesburg. -- Go back to vertical integration. Asked ICANN for data to distinguish what type of complaints have been report. Analyze those data as a group. Work Track 3: Karen Day -- Next meeting 19 June 1500 UTC. -- Continuing discussion on accountability mechanisms: PICDRP; also selection of subject matter for Johannesburg for 27 June. -- Why is Work Track 3 discussing accountability mechanisms? Answer: It was called out in the charter. The RPM PDP is looking at the policy around the accountability mechanism. We are tasked with looking at processes for accountability mechanisms. -- The only way to challenge the decisions made in the new gTLD process was via the accountability mechanism -- looking at whether those are sufficient or whether we need additional appeals mechanisms. Work Track 4: Cheryl Langdon-Orr -- Continuing discussions on 20 June at 0300 UTC. -- Will continue more on name collision work. -- Look at where we have come so far on our topics. 2. Community Comment 2 -- Staff is wrapping up the summary and analysis document that must be published with the public comment proceeding. High-level analysis since the more detailed analysis will be done by the PDP WG. -- Organized comments and sorted them so that they are referenced to the appropriate category and sub-category. -- Full comments on the public comment page are authoritative. -- Take the Work Track work to see if the comments help to make a recommendation. -- All of the work tracks will be going through the comments. 3. ICANN59 Planning -- Two Geonames sessions at ICANN59 -- Geographic names at the top level: 27 for 90 minutes and 29 June for 2 90-minute sessions. * Monday 26 June 2017* 09:00 – 09:30: Update to the GNSO, in Committee 4 * Tuesday 27 June 2017* 08:30 – 12:00: Working Group F2F meeting, in Committee 4*; 17:00 – 18:30: Cross Community Discussion – Geographic Names at the Top-Level Session I in Bill Gallagher room * Thursday 29 June 2017* 15:15 – 18:30: Cross Community Discussion – Geographic Names at the Top-Level Session II in Ballroom 1 Full WG meeting on Tuesday, 27 June -- 0830-1200 Local. -- There are conflicts such as with the Registry and Registrar WG joint sessions. -- Format: Each work track leader has been tasked with introducing several topics on which they would like feedback outside of the WG members. Example: Work Track 1 -- difficult to get a wide range of thoughts on applicant support. Perhaps putting it out to the larger group might be beneficial. Geographic Names Sessions: -- Caveat that we are still negotiating a contract with CBI; group that specializes in facilitating discussions between civil society, governments, businesses, such as United Nations. -- Skilled at dealing with facilitating controversial topics. -- Planning to studying materials and talking to others on geonames. -- Avri and Jeff have reviewed proposals and developing a matrix. Preparing some background documents. Drill down on some of the proposals and doing a "straw bunny". Just a discussion starter. -- Go over that during the full WG meeting on Tuesday, 27 June. -- WG members can take those proposals back to their various groups. 4. Drafting Team Update -- Applications Assessed in Rounds See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7… -- Had hoped to have a smaller discussion group, but can make more progress with the full WG discussion. Problem Statement: -- There is concern that introducing new gTLDs through a series of application rounds, separated by a series of reviews and revisions to policies and implementation, have a number of negative impacts, such as impacting demand and decision-making, introducing substantial delays if reviews between rounds are needed, and causing latency to market. Requirements Considered: -- Clarify and predictability about how and when applications can be applied for in the future. -- There must not be undefined gaps between the acceptance of applications. The application submission mechanism(s) must address the potential impact on other areas of the program (e.g., objections, string contention, etc.) -- The application submission mechanism(s) should not negatively impacts the stability and quality of the program. -- The application submission mechanism(s) should not substantially impact operational effectiveness and the fiscal feasibility of the program. Solutions Being Considered: -- Hybrid: A fixed set of rounds or a single additional round (or perhaps defined by certain criteria to determine the 'scale of demand') followed by some form of steady state. -- Pros and Cons: Trying to get some thinking on the solutions. Discussion: -- There have been statements in the Community Comment 2 that we will need a application window to take the pressure off. Concerned with "must" and "should" -- are their conflicts with these requirements? They cannot all coincide. -- If you get a huge number of applications would that affect the defined time periods? Do we put in caveats if it is above a certain number? -- Perhaps have an assumption section in the document. What should be some of those assumption? -- If there is a flood of applications it would be hard to predict the work load for ICANN staff. If they are not string contention sets could you process them by date and time received? That would give incentive to file early. Not a safe assumption that there are no more high-risk strings so put in a process to test for string contention/collision. -- Continue conversation on name collision in Work Track 4. -- Other assumptions? Consider them and update the Google Doc. -- We will need to put assumptions. Need to look at contingencies based on what happens, or be less specific. -- Can we accept applications but not process them until you have the capacity? You would add uncertainty as to when there will be a process. -- Needs to be a service expection when one puts in an application. -- On the idea of starting a round and then going into first-come, first served that could be gameable. -- Assume that there must be predictability in the process for applications. -- It would help to get more information from ICANN based on a small number of assumptions as to what they would expect. -- Also interesting if anyone has done market analysis as to the predicted demand. -- In terms of ICANN trying to determine its capacity: This WG is debating what changes it wants to make to the program. A requirement for an inquiry on workload would be a set of assumptions -- different contract, categories of applications, etc. that could change the answer substantially. There probably is a point where simply staffing up doesn't meet the volume. -- There are a lot of contingencies in play before we could ask ICANN. -- With regard to capacity: The biggest constraint is the SSAC requirement to only process 1000 applications a year. Urge us to ask ICANN to do a real technical analysis can the root zone safely accommodate in a year. -- When we could have an open ongoing window: Could only happen the day after a day after an application window closes. The question for the WG: If we are ready at the end of this next round to open one the next day we should do that, or wait until the following window. -- So instead of a function of time, it would be a function of time and capacity? -- Demand could be driven by the cost of the application. -- What about the possibility of creating windows where application fees get lower if you wait. -- Assuming the steady state was a completely open and continuous process and not doing application windows. -- Once you deal with the pent-up demand you move to open and continuous. >From the chat: Alan Greenberg: We would not need 100,000 to swamp us.... Phil Buckingham: Yes, we set limits Hadia Elminiawi: how do you determine the number of applications above which there would be a problem? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): In order of submission by date and time EXCEPT where there are string contention sets - BUT ONLY AFTER TESTING TO MAKE SURE STRING IS NOT HIGH RISK FOR NAME COLLISION. Alan Greenberg: If we assume less than or equal to 1,000, would not apply if much greater. Greg Shatan: 100,000 applications would net $18.5 billion in application fees. That could solve a lot of problems. But I can't imagine any market analysis that reasonably foresees anything like that. vanda scartezini: yes , good suggestion Donna. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Greg, I expect that amount of money would likely create many more problems than it solves. Rubens Kuhl: Applications could receive objections, GAC advice... name collision high risk is just one of the possibilities. Alan Greenberg: Not ordering within window was, at the time, a feature and not a bug. vanda scartezini: yes. flood of application is not positive Christa Taylor: Why can't we determine our capacity limits ahead of time? (ballpark) Donna Austin, Neustar: @Christa, because then you get into the first come first serve debate. Christa Taylor: Ask of ICANN Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Rubens - no reason to even obtain GAC advice if string is HIGH RISK for name collision - it should be a screening mechanism as to eligibility to operate as gTLD - see SSAC comments on CC2 Alan Greenberg: Again, we probably need assumptions. We may need a bifurcated plan with one path forward if there are <N applications and another if much more. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Alan Rubens Kuhl: @Anne, GAC Advice is coming for every string listed on reveal day, no matter it failing one evaluation criteria further down the road... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Rubens - you don't have to waste the GAC's time if a string is really not eligible to operate as a TLD based on security and stability assessments. Christa Taylor: +1 Alan Phil Buckingham: Disagree Alan, we double / treble the number of evaluators ! Rubens Kuhl: @Anne, we can suggest GAC to wait, but they will do it or not based on their working process... and I believe they will go thru the list of strings no matter what. Karen Day (SAS): No predicibility for those that file in next batch Alan Greenberg: If we have no predictability on processing, it becomes a lot easier! ;-) Sara Bockey: I will need to drop at the top of the hour. many thanks to all for the good discussion Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Avri Alan Greenberg: Maybe you don't have to pay the bulk of the fee until your processing slot comes up. Phil Buckingham: Agree Avri . Need an SLA , time processing limit Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Rubens - Assesssment for HIGH RISK strings that should not be eligible shoudl be first and fast. CC2 comment by SSAC was SSAC 94. See this recommendation: The SSAC recommends that ICANN consider the following in the context of the newgTLD program.• Prohibit the delegation of certain TLD strings. RFC 2606, “Reserved Top Level Domain Names,” currentlyprohibits a list of strings, including test, example, invalid, and localhost.4 ICANN should coordinate with thecommunity to identify a more complete set of principles than the amount of traffic observed at the root asinvalid queries as the basis for prohibiting the delegation of additional strings to those already identified inRFC 2606.• Alert the applicant during the string evaluation process about the pre-existence of invalid TLD queries to theapplicant’s string. ICANN should coordinate with the community to identify a threshold of traffic observed atthe root as the basis for such notification. Greg Shatan: We might want to know what caused the most "friction" in the process the first time around, and whether solutions were found. Donna Austin, Neustar: There is a lot of 'chicken'n'egg' in what we're doing. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Donna Jeff Neuman: @Donna - Was thinking that same thing Jeff Neuman: WT4 has asked the SSAC to reconsider their recommendations on the number of entries into the zone per year based on the study of the root that concluded no iseeus avri doria: i appreicate Kurt's point on the only time therre isn't pent up demand and think we should give that timing aspect consideration in any solution. Alexander Schubert: It doesn't make any sense to open the ongoing process after the next window: Say we get 4,000 applications - and ICANN can process 2,000 per year - then it will take anyways 2 years before ANY new application could be processed. During these 2 years of course there will be pent up demand! Alexander Schubert: And pent up demand equals competition! And competition drives innovation and is benefitial for the industry! Alexander Schubert: Why would we want to "avoid contention"? Competition doesn't happen without contention. Kurt Pritz: @Alex. it isn't about avoiding contention. it is about when it is feasible to open a continuous application window. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Anne, I think its an idea worthy of consideration, but I'd start at a much higher threshold. Kurt Pritz: the contention would be among the price brackets only Alexander Schubert: Hi Kurt, "Alex" is fine. I am all for continuous process, but as long as processing time prevents new applications from being processed in the first place: Let's close the next window only once additional applications can be processed. Once we see no contention anymore we can go into continuios mode.. Kurt Pritz: the one lesson from the community round in 2003-4 Kurt Pritz: was that there shouldn't be a community only round avri doria: let's continue the discussion on the list and in the doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Well get ready to define what qualifies as Community because the GAC will advise priority round for community applications and things won't move forward until that issue is resolved. We need to resolve it before the Board says "work out your differences please". Jeff Neuman: Yes, Even if to just document the interdependencies, that is extremely helpful!

1 0

REMINDER: Announcement: Pre-ICANN59 Policy Update Webinar Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 12 Jun '17

12 Jun '17

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-22-en Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> this form by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will host a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), in preparation for the upcoming ICANN59 Policy Forum in Johannesburg, South Africa. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and to brief the community on the Empowered Community consultation and cross-community sessions taking place in Johannesburg. Briefings on the Empowered Community Consultation and Cross-Community Sessions: * Special session on the Proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendments * Next-Generation Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services (RDS) policy requirements * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) * Geographic names * Operational side of ICANN's Operating Plan and Budget * Who sets ICANN's priorities? Updates on Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and regional Internet registries (RIR) policy development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community * Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs in English for 90 minutes. The webinar will be conducted via Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, participants may submit questions using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en> here. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> this form by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. Ozan Sahin Community Engagement Support Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6218 Mobile: +90.533.641.0007 Email: ozan.sahin(a)icann.org <mailto:ozan.sahin@icann.org> Skype: ozan.sahin.icann www.icann.org

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 12 June 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Steve Chan 08 Jun '17

08 Jun '17

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 12 June 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Please note, this call is scheduled for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) Update - Community Comment 2 (CC2) 4) ICANN59 Planning 5) Drafting Team Update – Applications Assessed in Rounds (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7…) 6) AOB Regarding agenda item 3, staff has organized and sorted public comments received in response to CC2. A separate Google document has been created for each of the 4 work tracks and the Additional Questions. In the documents, a separate tab has been created for all topics and there is a section for each sub question. This is only an effort to organize the comments and is not intended to analyze or interpret the comments – in fact, the comments are captured verbatim from their original response and are merely put in the place that staff thought was appropriate. To the extent staff has assigned a comment incorrectly, please do let us know of course. The WG’s ongoing work to consider the public comments received and to determine the response or action, is expected to be tracked in these Google documents, which can all be found here on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/Gq7DAw. Staff has added PDF extracts of these Google documents on this page as of 8 June 2017. For your convenience, the specific Google Documents are available as well in this email: WT1 - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS… WT2 - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tX… WT3 - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… WT4 - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rH2Moiy_mNKh74-ihM74dXWJtcLGZjmbwFn… Additional Questions - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/154i7JCt79IrndF3i9WpE_YMI88pxCGsLF4a… Finally, 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

FW: RySG input on SubPro WG recommendations
by Jeff Neuman 07 Jun '17

07 Jun '17

All, Please find enclosed a letter from the RySG addressing a number of issues in the various Work Tracks. I am asking ICANN staff to include this (where applicable) in the public comment summary for CC2. There are also some recommendations in here on topics not included in CC2, so we will ask the Work Team leaders to include these in their discussions as applicable as well. 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 From: Paul Diaz [mailto:pdiaz@pir.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 9:22 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com>; avri(a)apc.org Subject: RySG input on SubPro WG recommendations On behalf of the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group, attached please find comments on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Woeking Group (SubPro WG) recommendations. Please share with the WG, and let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, P Paul Diaz Chairman, Registries Stakeholder Group Mobile:+1 703.973.1667 | Skype: pdiaz(a)pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>

2 1

some debates within community on problems with .xyz..............
by Vanda Scartezini 07 Jun '17

07 Jun '17

https://onlinedomain.com/2017/06/05/domain-name-news/another-reputation-dis… 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!

1 0