July 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group
by Vanda Scartezini 02 Aug '17

02 Aug '17

Thank you jeff. Some groups from this discussion group will certainly be aligned with for instance, our track 1. May be the best way to go forward with this alignment is to have “liaisons” working in both groups to guarantee real exchange of ideas and avoid duplication of effort. Best to all Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 08:56 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group Forwarding this on to the entire New gTLD Working Group as an FYI. This most likely affects both Work Tracks 1 and 2, but I thought everyone should see it. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude USA / Valideus USA 1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 600 McLean, VA 22102 Jeff.Neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com> +1 (202) 549-5079 Begin forwarded message: From: "svg(a)milathan.ltd<mailto:svg@milathan.ltd>" <svg(a)milathan.ltd<mailto:svg@milathan.ltd>> Date: July 18, 2017 at 6:21:48 AM EDT To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "rsp-program-discussion(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rsp-program-discussion@googlegroups.com>" <rsp-program-discussion(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rsp-program-discussion@googlegroups.com>>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton(a)tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>> Subject: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group Avril, Jeff, Please find attached a correspondance from the Registry Service Provider’s Discussion Group. Graeme, please share this letter with the registrars as you see fit. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ———————— Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com<http://post.milathan.com/> Follow me on Twitter: @stephvg ————————

8 7

FW: [Correspondence] Steve Crocker to Paul Diaz - response to June 7th RySG letter
by Jeff Neuman 27 Jul '17

27 Jul '17

Forwarding this purely as an FYI. 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 Begin forwarded message: Subject: [Correspondence] Steve Crocker to Paul Diaz - response to June 7th RySG letter Dear Paul Diaz, Please find the attached letter from Steve Crocker in response to the June 7th letter from the Registry Stakeholder group regarding opening a new application process for additional new gTLDs. The letter will be posted shortly on the ICANN Correspondence page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence. Thank you and best regards, Wendy Profit ICANN – Manager, Board Operations 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 --

2 2

Recordings, AC Chat & Attendance for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 24 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 24 Jul '17

24 Jul '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, 24 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/SnHwAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-05jul17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p90p0zr73mx/ 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/SnHwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 24 July 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call Monday, 24 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Kavouss Arasteh:Dear HOST Kavouss Arasteh: I was connected for few mints but now disconnected VANDA SCARTEZINI:HI EVERYONE.! .. Kavouss Arasteh:May you advise to reconnect me again Kavouss Arasteh:TKS Michelle DeSmyter:Hi Kavouss - I will have the operator redial you Kavouss Arasteh:Tks with apology in bothring Hadia Elminiawi:I can't hear a thing, has anyone started speaking Jeff Neuman:We will start in 3 minutes Jeff Neuman:2 minutes Jeff Neuman:1 minute Hadia Elminiawi:ok great thanks Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:Hi ALl Jeff Neuman:Just waiting for recording to start Annebeth Lange:Hi all! Rubens Kuhl:Recording is still paused. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):info about CWG UCTN - is it relevant? Michelle DeSmyter:thank you Jeff :) Annebeth Lange:Dear all,As you will recall the final paper was subbmitted to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils for deliberation and decision-making prior to ICANN 59.At its meeting on 20 July, last Thursday, the ccNSO Council discussed the recommendations in the final paper and adopted the reoslutions (included below).The resolutions will become effective 7 days after publicationon the ccNSO website,Kind regards,Bart Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Ok, I will talk when time comes Emily Barabas:WT1 is meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, at 20:00 UTC VANDA SCARTEZINI:RELEVANT POINT KAVOUSS DIFFICULT TO AVOID Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I am not sure GNSO can influence GAC, due to quite different level of power in the latter Karen Day:Correct: WT3 August 1 @ 15:00 Kavouss Arasteh:I never said or terefferd to what you talking about Maxim Rubens Kuhl:Wt4 VANDA SCARTEZINI:@kavouss , my suggestion is focus on the rationale behind any complain, may be set some minimum poitn that shall be covered in any complain... just frist thoughts Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Kavouss, Thanks for the clarification. Kavouss Arasteh:Secretariat, pls replaced *ferred" by "referred" as it was misspelled bye Annebeth Lange:I have update frrom CWG UCTN when we come to agenda point 3. As I wrote in the chat, the final paper is now adopted by the ccNSO council. However, there might be of interest to report a little more on the resolutions Rubens Kuhl:RSSAC Rubens Kuhl:RSSAC, SSAC and OCTO Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Jeff, please transfer my number in the queue to Annabeth (a CWG UCTN co-Chair) Rubens Kuhl:Office of the CTO, exactly Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):about the update on progress in CWG UCTN Kavouss Arasteh:Jeff, pls clarify that 1000 per year issue as I am not sure well explained whether that 1000 appliation is stems from one or how many sources/applicants and where that nomber comes from? Rubens Kuhl:Kavouss, that number was made up by ICANN Org during an IETF meeting as unimaginably large number. Rubens Kuhl:Since then, that number has been used as a parameter. Kavouss Arasteh:1000? VANDA SCARTEZINI:i remember 1000/year will be safe Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:Fact is, we do not have any reliable source about potential demand. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if we need some historical Kavouss Arasteh:1000 application on what? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ifo - we might try to reach someone who was in ICANN Office by then Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):but I am not sure it will be anything usefull Kavouss Arasteh:pls kindly clarify the limit of 1000? is it the total numbers of application that could be made from all applicants? Rubens Kuhl:1000 new gTLD delegations. Emily Barabas:ICANN59 F2F session transcripts: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sched.co_B49Q&d=DwICaQ&… Rubens Kuhl:So it's the total number of strings that would be added in a year to the root zone. Kavouss Arasteh:delegation or application? Rubens Kuhl:Delegation Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):delegations per year Rubens Kuhl:Since more than one party can apply to the same string, a delegation results from one to many applications. Kavouss Arasteh:That means, irrespective of number of application ,ICANN could only be able to delegate 1000 of those application? Steve Chan:Link to the full group face-to-face, which includes the transcript: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sched.co_B49Q&d=DwICaQ&… Rubens Kuhl:ICANN could delegate much more, but committed to not go beyond 1000/year since everybody else said 1000/year to be safe. Rubens Kuhl:Not that they were asked how much would be safe, but were asked if 1000/year would be safe, and all said yes. Kavouss Arasteh:What is the justification for that limit be the maximum? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think it was just guess , without much of justification Rubens Kuhl:There is none. This number was posed as an incredibly high optimistic view of the number of applied-for strings. Steve Chan:Cross community geographic names sesssions, session 1: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sched.co_B3pX&d=DwICaQ&… and session 2: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sched.co_B3pD&d=DwICaQ&… Rubens Kuhl:At that time, the expectation was to 500 applications, so it would be less strings than that... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):some details could be found in https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__archives.republicans.en… reference 41 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it has letter from RSSAC (2010) and 2010 Root zone scaling reports references Anne Aikman-Scalese:sorry -did not hear the topic for Work Track 5 - what is it called? Geo names at Top Level? Kavouss Arasteh:Suppose 3000 application came in and 2500 of them successfully examined and terminate the process but ICANN should not delegate more than 1000 of that why? h0w that 1000 are selected among the e 2500 which successfully applied the provcess in the example that I gave Rubens Kuhl:The only hard limit from that time, which is probably invalid nowadays but was once valid, was the 100,000 total TLD delegation limit. Annebeth Lange:Anne, yes Karen Day:I have to drop now. good day all. Annebeth Lange:Yes Rubens Kuhl:Kavouss, if that happened, 1000 would be delegated one year, 1000 the next year, 500 the last year. Rubens Kuhl:The sequence would be up for implementation. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Do we know how WS5 is going to interact with ccNSO? (on matters of GEO names on top level) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):as far as I know, last few yeas it was GAC and ccNSO separate efforts, mostly not synced Steve Chan:The ccNSO's resolutions were in regards to the Final Paper of the CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names, available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workin… Robin Gross:Will the WT5 be limited to only "geographic" words or will other types of words like cultural, religious, and sensitive words try to fall under the "geographic" concept in WT5? Kavouss Arasteh:Jeff Pls allow me to take follow up comments on the first question Kavouss Arasteh:Robin, Geographic " word should be limited to "Geographic" Annebeth Lange:Kavouss, I think the plan is to have a co-chair from AC/SOs - and as many participants as possible to share their competence Greg Shatan:The "one from each" applies only to leadership of WT5, not to participation. VANDA SCARTEZINI:@ Annebeth yes, there is no limit to participation. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):could we say - that co-chair seats are reserved for the representatives of the SO/AC? Rubens Kuhl:Except having an SOI, which is the only requirement for every GNSO PDP. Annebeth Lange:And of course,what we hope, is that as many as possible also from GAC, ALAC and ccNSO will participate VANDA SCARTEZINI:for sure Annebeth, I am the one that intend to participate as I am following this discussion since the beginning many years ago, though only now it really came out as really relevant.. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed including some of us not just from the previous efforts though some of us will of course be there... Annebeth Lange:@ Vanda, that makes two of us. I have lived wtth Country & Territory names since our time together! VANDA SCARTEZINI:@annebeth , lets not remember so many years.... Emily Barabas:It will appear here, but it looks like it has not yet been posted: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_about_… Kavouss Arasteh:What is Cross Community Consultation Group?? Steve Chan:@Jeff, that's a link to the Final Report. Steve Chan:The resolutions are NOT posted yet, but will be available here when they are posted: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_about_… Annebeth Lange:Kavouss: the ccNSO Council - The council of the ccTLD SO Kavouss Arasteh:who and how and by who that group was created? Heather Forrest:Correct, Jeff. For reference, next GNSO Council meeting is late August. Rubens Kuhl:I have to drop at this time. Annebeth Lange:Kavouss: Se ccnso.icann.org Rubens Kuhl:Bye... Annebeth Lange:Sorry, I have to leave. Is there any more questions for me? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye Annabeth Emily Barabas:@Annebeth -- if any additional questions are raised for you, staff will relay them Emily Barabas:thanks for joining Annebeth Lange:Great, Emily. Bye, all, I will now continue my holidayl ;-) Emily Barabas:and speaking to the resolution Hadia Elminiawi:bye annabeth Kavouss Arasteh:There should be no priority for one agaist other VANDA SCARTEZINI:have a nice holiday Annebeth! Gg Levine (NABP):How do you define a gap? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):it would be a desirable thing to explore I guess but I haven't thought deeply on that Jeff Anne Aikman-Scalese:i had the same question as Jamie Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to run for another meeting. I'll be on vaction from July 30-August 14 so give my apologies in advance for all WG and WT calls I'll miss. Phil Buckingham:good points, Anne . A global accountancy firm (s) can scale up based on cost per financial evaluation Trang Nguyen:The application volume topic has a broad impact, certainly on ICANN org, but also on the community. For example, the GAC Early Warning process, the application comment period (which allows the broad community to review applications and provide comments), the objection process. Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:Why don't we use the application volume from the last round as a test for the different models? Anne Aikman-Scalese:sorry - came off mute by accident. thanks to staff for warning me VANDA SCARTEZINI:yes, my first thoughts would be to reduce number of applications per year. lets say 300 maximum per year . depends on resources, cost + persons ... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think that it might be better to use best month's volume (most probably will be over 1000 per year) Steve Chan:@Jeff, time check Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Martin Sutton:I have to drop off the call. Thanks all. Anne Aikman-Scalese:I think it makes sense to look at how many applications we were able to process in each calendar year since 2012 Steve Chan:Don't believe so VANDA SCARTEZINI:thanks to all! Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:Thanks all. Hadia Elminiawi:Thank you all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now then... Robin Gross:Thanks, Jeff and all. Bye! Hadia Elminiawi:bye Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks jeff et al

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 24 July
by Julie Hedlund 24 Jul '17

24 Jul '17

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 24 July. 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 documents are 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 -- Sara Bockey -- Call 25 July at 20:00 UTC. Continuing discussion on CC2 responses -- applications submission period and queuing and the registry letter. Work Track 2 -- Michael Flemming -- This week summarizing what we discussed at the last meeting -- CC2 responses. Try to collect ideas to move forward and jump to CC2 comments on reserved names. Did cover names in the top level and got feedback relating to geographic names, but this input will be deferred to Work Track 5 once that gets kicked off. -- At ICANN59 there were a lot of comments on geographic names on pros and cons. Are these comments taken into account -- particularly a country asking for a geographic name to be protected? Response: Work Track 2 is dealing with all reserved names except for geographic names at the top level. Work Track 3 -- Karen Day -- We had last call on 18 July and started CC2 review on objections. Next call is 01 August at 15:00 UTC. and will be continuing review of CC2 input on objections. Made some good progress on legal rights objections and confusing similarity objections. -- A problem that we have encountered in community objections and political motivations (not related to GNSO and GAC). How can we avoid that? Response: We will note the question. Look at examples from the past round to understand what could occur. Discuss at next Work Track 3 meeting. Work Track 4 -- Ruben Kuhl – During the last meeting we had some review of the CC2 comments related to IDNs. We are progressing on language or principle discussions, but some progress is contingent on receiving information from ICANN. Next meeting is 03 August. Will discuss language and refinement, or principles. Some outreach re: name collisions and root zone scaling. 2. Recap on ICANN59 (WG Face-to-Face and Geographic Names at the Top-Level) and Next Steps and Update on CWG UCTN PDP WG Face-to-Face Meeting: -- PDP WG Face-to-face meeting: There was some good discussion on the notion of what if we get more than expected volumes of top-level domain applications. -- In 2012 conservatively ICANN thought it would get no more than 500 applications and that triggered a root zone study and SAC046 that said there should be a limit of no more than 1000 TLDs delegated in one year. That worked well in the last round. We had 1900 applications for 1390 strings between all of the contention sets and objections it took longer than a year to process those application. However, now we are hearing that there could be thousands of applications. We do need to plan if that is true. -- The leadership team is going to draft a letter to the SSAC, RSSAC, and Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). There was a CDAR Study saying there was not issue with the 1000/year, but question was not posed concerning more than 1000/year and would that change the SSAC's SAC046 report. Issue is being discussed in Work Track 4. -- Good discussion on how applications should be assessed -- rounds, first come first served, etc. >From the chat: Kavouss Arasteh: Jeff, pls clarify that 1000 per year issue as I am not sure well explained whether that 1000 appliation is stems from one or how many sources/applicants and where that number comes from? Rubens Kuhl: Kavouss, that number was made up by ICANN Org during an IETF meeting as unimaginably large number. Rubens Kuhl: Since then, that number has been used as a parameter. Kavouss Arasteh: 1000? VANDA SCARTEZINI: i remember 1000/year will be safe Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON: Fact is, we do not have any reliable source about potential demand. Geographic Names F2F Community-Wide Sessions Link to the full group face-to-face, which includes the transcript: http://sched.co/B49Q Cross community geographic names sesssions, session 1: http://sched.co/B3pX and session 2: http://sched.co/B3pD -- The first session was to solicit feedback on a straw person document to stimulate discussion. That straw person has no status and will not be the basis for future discussion. It was just to get everyone talking. -- One point that was brought up in the first session was that some people didn't think there was an issue and that the AGB provided the best solution so we shouldn't change anything. -- Second session: Re: the notion of keeping the status quo the general consensus seemed to be that there were still issues. -- Part one of session 2: information obtained through face-to-face meetings. -- Part two of session 2: Proposal of Work Track 5 inviting one person from each AC and SO to serve as a co-leader of that work track to promote inclusiveness to structure very much like a CCWG but within the GNSO policy development process. Proposal said that the co-leaders could decide how to conduct the proceedings of that work track. The GNSO PDP has very flexible provisions whereby there are a lot of different ways that Working Groups and Sub Groups can do their work. -- This week the PDP WG Co-Leaders are drafting an invitation letters to the GNSO, GAC, ALAC, and ccNSO Chairs to help us for the appointments of co-leaders of that Work Track. Then we will do a call for volunteers and hopefully get it started by the first week of September. -- Proposal has met with positive reception, but there were some GAC members in the second face-to-face meeting that expressed some concerns about doing this work in the GNSO. Jorge Cancio was of the view that this was more appropriately done within a CCWG and was more of an issue with ccTLDs. Discussion on what is a ccTLD versus a gTLD. -- This PDP WG is proceeding with the discussion of geographic names because it is in our charter. -- Question: What is Work Track 5? Response: The GNSO that chartered this PDP WG included in the charter geographic names at the top level. We initiate had grouped that issue in Work Track 2, but after listening to the community and input from ccNSO and ccTLDs and the GAC we agree that one group is the best place to resolve these issues. Therefore the leadership of this PDP WG (Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman), and Work Track leaders decided that we would create a new Work Track 5 that would deal only with geographic names at the top level, but there also are other types of geographic names. Unlike the other work tracks we are opening up Work Track 5 to see if there are additional volunteers that want to participate and don't have to participate in the others, and to get co-leaders from GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, and GNSO. -- Question: Do we have one person from each group? There should be wider participation. The CCWG structure has worked very well and it has no limit to participation. Response: Participation in the Work Track is unlimited. The leadership team would include one person from each of the SOs and ACs. -- Re: Protected names -- why do we have to give justification? This strawperson condition. Response: The strawperson was only drafted by Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria, but that is no longer being considered. It was only a tool to stimulate discussion. Work Track 5 will not be looking at the strawperson specifically. The point about the countries and their views on geographic names will be important. Update on the CCWG Use of Country and Territory Names Final Report -- At its meeting on 20 July the ccNSO discussed recommendations from the Final Report and passed two resolutions to adopt them. We know that the CCWG couldn't recommend very much. There was no conclusion. However the format to conclude the work is under community discussion. With the adoption of the recommendations the ccNSO has closed the CCWG. The first resolution was to continue work but the form would await the outcome of the community discussion. Supported the recommendations 1, 2, and 4 in the Final Report. -- The next resolution was about a letter as a recommendation of the Study Group to continue discussion in the subsequent round. Minimum to include coordination with ccNSO members and leadership. -- Re: Coordination, the plan is to invite the ccNSO to participate and ask that the ccNSO to serve as one of the co-leaders of this Work Track. -- Question: Who adopted the resolution? Response: The resolutions were adopted by the ccNSO Council. The CCWG UCTN was under the regime of the ccNSO. that is why when there was no conclusion of the work we had to try to top somewhere. What we decided was that we couldn't go further in the CCWG was had to adopte the final report. There are different views as to whether there would be a Work Track 5 or a new CCWG, but have been working in a CCWG for several years and haven't found a result. -- Question: Where was the resolution passed? Is there a link? Response: That was passed in the Council of the ccNSO on 20 July. It would be on the ccNSO website. It will appear here, but it looks like it has not yet been posted: https://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions-resolutions/2017 >From the chat: Annebeth Lange: Dear all,As you will recall the final paper was subbmitted to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils for deliberation and decision-making prior to ICANN 59. At its meeting on 20 July, last Thursday, the ccNSO Council discussed the recommendations in the final paper and adopted the resolutions (included below).The resolutions will become effective 7 days after publication on the ccNSO website,Kind regards,Bart Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Do we know how WS5 is going to interact with ccNSO? (on matters of GEO names on top level) Robin Gross: Will the WT5 be limited to only "geographic" words or will other types of words like cultural, religious, and sensitive words try to fall under the "geographic" concept in WT5? Kavouss Arasteh: Robin, Geographic " word should be limited to "Geographic" Annebeth Lange: Kavouss, I think the plan is to have a co-chair from AC/SOs - and as many participants as possible to share their competence Greg Shatan: The "one from each" applies only to leadership of WT5, not to participation. VANDA SCARTEZINI: @ Annebeth yes, there is no limit to participation. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): could we say - that co-chair seats are reserved for the representatives of the SO/AC? 3. Drafting Team Discussion – Applications Submission Periods See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7… -- How do we assess application in subsequent rounds (or other mechanism)? -- Although there are some differing opinions as to what we should do as a steady state -- first come, first served, or rounds, most of the feedback we have gotten is that it is fairly well agreed that it would be a round. We would collect applications, have procedure to deal with string contention, and similar evaluations as in 2012. -- Perhaps we should look at what are the problems. Address the difficulties and issues. -- Question: Where we are on the decision tree - re: proceeding with a round -- that does not get to the level of whether there will be priority rounds? Response: This is just to put a stake in the ground to see how we would start the next introduction of new gLTDs. It doesn't get into priorities or other issues -- those are being discussed in the Work Tracks. However, there didn't seem to be a lot of support for different categories having different rounds. We are only talking about the overall structure. Re: community priorities within a round that would be Work Track 3 and overlap with overarching questions. A round only for a particular group would be an overarching issue for the full PDP WG to consider (the plenary). -- Not sure it is efficient to go through the pros and cons -- these are subjective. Requirements Considered -- whatever solution we come up with we should test against these. [Reading from the document.] -- We don't know how many applications will come and whether they will conflict or there are too many to address? So we don't know when the next round will start. Question: Should we put some conditions on when the second round would start? Is it possible to define a parameter that we could put into the next AGB -- start the next window 6 months after we close (for example)? -- Question: Does there still need to be additional reviews done between each of the rounds and will that add a layer of complexity to have a specific definition or timeline to the rounds? Response: Comments in CC1 was that it was not desirable to have reviews between rounds that would stall the next round. -- We could fix a period but we should also put in a provision that at some point in time we need to review the situation to make methods to improve. It may be that the period may not work. -- The question depends also on the ability to process applications. At ICANN59 there was the questions of how many applications could be accepted (1000 or something else) and then how many qualified people are there to process applications. Is there any way to predict those numbers? Should be a 5-year plan. -- It seems that we have a chicken/egg problem. Seems like there should be plan to scale up although there will still be a maximum (like a registry). Need to solve for one of the factors in the equation. -- This is one of the first questions in the critical path to get things running. Also to enable ICANN re: resources. Do we have a sense of what are the real critical decisions that we should be looking at that create a sequence to put these on the right path? This was one of the fundamental issues that ICANN staff identified as on the critical path (that is, application submission periods) -- it will determine what their plan looks like. We need to decide from a policy matter how we want to do it. If it isn't feasible ICANN staff will come back to us. So, if, for example, that if we said we would do it in rounds for 3 months, then evaluation, then start the next round on the calendar year. This will slow down consideration of all the other questions. -- This has a knock-on effect for all the other issues. -- Would be good to know what workload we have been able to handle. >From the chat: Trang Nguyen: The application volume topic has a broad impact, certainly on ICANN org, but also on the community. For example, the GAC Early Warning process, the application comment period (which allows the broad community to review applications and provide comments), the objection process.

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 24 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan 21 Jul '17

21 Jul '17

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 24 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Please note, this call is scheduled for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) Recap on ICANN59 (WG Face-to-Face and Geographic Names at the Top-Level) and Next Steps 4) Drafting Team Discussion – Applications Assessed in Rounds (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7…) 5) Drafting Team Discussion – Predictability Framework (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8…) 6) AOB Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Fwd: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group
by Jeff Neuman 18 Jul '17

18 Jul '17

Forwarding this on to the entire New gTLD Working Group as an FYI. This most likely affects both Work Tracks 1 and 2, but I thought everyone should see it. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude USA / Valideus USA 1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 600 McLean, VA 22102 Jeff.Neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com> +1 (202) 549-5079 Begin forwarded message: From: "svg(a)milathan.ltd<mailto:svg@milathan.ltd>" <svg(a)milathan.ltd<mailto:svg@milathan.ltd>> Date: July 18, 2017 at 6:21:48 AM EDT To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "rsp-program-discussion(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rsp-program-discussion@googlegroups.com>" <rsp-program-discussion(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rsp-program-discussion@googlegroups.com>>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton(a)tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>> Subject: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group Avril, Jeff, Please find attached a correspondance from the Registry Service Provider’s Discussion Group. Graeme, please share this letter with the registrars as you see fit. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ———————— Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com<http://post.milathan.com/> Follow me on Twitter: @stephvg ————————

3 4

Working Group Newsletter - July 2017
by Emily Barabas 15 Jul '17

15 Jul '17

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

1 0

- Community Comment 2 (CC2) Resources
by Steve Chan 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

Dear WG Members, As the Working Group and the four Work Tracks continue their deliberations, Community Comment 2 (CC2) will play an important role. As such, staff wanted to remind you that the comments received have been organized by Work Track (i.e., one Google doc for each WT), by topic/subject (i.e., one tab per subject), and finally, by sub question within the tab. You can find links to all of these resources here on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/Gq7DAw If you have any questions, please us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0