September 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Change of affiliation
by Nick Shorey Sept. 12, 2017

Sept. 12, 2017

Hi folks, I have left the UK Government and have updated my SOI to account for my change of affiliation. Available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Nick+Shorey+SOI Kind regards, Nick *Nick Shorey* Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 Email: lists(a)nickshorey.com Skype: nick.shorey Twitter: @nickshorey LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin Web: www.nickshorey.com

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 11 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 11, 2017

Sept. 11, 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, 11 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/6BkhB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-11sep17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3d894al8cv/ 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/6BkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 11 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 11 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Krishna Seeburn - Kris::) Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone Poncelet Ileleji:hi All Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Greetings from Norway :-) Jeff Neuman:Just checking could people hear me just a minute ago Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Michelle DeSmyter:yes, loud and clear Jeff Neuman:cool/...we will start in 1 minute Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi all Karen Day:Hello. I'm in AC chat only until approx 11:45 Jeff Neuman:ok, lets get started :) Phil Buckingham:sure going to try Rubens Kuhl:Jurisdiction is something that should be homogenous among incumbent registries and subsequent procedures registries. Michael Flemming:I think I may have some answers on that but could be open for discussion. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:Agrree with Alan.....it might be something to really consider Rubens Kuhl:California law is only foreseen in the registrar agreements. Rubens Kuhl:Registry agreements are silent on law, so anyone is free to choose and pick which one they prefer. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Registries use their jurisdiction's law with the accredited Registrars (with them). Phil Buckingham:it will also impact on where the lottery for the R2 draw takes place. Robin Gross:Here's the details: In preparation for our next call, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 @ 20:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed agenda.Thanks, Robin__________________________ 1.Welcome & Review of Agenda2. Updates to SOI3. Plenary Update4. CC2 — GAC Objections — Q 3.1.10 – 3.1.11 (see attached)5. CC2 — String Similarity — Q 3.4.1 - 3.4.6 (see attached)6. AOBDiscussion on GAC Early Warnings and GAC Advice in New GTLD program3.1.10 - Do you feel that GAC Early Warnings were helpful in identifying potential concerns with applications? Do you have suggestions on how to mitigate concerns identified in GAC Early Warnings?3.1.11 - What improvements and clarifications should be made to GAC Advice procedures? What mitigation mechanisms are needed to respond to GAC Advice? How can timelines be made more precise?Discussion on String Similarity3.4.1 - There was a perception that consistency and predictability of the string similarity evaluation needs to be improved. Do you have examples or evidence of issues? Kavouss Arasteh:Too low Steve Chan:The next WT3 call is: Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):2000 UTC on the 14 Rubens Kuhl:I have to leave now... bye all., see some of you in WT4. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Congratulations, Avri! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Congrats Avri! avri doria:thanks Kavouss Arasteh: Congradulations to Avri Hadia Elminiawi:congrats Avri Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Jeff - did you say Vice chair or Co-Chair? Kavouss Arasteh:jeff, what about you? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):It seems that if the person who volunteers has been involved all along, that person could be Co-Chair. avri doria:it includes attedning all WT meetings and leadership meetings. Jim Prendergast:We definitley need a replacement co-chair - just for workload purposes Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):it woujld be good if Co-Chairs coulld actually split Work Track responsibilities. avri doria:we sort of do, but in reality, being informed and being able to back each other up mean we both attend most all. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Avri. I was thinking you updated each other in leadership meetings. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):lengthy and at as often the case over night for us in APAC :-) avri doria:we do, but updating is never as effective as being there or listening to the call. avri doria:also when one of us gets stuck, for whatever reason, the other jumps in. Robin Gross:we've been spoiled having the both of you as co-chairs. It's been an exemplary way to run these big pdps. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think Jeff is quite optimistic in his assesment of a timeframe of the RPM PDP (It's my opinion as one of the members of RPM PDP) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - As discussed in Work Track 4, if our report affects RPMs in any way, then RPM group would have to deal with that before we could go to next round. That would be unfortuate I think - personal opinion. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):LOLl - "longest pole in the tent" avri doria:anne and old engineering term from my days as a engineering manager. avri doria:Anne an ... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):interesting... Jim Prendergast:Can you tell us who from the GNSO COuncil stepped forward to serve as a WT5 leader? Jeff Neuman:From the Council -- no one Kristina Rosette:apologies in advance for background noise. am in Dulles and on using the app, but can't figure out how to mute myself Kavouss Arasteh: Jeff, The next meeting of WT3 will be on Sep 11 or SEP 12 Emily Barabas:The next WT3 call is Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes Ken Stubbs:can't hear avri Vanda Scartezini:still difficult ti hear Kavouss Arasteh:I will be in Aeroplane at that time Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):no its not audible Avri Ken Stubbs:too much noise.. dont understand a thing she is saying ! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Kavouss - maybe airplane will have wifi? Ken Stubbs:lots of background noise as well Julie Hedlund:Quiet and an echo too. Ken Stubbs:echos as well Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Really bad - cannot her Avri Hadia Elminiawi:can't hear avr Liz Brodzinski:Can't hear Avri at all Jim Prendergast:difficult to hear her Jonathan Robinson:Avri is not clear to hear. Sounds like she has two mics on Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Did RPM group raise anything that we know affects our work? QUESTION Emily Barabas:For those who use Google Docs, this is the document we are using: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Michelle DeSmyter:not yet Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff Steve Chan:Community Comment 1 is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa… Ken Stubbs:hear u perfect Ken Stubbs:brands ? Krishna Seeburn - Kris:I just hope every WT are good on their schedule and we can take up and discuss matters constructively...and get the work done.... Susan Payne:apologies to be joining late - conflicting call Donna Austin, Neustar:Agreed Kris. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:Next-Gen RDS PDP WG - have not yet agrreed on types of category.. is still on the table... wouldn't that be conflicting. Knowing that these may conflict or not conflicting... Vanda Scartezini:I beleive YEsS if anything can be changed further during this WG work Donna Austin, Neustar:I agree with supporting the existing categories. Jeff Neuman:@Kris - We have not been briefed on the work of RDS on this. But can you explain why that would be relevant for us? Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I agree on continuing with categories, but they might have to be extended. Vanda Scartezini:but we have concensus that it is for further decision Krishna Seeburn - Kris:@ jeff this is still going through consensus....tomorrow we may know for sure.... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think the existing categories are good but there are still big issues as to priority rounds etc. For example, should applications needing support from Applicant Support have a category and should there be any sort of priority for those? Kavouss Arasteh: I AM DISCONNECTED Michelle DeSmyter 2:The operator is dialing back to you Michelle DeSmyter 2:he is back on Kavouss Arasteh:I am disconnected but I fully support Alan that untill we decide to modify or supress categories we will continue to have categories Alan Greenberg:It is not clear to me whether Applican Support is a category, or an attribute of one or more categories. I tend to think the latter. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):support the existing, as a base set, Martin Sutton:Apologies, I had to reconnect. I agree with the existing list of categories. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):still subject to review as we progress Donna Austin, Neustar:Alan, I think applicant support could be a category for the purposes of discussion. Susan Payne:agree with keeping the current categorties Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Tru Alan - but if you decided to give any priority to those applications, you might need to create category.. avri doria:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5K… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):It seems to me that if you create and Applicant Support category, you create an incentive for experienced and technically qualified registry service providers to work with such Applicants. Jeff Neuman:@Anne - Would any of the Applicants in the "Applicant Support Category" not also be in one of the other categories. In other words, they will either be an open registry, brand, geo, intergovernmental organization? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I think a "highly regulated" category would be well worth exploring Krishna Seeburn - Kris:@jeff ...these were the idea that may have to extend and state what kind of domain category would be into. But exactly what Next-Gen RDS PDP WG will come back and see what would go in there Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - we assume they could fit in any category but are distinguished by the need for Applicant Support. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Alan - Do you distinguish between Category 1 and Category 2 Safeguard advice? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thus the term **highly ** regulated Christa Taylor:In WT1, potentially providing support to other applicants not in the Applicant Support Program was also brought up. For instance, a Community Application that may need some type of financial support Alan Greenberg:Was not trying to solve the problem, just noting that the wording on line A7 probably need to be adjusted. Kristina Rosette:dropping to board flight. will read transcript Jim Prendergast:Avri - I think the same call for objection should also be made on mailing list as not everyone is on this call. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Bon voyage Kristina Kavouss Arasteh:yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):it needs to be explored Kavouss Arasteh:No objection to explore them Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Cheryl Jeff Neuman:For the Validated TLDs, they are self described at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.vtld.domains_&d=Dw… Krishna Seeburn - Kris:Yes i agree we need a definition to clearly understand them Jeff Neuman:Not all vTLDs are highly regulated Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Is one a subset of the other? Is highly regulated a subset of validated? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):sensitive is different Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Did the GAC call Category 2 "sensitive"? Donna Austin, Neustar:And this is the primary challenge with categories: trying to define the different types of TLDs. Robin Gross:"regulated" seems to be tied to law in some way. "sensitive" is a grab bag or who knows what? so they are quite different. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes agree ðŸ‘ Jeff separate Vanda Scartezini:+ 1 Donna Donna Austin, Neustar:I do not like the category of 'sensitive'. It has too many connotations. Kavouss Arasteh:Avri, I am unable to raise hand Jeff Neuman:I think the validated TLDs did a pretty good job at defining themselves Alan Greenberg:May I have an AOB? Related to the overall discussions we have had today. Jeff Neuman:at vtld.domains Greg Shatan:What would the consequences of being "sensitive" be? Jeff Neuman:I am not saying that need s to be a category, just saying they have a definintion Robin Gross:prone to rash? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Greg - I though "sensitive" was a description of Category 2 GAC Advice, but not sure. Greg Shatan:Snowflake Alan Greenberg:ARobin, since rsh is typically an inflamation and sensitive TLDs often cause inflamed discussion, I tend to agree! Vanda Scartezini:sorry this is interesting discussion but I need to take a plane, my flight is being calling. read all afterwards. best to all thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):safe travels Vanda Kavouss Arasteh:what we mean by unvalitdated gtld Donna Austin, Neustar:I also don't support validated. Just because a separate group has been formed doesn't mean a separate category needs to be formed. Some TLDs have a nexus requirement, but I don't know how that distinguishes the from validated. Kavouss Arasteh:Tks I agree that we need to have validated gtld Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it looks like "special requirements TLDs" , but that could be a feature of many types of gTLDs (GEO limited to citizens some city , Community limitem to members of some assosiation, TLD limited to owners of special licenses e.t.c.) Jeff Neuman:Validated TLDs validate WHO the registrant is, not where they live or reside Michael Flemming:I think at this point we are merely discussing whether or not these have enough merit to be considered separately or together, not whether or not they will stand alone as a category at the current time, correct? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Vlaidation includes dentist, doctor, attorney, etc. Designed to prevent shams and consumer fraud. Alan Greenberg:Time check. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Jeff, I am not sure that GEO can not have special field which only local citizens can provide Robin Gross:"sensitive" shouldn't be lumped in with highly regulated, which is a legal standard. Donna Austin, Neustar:I agree Robin. I do not support Jeff Neuman:Avri - Time check Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I agree with Robin... separate them Krishna Seeburn - Kris:@robin ...i agree they are not always same thing Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Bye all, need to drop for another call Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Robin Susan Payne:@ Anne - GAC Category One : Consumer Protection, Sensitive Strings, and Regulated Markets Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):THanks Susan. I have recently looked at Category 1 and am familiar. not sure what is in Category 2. Michael Flemming:Category 2 is exclusive use / closed generics Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):time is against us Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):"Sensitive" - if e are talking cultural and religious issues, thats VERY complicated. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I have to leave for my flight. Donna Austin, Neustar:Indeed it is Anne. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Very different analysis between "highly regulated" on the one hand and "Cultural and religious" on the other hand. Hopefully the latter is NOT highly regulated - just the opposite. Jeff Neuman:All - we will send around a draft terms of reference in the next few weeks. Avri is discussing a response to the letters that we are receiving Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@AVri - Isn't there also "polling"? avri doria:yes there is polling, but it is not decsional Michael Flemming:We do send that out Michael Flemming:We send out a newsletter and meeting schedule Michael Flemming:Jeff has got it :) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Sorry must go. thanks everyone. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye ðŸ‘‹ for now then, lots more to discuss clearly, but excellent work today. Robin Gross:Thanks', y'all, bye! Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:Thanks, all - bye! Krishna Seeburn - Kris:thanx bye

1 0

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

Sept. 11, 2017

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 11 September. 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. See the referenced documents: Drafting Team Discussion – Different TLD Types: Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…; Community Comment 1 is available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59645660 Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. Work Track Updates: ACTIONS: 1) Put this [discussion on applicable law, see below] out on email for Work Track 2, to see if this is something they want to address. 2) Work Track 1 to consider if this relates to outreach and attracting applicants. Work Track 1: Sara Bockey: -- We are going to be finishing up the review of community responses -- next meeting RSP program accreditation program feedback. -- Reviewing all of the recommendations and feedback and starting to compile recommendations for the WG to review. Some might be implementation and some might be in the form of a decision tree. Work Track 2: Michael Flemming: -- Meeting weekly. -- These week discussing closed generics at 0300 Thursday, 14 September. -- Anticipating two meetings per topics, next are applicant terms and conditions, registry/registrar separate, non-discrimination, defining the public interest (PICs) and the contractual compliance. -- May not get everything done by ICANN60, but will try. Discussion: -- Re: Applicable Law: From the point of view of Work Track 2 -- Is it necessary to refer to any government or not? What are the advantages/disadvantages? Is this being discussed in Work Track 2? Response: That issue has not come up in Work Track 2 or in the Discussion Group. It might be best discussed in the Accountability Work Stream 2. -- No one has raised this issue, but one wonders if this might be relevant in attracting new applicants. If there is any impediment to applying based on jurisdiction? >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Jurisdiction is something that should be homogenous among incumbent registries and subsequent procedures registries. Michael Flemming: I think I may have some answers on that but could be open for discussion. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: Agrree with Alan.....it might be something to really consider Rubens Kuhl: California law is only foreseen in the registrar agreements. Rubens Kuhl: Registry agreements are silent on law, so anyone is free to choose and pick which one they prefer. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Registries use their jurisdiction's law with the accredited Registrars (with them). Work Track 3 -- Robin Gross: -- On the last call completed community responses review on community objector process. -- Tomorrow will be talking about the handling of GAC advice and early warning. May also discuss the string similarity issues. The next WT3 call is: Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes -- Here's the details: In preparation for our next call, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 @ 20:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed agenda.Thanks, Robin__________________________ 1.Welcome & Review of Agenda2. Updates to SOI3. Plenary Update4. CC2 — GAC Objections — Q 3.1.10 – 3.1.11 (see attached)5. CC2 — String Similarity — Q 3.4.1 - 3.4.6 (see attached)6. AOBDiscussion on GAC Early Warnings and GAC Advice in New GTLD program3.1.10 - Do you feel that GAC Early Warnings were helpful in identifying potential concerns with applications? Do you have suggestions on how to mitigate concerns identified in GAC Early Warnings?3.1.11 - What improvements and clarifications should be made to GAC Advice procedures? What mitigation mechanisms are needed to respond to GAC Advice? How can timelines be made more precise?Discussion on String Similarity3.4.1 - There was a perception that consistency and predictability of the string similarity evaluation needs to be improved. Do you have examples or evidence of issues? Work Track 4 --- Rubens Kuhl: -- Registry Services -- review proposals and continue discussions on the list. -- Next call will discuss financial evaluations. The next cal is Thursday September at 2000 UTC. 2. Full PDP WG Update: -- Avri Doria, PDP WG Co-Chair, has been nominated to the ICANN Board starting at the end of the Annual General Meeting (ICANN60). Will be fully active until the end of IcANN60. -- Will see if there is interest in joining the leadership team for the PDP WG, either as a Co-Chair or as a Vice-Chair. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): It seems that if the person who volunteers has been involved all along, that person could be Co-Chair. avri doria: it includes attedning all WT meetings and leadership meetings. Jim Prendergast: We definitley need a replacement co-chair - just for workload purposes 3. Procedural Next Steps for the WG: -- Each Work Track makes its recommendations. -- The full PDP WG considers the recommendations from each Work Track. -- Incorporating themes from the issues to give us ideas on where we think we can reach consensus, or not. -- In the preliminary report we are likely to solicit additional feedback on the recommendations. -- Goal is to have a much more concrete work plan in the next couple of weeks. -- Leadership call with the RPM and Subpro PDP WG to talk about dependencies. The charter of the Subpro PDP WG calls for us to incorporate recommendations from the RPM PDP WG and to fill in any gaps. The timeframe for the RPM PDP WG has been extended for about 7 months. They are in the process of requesting a data collection exercise that could extend their work by a number of months. So, they may not have their recommendations until late 2018 or early 2019 for us to consider. The Subpro PDP WG may have to put out its report without the RPM recommendations. Some discussion on reducing the scope of Phase I of the RPM PDP WG, but that is still being discussed. -- One of the principles that we have been operating on is when there is existing policy and we haven't gotten consensus to change it then we can wait until later. 4. Work Track 5: Geonames at the Top Level: -- Decide if that will that be a bounded discussion to be completed before we move on. -- ccNSO sent its volunteer. -- GNSO is discussing. GNSO Council determined that as this was a subgroup operating under GNSO rules, rather than going through a Council process or the Standing Selection Committee the Council wanted us to go through a PDP WG process with chairs putting out the call for volunteers and the WG making the selection. -- GAC said they would have a nomination by the end of the week. Some conditions will be sent along with the selection. The conditions are under final review. -- ALAC hopes to have a decison within the next two weeks. ALAC will likely have some conditions. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - As discussed in Work Track 4, if our report affects RPMs in any way, then RPM group would have to deal with that before we could go to next round. That would be unfortuate I think - personal opinion. 5. Drafting Team Discussion – Different TLD Types: See: Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ… Community Comment 1 is available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59645660 -- Discussed this topic quite a while ago. -- There are dependencies if we decide to have different TLD types or not. -- Most of the groups had favored continuing with the same categories in the applicant guidebook. -- There were some comments that brought up additional categories that could be separated out. -- Discuss the common attributes of categories and if we decided to use categories what would be the impacts. -- There were categories in the policy and in the AGB, also the defacto category in Spec 13. We really have to start finding what we have consensus for and what remains as it was. Is there consensus on keeping the existing set of categories even if they need to be modified? Discussion: -- We do have consensus not to eliminate the categories we already have, but not on whether this is the definitive list, or the implications of the categories. -- There is a possibility that you could create a new category, such as applicants needing support. -- Until the time that decide to modify the categories we should continue to have them. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: Next-Gen RDS PDP WG - have not yet agrreed on types of category.. is still on the table... wouldn't that be conflicting. Knowing that these may conflict or not conflicting... Vanda Scartezini: I beleive YEsS if anything can be changed further during this WG work Donna Austin, Neustar: I agree with supporting the existing categories. Jeff Neuman: @Kris - We have not been briefed on the work of RDS on this. But can you explain why that would be relevant for us? Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: I agree on continuing with categories, but they might have to be extended. Vanda Scartezini: but we have concensus that it is for further decision Krishna Seeburn - Kris: @ jeff this is still going through consensus....tomorrow we may know for sure.... Validated registry: Do we agree that this is a separate category? -- What are the arguments to add that category? We are asking whether it will have registryation policies that restrict potential registrants, as well as usage. Likely minimal need for registrar services. Likely limited registrant base. -- May need some gradation, such as more nuanced ways to make sure the registrant is in the approved community. -- Is there a distinction between Category 1 and Category 2 Safeguard Advice, from a consumer protection standpoint? Answer: There were 60 or so strings identified as Category 1, and half a dozen that had prior evaluation. Then there were some that the ALAC said the GAC was overeaching. There were a significant number where we agreed, but deemed another type of verification to be sufficient. -- To a large extent the categories we have right now were self-selected. It is not clear that self-selection will be sufficient and what other criteria will need to be used. >From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: Alan, I think applicant support could be a category for the purposes of discussion. Susan Payne: agree with keeping the current categorties Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Tru Alan - but if you decided to give any priority to those applications, you might need to create category.. avri doria: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): It seems to me that if you create and Applicant Support category, you create an incentive for experienced and technically qualified registry service providers to work with such Applicants. Jeff Neuman: @Anne - Would any of the Applicants in the "Applicant Support Category" not also be in one of the other categories. In other words, they will either be an open registry, brand, geo, intergovernmental organization? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I think a "highly regulated" category would be well worth exploring Krishna Seeburn - Kris: @jeff ...these were the idea that may have to extend and state what kind of domain category would be into. But exactly what Next-Gen RDS PDP WG will come back and see what would go in there Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - we assume they could fit in any category but are distinguished by the need for Applicant Support. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Alan - Do you distinguish between Category 1 and Category 2 Safeguard advice? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thus the term **highly ** regulated Christa Taylor: In WT1, potentially providing support to other applicants not in the Applicant Support Program was also brought up. For instance, a Community Application that may need some type of financial support Not-for-profit or non-profit gTLDs, NGOs -- Should we be exploring as a category? -- No objection/needs to be explored. Highly Regulated / Sensitive TLDs -- Continue to explore as a category? -- Is there a definition around these? They could be quite different. Need a definition before we decide to include them. Thought they were similar in some respects, but we don't have to lump them together. -- Assume that there is a definition of "highly regulated". -- Could see highly regulated and validated put together, but not sure what we mean by "sensitive TLDs". -- Question: Is one a subset of the other? Is highly regulated a subset of validated? Or keep validated seaprate from highly regulated. -- Need to allow the applicant make the case for a TLD to be sensitive. -- On validated TLDs: Go to vtld.domain has a description. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: For the Validated TLDs, they are self described at: https://www.vtld.domains/ Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Is one a subset of the other? Is highly regulated a subset of validated? Krishna Seeburn - Kris: Yes i agree we need a definition to clearly understand them Jeff Neuman: Not all vTLDs are highly regulated Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Is one a subset of the other? Is highly regulated a subset of validated? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): sensitive is different Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Did the GAC call Category 2 "sensitive"? Donna Austin, Neustar: And this is the primary challenge with categories: trying to define the different types of TLDs. Robin Gross: "regulated" seems to be tied to law in some way. "sensitive" is a grab bag or who knows what? so they are quite different. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes agree 👍 Jeff separate Vanda Scartezini: + 1 Donna Donna Austin, Neustar: I do not like the category of 'sensitive'. It has too many connotations. Jeff Neuman: I think the validated TLDs did a pretty good job at defining themselves Alan Greenberg: May I have an AOB? Related to the overall discussions we have had today. Jeff Neuman: at vtld.domains Greg Shatan: What would the consequences of being "sensitive" be? Jeff Neuman: I am not saying that need s to be a category, just saying they have a definintion Robin Gross: prone to rash? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Greg - I though "sensitive" was a description of Category 2 GAC Advice, but not sure. avouss Arasteh: what we mean by unvalitdated gtld Donna Austin, Neustar: I also don't support validated. Just because a separate group has been formed doesn't mean a separate category needs to be formed. Some TLDs have a nexus requirement, but I don't know how that distinguishes the from validated. Kavouss Arasteh: Tks I agree that we need to have validated gtld Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it looks like "special requirements TLDs" , but that could be a feature of many types of gTLDs (GEO limited to citizens some city , Community limitem to members of some assosiation, TLD limited to owners of special licenses e.t.c.) Jeff Neuman: Validated TLDs validate WHO the registrant is, not where they live or reside Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Vlaidation includes dentist, doctor, attorney, etc. Designed to prevent shams and consumer fraud. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff, I am not sure that GEO can not have special field which only local citizens can provide Robin Gross: "sensitive" shouldn't be lumped in with highly regulated, which is a legal standard. 6. Any Other Business: a. Terms of Reference for Work Track 5: -- very important to the GNSO. Need to remain within the scope and practices of PDPs. May be different from cross-community working groups. Once there is an initial recommendations the SOs and ACs are requested to comment and there are provisions on what to do if you get a response that is not in accordance with the recommendation. The Work Track 5 Co-Chairs will develop the terms of reference and map the conditions to the guidelines for working groups. b. Participation in the Work Tracks -- There is light discussion in some work tracks so recommendations that come out of the work tracks and that go out for public comment after PDP WG review may get comments from work track members who have not been participating. -- We send out a newsletter, meeting schedule, and agendas. >From the chat room: Jeff Neuman: All - we will send around a draft terms of reference in the next few weeks. Avri is discussing a response to the letters that we are receiving Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @AVri - Isn't there also "polling"?

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 11 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan Sept. 9, 2017

Sept. 9, 2017

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 11 September 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Please note, this call is scheduled for 90 minutes. Welcome/SOIs Work Track Updates Update from the WG Co-Chaors Procedural Next Steps for the WG Drafting Team Discussion – Different TLD Types (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…) AOB Apologies for the late delivery. 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

Working Group Newsletter - September 2017
by Emily Barabas Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Dear Working Group members, The September 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 | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 2, 2017

Sept. 2, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/egchB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-29aug17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1a2xmy6015/ 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/egchB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday, 29 August 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Michelle Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there Kavouss! vanda scartezini:hi everyone Michael Flemming:Afternoon, everyone. Jeff Neuman:hello Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):yes Jeff Michael Flemming:Loud and clear. Krishna Seeburn (Kris):loud and clear Kavouss Arasteh:Hi everybody Jeff Neuman:hello Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi all Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Hi Cheryl Jeff Neuman:Starting call soon Kavouss Arasteh:Good time to all,the participants of the most popular and crowded group Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Hey Kavouss - hope this is a good time of day for you! vanda scartezini:thanks kavouss Kavouss Arasteh:Hi avri, here is 05,00 local time, your voice is sounds sleepy Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Hello, everyone Michael Flemming:Sarah Michael Flemming:We can't hear you too well Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Karen Day:yes Rubens Kuhl:We can hear you. Sara Bockey:no worries Kavouss Arasteh:not sufficiently high level Michael Flemming:I turned up the speakers. It might've just been me Rubens Kuhl:Since WT2 is so light on topics, we will be sending Question 18 to them... ;-) Rubens Kuhl:(Actually WT2 and WT3) Heather Forrest:Very cruel, Rubens Heather Forrest:Great to hear that we have one co-leader for new WT5. Hope we can appoint others soon. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Heather we just like to share ;-) Jeff Neuman:Nothing yet frm GAC, but I understand they may be discussing it on their leadership meeting later this week Heather Forrest:I can do my best (from GNSO Council Chair perspective) to answer any questions on the points Avri is raising re PDP guidelines Heather Forrest:No problem Avri - I'm just going to ask about our progress in nominating a GNSO co-leader Rubens Kuhl:There are no minority or majority concepts in a consensus-based decision making. Kavouss Arasteh:Rubens, but there are some concerns about consensus meaning Rubens Kuhl:Kavouss, consensus in a GNSO PDP can only mean one thing... but it shares its properties with the IETF rough consensus tradition, where even one view can change the outcome. Rubens Kuhl:This is for instance the case of many encryption standards (TLS) where a single Google comment was able to change the outcome, since they were recognized as having the experience to point out things that don't work in scale. Kavouss Arasteh:Ihope there would be no more than one person from each 4 group Steve Chan:You can review GNSO PDP decision making rules under section 3.6 here in the WG guidelines: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun… Heather Forrest:@Jeff, Avri, good to know that this is in progress, and in accordance with standard practice. I wouldn't anticipate that Council itself would make nominations (as that would come through the SSC) Rubens Kuhl:Kavouss, it's never about quantity. Kavouss Arasteh:That is not as simple as you qualified Robin Gross:Policy for generic names is guided by the GNSO under ICANNs bylaws. It sounds like some have a problem with the structure of ICANN. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):very clear... thank you Arrive Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think it is a bit diifferent when ccNSO participates in a PDP. They don't really have quite the same policy-making process, do they? Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I am happy to hear that, Avri, since geographical names are of special interest to more groups than GNSO than any other gTLDs Jim Prendergast:so just to recap. the ccNSO has put forth someone, waiting on GNSO and ALAC but they are moving on it and we think GAC may be addressing it this week on leadership call. is that correct? and what is the best guess on when the leadership will be settled? Robin Gross:When does the GNSO get to participate in CCnso policy making? Greg Shatan:Would it make sense to have a webinar on the GNSO PDP Working Group guidelines for those unfamiliar with them? Philip Corwin:I don't understand how sincere outreach in the cause of inclusion could be regarded as an attempt to construct an 'alibi". Rubens Kuhl:Anne, ccNSO does have PDPs... their PDPs are usually less time-sensitive and less controversial, but they share some DNSO origins with GNSO, including PDPs. Greg Shatan:That might allay some of these fears. Karen Day:Good thought Greg. Greg Shatan:It should be noted that GNSO PDP Working Groups are ALWAYS open to any participant from any group or no group. Rubens Kuhl:Jim, GNSO Council will not be putting a name forward for GNSO. Those names were referred to reach out to the full WG chairs (Jeff and Avri) and come forward with their application. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:But Greg, in the end it will be the GNSO council that decides, will it not? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):It is a very positive that GAC representatives and ccNSO participate actively in Sub Pro. Karen Day:@Kavouss - I can confirm that is the way this PDP is already operating with regard to work team co-leads. Robin Gross:I'm trying to imagine what it would be like for GNSO participants to have equal footing with GAC in their working groups. Greg Shatan:The Working Group's final report, after probably 2 rounds of public comment, and approval by the Working Group, will go to the Council for approval. But it is up to the WG to write and approve the report. Heather Forrest:The GNSO Council is required, under ICANN Bylaws, to vote on any recommendations of GNSO PDPs - but Council obviously respects the work of the PDP WGs Rubens Kuhl:Annebeth, GNSO Council is a process manager, not a legislative body... so the Council can verify if anything went outside of PDP process or conflicts with bylaws, but wouldn't replace the WG report with their own views on something. Heather Forrest:(Greg, Rubens and I have all just made the same point in different words - great minds think alike - and of course it would have to be that Council couldn't simply legislate on its own or we wouldn't have or need PDP WGs) Greg Shatan:Good points Rubens and Heather (both on Council, by the way). The GNSO Council is also NOT a policy development body - that is the job of the (always open) Working Groups. Greg Shatan:The role of the GNSO Council could be covered in the webinar as well. Kavouss Arasteh:I suggest we say "SOME LEVEL"of preditabilty instead of "A LEVEL " Kavouss Arasteh:Ialso suggest to add the word"relative"before stability Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I think there is a special sensitivity when it comes to geographical names among the other stakeholders, as many do not consider them "true generics". Since we only have 2 categories in TLDs, these naturally fall under gTLDs. However, what I was reporting here were the concerns I hear. Since ICANN Bylaws are as they are, we have to try to make the best out of it to avoid the same problems we had in the last round, when many years of discussion took place after the first AGB was produced. Rubens Kuhl:Annebeth, I offer another angle on this: having the GNSO policy on those names defined is a kind of insurance that makes that if those names are considered gTLDs, they are also protected by reasonable rules to assure they are not misused. Jim Prendergast:don't forget impact of GAC advice as well Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Thanks, Rubens Michael Flemming:Jeff, question for clarity. Predictability in our discussion is limited to the process itself and not necessarily the outcome as in delay in some TLDs to launch/use their TLD, correct? Heather Forrest:Do we address specifically in this document how it is determined that something is policy as opposed to implementation (and vice versa)? Michael Flemming:How about a sytem that allows the applications to be submitted in document format? Michael Flemming:Ah, my apologies. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):RFP for system? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):at the first place Greg Shatan:It seems like the processes created by the Policy & Implementation Working Group should be applied to many of these instances. Greg Shatan:Has this been considered? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):We lost heather. Heather Forrest:We need to know what the vendor's timeline for fix is Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Yes - Greg - I agree. The big issue here is Who should determine whether an issue involves policy or not. I think IRT should determine. I don't necessarily buy the notion that that staff or some informal discussion can determine whether or not policy issues are involved. Current draft of Predictability Framework says "staff will collaborate with the community". I honestly don't know what that means in terms of decision-making. Heather Forrest:@Jeff - one of the factors is the stress on the system. Having a "round" or "window" only opened for a brief time, with a definite closing day makes this more of an issue. Kavouss Arasteh:Agree with Greg Jim Prendergast:I wouldn't say the don't care about it. ensuring the application process is secure and fair is critical to the trust int he program. Kavouss Arasteh:If an issue came up where ICANN had to change application process, is this purely implementation? Is it something the community should weigh in on? Kavouss Arasteh:Ifully agree with that Heather Forrest:Looks like we have 2 different conversations here in the chat - one on policy vs implementation, the other on the system Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Heather - the policy and implementation WG determined that it is not valuable to try to decide whether or not an issue is policy or implementation - it is only important to determine how the policy maker (GNSO) decides to treat that topic - whether or not it involves policy. Michael Flemming:Depends on the issue, no? Heather Forrest:I agree with Jeff but it's not clear to me how we determine whether something goes back to the IRT or not Michael Flemming:Couldn't we have development of the system by one third party and then a risk analysis by another third party? Rubens Kuhl:I don't think we can avoid an IRT, since this is a PDP WG . Non-PDP WGs perhaps could chose that. Kavouss Arasteh:There is a background tlks Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I have commented on the list that IRT should be "standing" - to be consulted whenever an issue arises. Greg Shatan:I think trying to say some of these are not implementation issues is causing confusion. Greg Shatan:Just as implementation problems raise policy issues, execution problems raise implementation issues. Kavouss Arasteh:Jeff, I have some difficulties with you new term execution versus implemenation Greg Shatan:Maybe we need an Implementation & Execution Working Group.... Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, the type of issues you mentioned sounds similar to the IANA CSC (Customer Standing Committee) to me. Perhaps we could recomend something in that direction ? NTAG (New gTLD Applicant Group) and BRG (Brand Registry Group) both made interesting interactions with staff during the program. Kavouss Arasteh:Jeff, may we avoid to use "Execution" ias it may cause some confusion with implemenation Kavouss Arasteh:eff, may we avoid to use "Execution" as it may cause some confusion with implemenation Jeff Neuman:@Kavouss - is there a better word to use? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):name collisions were poor third party report issue Jim Prendergast:name collision was actually a security and stability issue but your point is still valid Rubens Kuhl:Name collisions actually surfaced during policy development, nobody cared... surfaced during implementation, nobody cared... it ended up being defined at execution time, but it was not execution. Kavouss Arasteh:Not to use it at all but stay with implementation only avri doria:27 minutes left on meeting. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Msut leave Adobe - can stay on the phone Rubens Kuhl:If CSC doesn't have a say in preventing a matter to be discussed at IRT, then when don't have to discuss what is execution, what is implementation, what is policy... Rubens Kuhl:I'm not, sorry. Rubens Kuhl:(then we) avri doria:if we decide to use execution, we will obviously need to define it. I suggest we try and base our discrimination between the two based on the analysis done by the GNSO and published as a report. Kavouss Arasteh:Yes avri doria:and as Anee said, it determined that the two were never completely disentagled, though at the beginning of a project it was mostly policy and at the end it was mostly implementation. avri doria:apologies: as Annne said ... Greg Shatan:How would the ExCSC differ from the IRT? Kavouss Arasteh:yes to the question you raised Rubens Kuhl:Greg, usually less members, with roles representing different parties. In IANA they are gTLD registries, non-registries GNSO, ccTLD registries, RIRs, protocols; Kavouss Arasteh:Jeff, as you suggested ,we need to give a hand to ICANN Staff in those circumstances Michael Flemming:Greg has his hand raised Rubens Kuhl:For a SubPro CSC, it could be "applicants", "current registries", "objectors" and "communities" or something like that. Trang Nguyen:The process documentation work that we recently did can help to clarify the phases. There is the policy development process, carried out by the community. Once the Board adopts, then it's the policy implementation phase carried out by ICANN and IRT. This phase concludes upon the effective date of the policy, which in this context would be the opening of the application process. Then it moves into the operations phase. The CPIF and IRT are applicable to the policy implementation phase. Once the policy is in operation and issues arise, we need some guidance on how to deal with issues, particularly issues where the policy is silent on. Rubens Kuhl:Trang, operations phase is so much better than execution. Execution reminds me of people being killed. ;-) vanda scartezini:quite clear Trang. avri doria:i do not think there are any inherent limitations in the amont of time an IRT serves. Rubens Kuhl:But I would hope that issues where the policy is silent on should go back to the IRT, because it looks like some policy guidance was expected but not available. avri doria:and the WG makes recommendations on how an IRT will be formed and run. Greg Shatan:If policy guidance is needed, then the P&IWG processes are supposed to be used. Greg Shatan:I don't think "confusion" is the issue.... avri doria:i agree a graphic will be useful. avri doria:15 minutes left to meeting Michael Flemming:Wouldn't it be an ORT in that case? Michael Flemming:poor joke, sorry Kavouss Arasteh:How we are ensured that such action does not have any impact on policy developped Kavouss Arasteh:How we are ensured that such action wuld not have any impact on policy developped Rubens Kuhl:@Kavouss, that can be a post-facto control: somebody would file an RfR (Request for Consideration) for such action. Rubens Kuhl:I did care a lot for that particular change Jeff mentioned. Kavouss Arasteh:There is some voice in the backgroud when Greg speaking Greg Shatan:Apologies, I have guests. My cousin has just arrived from Los Angeles. My wife is entertaining him while I do this. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think multistakeholder model works with policy and not with at implementation Kavouss Arasteh:Maxim +1 Greg Shatan:I told them I was helping to run the Internet. They were not impressed. Greg Shatan:I absolutely disagree with the idea that the multistakeholder model doesn't work with implemementation. Greg Shatan:IRTs are multistakeholder. Kavouss Arasteh:I also have difficulties the MSH be involved in the implementation process Trang Nguyen:The discussion around taking things back to IRTs imply that implementation needs to be changed/modified when in fact I think of the example about PDT test specs as operational evolution. From that perspective, I like Jeff's suggestion of a standing panel. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ICANN staff implements, and they do not allow us to interfere directly :) avri doria:I tend to beleive that all processes in ICANN should be mulitstakeholder at their base. Greg Shatan:Oh, those pesky multistakeholders. They keep wanting to stay in the room.... Greg Shatan:I don Greg Shatan:I don't consider the role of the community to be "interference". Rubens Kuhl:Greg, I like the multistakeholders in the room... but sometimes we need the ones directed affected by something to come forward. Greg Shatan:It is guidance and review. Greg Shatan:It sounds like some people don't like the idea of IRTs? avri doria:i think that directly affected and indirectly affected are incredibly hard to disentangle. Greg Shatan:The indirectly affected can be more objective about the issues. avri doria:3 minutes Kavouss Arasteh:Any thing that slow down the process should be avoided Cheryl Langdon-Orr:lots to think ovver from todays call... Thanks everyone Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Heather Forrest:Thanks Avri and Jeff Sara Bockey:thanks all Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye for now then Aslam G Mohamed:Thanks everyone. See you in Abu Dhabi Greg Shatan:Bye all! vanda scartezini:thanks all Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Bye

3 3