January 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs
by Steve Chan Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

Dear WG and WT4 Members, Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response to the letter received from this PDP WG, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/doria-neuman-to-conrad… This letter has been added to the PDP WG’s Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/Xz2AAw) for WT4, as well as here (https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB) for the PDP WG’s overall receipt of correspondence: In addition, this letter will be posted to ICANN Org’s Correspondence page in the future. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. 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/

8 9

Working Group Newsletter - January 2018
by Emily Barabas Jan. 15, 2018

Jan. 15, 2018

Dear Working Group members, The January 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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
by Emily Barabas Jan. 15, 2018

Jan. 15, 2018

Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…) Your input is encouraged on the following questions: * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.). The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8…) which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following:   * What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice? For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. 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 transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call. 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.o…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

14 16

FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Related to the Maximum Delegation Rate for New gTLDs
by Emily Barabas Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 2018

Dear Working Group members and Work Track 4 members, Please see the attached response from the SSAC to the Working Group’s request for input on root zone scaling. This document is also posted on the correspondence page of the Working Group wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB . Kind regards, Emily From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 22 December 2017 at 16:46 To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, avri doria <avri(a)apc.org>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Andrew Mcconachie <andrew.mcconachie(a)icann.org>, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Related to the Maximum Delegation Rate for New gTLDs Dear Steve, On behalf of Patrik Fältström, SSAC Chair, please see the attached response from the SSAC concerning your request below. We wish you all a wonderful holiday and a very Happy New Year. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support From: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 8:00 PM To: "paf(a)frobbit.se" <paf(a)frobbit.se> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, avri doria <avri(a)apc.org>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Related to the Maximum Delegation Rate for New gTLDs ** Sent on behalf of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Co-chairs, Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman. The co-leaders of Work Track 4, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Rubens Kuhl, are copied on this message. ** Dear Patrik, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is seeking input from the community in regards to the maximum delegation rate of 1,000 TLDs per year. Please see the attached letter for details. As the letter notes, the WG co-chairs welcome your feedback and are available to answer any questions you may have about this request. 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/

3 2

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 8 January 2018
by Julie Bisland Jan. 8, 2018

Jan. 8, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC Chat of the call attached to this email and the AC Recording and MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 8 January 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Px1yB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08jan18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6ucvagekt5/<https://participate.icann.org/p6ucvagekt5/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=7ce3a0f1e250c566…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 08 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 8, 2018

Jan. 8, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 08 January 2018. 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. For reference see the following links to the documents, excerpts from the chat below, and also the attached slides: Drafting Team Discussion continued – Different TLD Types (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ… Drafting Team Discussion continued – Predictability Framework (Wiki Page: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8… Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. SOI Updates: None. 2. Work Track Updates: Work Track 1: -- Next meeting is 09 January at 0300 UTC. -- Draft recommendations on Application Fees and time permitting Variable Fees. Work Track 2: Next meeting is 18 January at 0300 UTC. Work Track 3: -- 09 January at 1500 UTC. -- Continuing third pass on objections -- specifically legal rights and confusing similarity objections. Work Track 4: -- Next meeting 11 January at 1500 UTC. -- Financial evaluation will be discussed including different models. -- Getting into details on how the evaluations will occur. Areas where there had been a lot of debate and consternation among applicants. Work Track 5: -- At the last meeting the WT5 members went through the Terms of Reference. A revised version is out for review. -- Circulating a request today for input regarding the definitions surrounding geographic names at the top level. -- Application types is a top that carries over into WT5. 3. Overarching Issue: Predictability Framework (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8… ) -- Come up with a predictable process that will carry us through any issues. -- Examples from the last round as case studies include: 1. Change of vendor for an application type: Change that ICANN.org did of using a customized software solution to Sales Force. A change in the application process without input from the community. Would that type of change be done the same way under the next predictability framework. 2. Change in the pre-delegation testing procedures. Decided by the vendor of the pre-delegation testing in coordination with ICANN.org and consultants. Notice was provided to the contracted parties. Impacted the registries. 3. Change from Digital Archery to Random Selection process. Impacted applicants. Introduced because the intial way of moving forward with Digital Archery had security flaws. There was a comment period, but the decision was made by ICANN.org. 4. Name Collisions. Substantial changes that were made to the delegation process and launch processes. Several comment periods and research by consultants and input from the SSAC. Discussion: On the example of a freeze on the legal agreement: -- The episode from the last round cannot be repeated. Significant rules were changed in the registry agreement. -- Concerned about anything that would put some applications on hold, such as with GAC advice. May need to be some compromise to move forward with an application. -- If acceptance of an application is subjected to new terms being added to a contract (such as for technical/security changes), how do we handle that? Urge the GAC to issue broad advice before the next window opens. -- What do we do with a rolling contracting process? Individual applicants ought to be aware that a wholesale changes to terms of the agreement -- for those that haven't begun performance should have a right to challenge. Any examples of changes to the process that we could discuss with respect to a stress test? -- Also need to consider how to address changes as a result of Board decisions; whole class of changes where we can say, "sorry, we aren't going to change." We do have to contemplate what to do should an issue come up after the program has started. Provide some guidance on whether and when the program could be halted. -- Some changes may not fall into a policy or policy implementation category. >From the chat: Jim Prendergast: outside the negotiation windows allowed for in the current RA, we cannot have the RA changing after ICANN has taken $$ from applicants. There needs to be some sort of freeze in place so applicants have prediciability when it comes to the nature of the relationship they will have with ICANN. Heather Forrest: +1 Jim - from a legal perspective there would potentially be a question as to enforceability of a contract (or parts thereof) lacking sufficient clarity for the parties Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): situation where TAS passwords were changed randomly without request from applicants Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff, please add a task for me to supply additional info (cases e.t.c.) Phil Buckingham: Jeff , another change - ICANN advisories on answering questions ( especially Q50 ) Heather Forrest: (sorry - boring law professor comment here) - In terms of timing I'm thinking performance of the contract should start before changes occur Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Heather , formally ICANN has no responcibility for the failure to perform (unlike Applicants and RAs) Heather Forrest: @Maxim - I understand, but we're talking about validity of the agreement, ie whether the applicant/Registry can agree to a contract that lacks certainty, not whether ICANN can breach (if there is no valid contract, neither party can breach!) Rubens Kuhl: There were three type of PICs: mandatory for all, mandatory for some strings, truly voluntary. The first one was post-application change. Jim Prendergast: Thats why I think GAC advice that pertains to wide swaths of applications should be submitted prior to the opening of the round. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Heather, the required wording of Letter of Credit allowes ICANN to send a note via SWIFT "we need your money" and a request for a money Susan Payne: Other "stress test" scenarios: .MAIL CORP and HOME. Although related to the name collision issue this issue is not resolved in relation to these three strings they are still in limbo Rubens Kuhl: @Jim, GNSO Policy can not dictate requirements for GAC. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Heather, also in other industries the tactics of bait and switch leads to criminal cases for fraud Phil Buckingham: Jim +1 Susan Payne: and treatment of closed generics. I know this is a WT2 topic, but the scenario of changing the rules mid-process is relevant to predictability. Perhaps as an example of the impact of late GAC advice Rubens Kuhl: Specifically regarding changing the agreement, we might use the same approval thresholds among applicants that exists today among registries. Heather Forrest: We're not dealing with the typical consumer contract-type scenario, where the consumer lacks any bargaining power. We definitely don't want that applicants/ registries to have that perception. I suppose what I'm saying is that each applicant/registry needs to treat its agreement as 'unique', so to speak, and not just one of many identical agreements Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I meant this thing (about changing a wholesale agreement) http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/legal_guides/m-1.shtml and BAIT AND SWITCH - B&P 17500 (includes internet), CC1770(a)(9),(a)(10), 16 CFR Part 238 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): but on the other hand - we can not entirely block ability of ICANN to change policies, it is about applicablility ot application process Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): during the application window Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *applicability of such changes to the application process :) Rubens Kuhl: Possibly the same criteria that allows ICANN to implement Temporary Policies could justify changing things on the fly. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): for example : some horrible security flaw of EPP is discovered and there is a need of a correction of some policy Mary Wong: Note that, in the implementation principles adopted by the GNSO Council in late 2015, there is a process within the IRT framework that provides guidance for escalation as well as referral back to the GNSO Council for new policy issues. Rubens Kuhl: "Temporary Policies. Registry Operator shall comply with and implement all specifications or policies established by the Board on a temporary basis, if adopted by the Board by a vote of at least two-thirds of its members, so long as the Board reasonably determines that such modifications or amendments are justified and that immediate temporary establishment of a specification or policy on the subject is necessary to maintain the stability or security of Registry Services or the DNS (“Temporary Policies”)." Alan Greenberg: Note emergency policies according to current processes, expire after a year. Alan Greenberg: Note temp policies are not in the Bylaws but in the Ry/Rr agreements and only apply after they are signed, so not clear they apply in the current situation. 4. Overarching Issue: Application Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ… ) -- What are we trying to achieve when we talk about establishing types of applications or categories? -- What we haven't identified the rationale why we should, if we should, different types of applications. Do we believe they should have different contractual requirements, priority, should not have all of the contractual requirements? Need to solidify this. -- In the last round we didn't call them "categories" but we had different classes. The only reason to have them is if we treat them differently. -- Number of members of the GAC that those from developing countries should have a category of applications that is treated different from those from developed countries. -- Object to the term "exceptions". A lot of the costs that might be different in different scenarios. Or situations such as a brand registry not needing to use registrars. Or the public interest. -- There will be demand for names with distinct purposes (such as geographic names). -- May need to be categories because not everyone will use a top-level domain in a standardized way. There should be some way to deal with uses in a way that was not conceived of in the round's beginning, or in the standard way. -- What is the goal of the TLD? The could result in variations in the contracts. -- What are we trying to achieve as a community? If we looked at what happened in the last round there were restrictions on community applications to create some level of trust. Why would the TLD be operated differently. -- Trying to extrapolate the reasons for why we created the previous categories. See if same rationale is useful. -- If we start making value judgments about certain application then we could get into content regulation. -- Perhaps where there is some restriction or validation or some way of appealing to a particular subset of the population of registrants that may be appropriate to look at as separate from the traditional open gTLD. -- May be a need based on the nature of the string being requested for a separate category. -- Is there anything from the CC1 and CC2 responses that would help with this discussion? There were cetain groups that did talk about the need to create categories. Input received through CC1 is available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59645660 -- ICANN.org would need to know if there are specific requirements in the registry agreement. -- There have been a number of categories identified, but need to identify where contractual or procedural differences are needed. Might not be about the category, but about the attributes. -- The top-level should not be the driving part; should consider the business model as well. If we are going to add categories it is important to keep in mind that our group will not imagine all of the business cases. -- Can we come up with a way to ask for differential treatment to allow you as a TLD to innovate or do a different type of business model. -- For those that belong to existing categories if you could look through those requirements and suggest what changes would be needed in the next round. Example, Brand TLDs needing a trademark. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Perhaps leaving that definition for last ? We would just need to specify how applications are treated, both equally and differently, and then finding names for the application groups that are treated differently. Susan Payne: Can we be clear about whether we are talking about new categories? or also the existing ones? Rubens Kuhl: @Maxim, they were already this way in 2012. For instance, a GeoTLD that is also a community TLD and is also a government-organisation registry. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I wonder if using of types of applications should be tag like (and not mutually exclusive ) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Alexander, last time Offshores where added to EU region Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: We already have some categories already, haven't we, brands? Out of recognition of the interest of trademark owners? In the same way, as Alan said, there might be a group that are not "true" generics that should take care of the public interest. Alexander Schubert: @Maxim: E.g. Seychelles: EU? Martin Sutton: Jeff - we already have dotBrands and the rationale behind it, are you requesting for attendees to repeat these and for other categories established during the last application round? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Alexander, I hope it was done for simplicity , but some big companies used it Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: Likewise, some geonames, that should be taken "care of" of the nations, through support/non-objection like for example capitols had in the AGB 2012 Susan Payne: Brand category already recognised the existing value and importance of the trade mark to the applicant, such that certain provisions of the base RA (including assignment of the registry to someone else) were incompatible with the existing legal rights Phil Buckingham: that should be the only "exception " - it is either an open or a closed TLD . . Business models whether commercial or not should NOT be templated ( as was last time ) Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: I agree, Susan, but there are also political "rights" to be taken into consideration for names of great value for nations Rubens Kuhl: Restricted TLDs: Brand TLDs, TLDs with eligibility requirements (Spec 12, PIC or simply registry policy), Exclusive Use TLDs. Donna Austin, Neustar: One of the aims of new gTLDs is to encourage innovation. Being too prescriptive may work against this principle. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): +1 Donna Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Annabeth, different cultures sometimes have conflicting values and we will not be able to resolve it and thus the approach of protection of cultural values might not work Rubens Kuhl: I wonder if our charter gives us authority to look into merging Spec 12 (registration restriction for Community TLDs) and PICs. Because I believe Spec 12 is just a special case of PIC and PIC could be the overall umbrella for enforceable commitments. Hadia Elminiawi: I believe that as a community we want to give an opportunity to all categories/communities, while ensuring a fair process Donna Austin, Neustar: Categories become murky and difficult to process and evaluate when the strings are in contention. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): +1 Donna. There's the additional issue that the speed (or lack thereof, more accurately) is not conducive to being prescriptive What is an innovative use at application could be completely obsolete 3+ years later (or 6+ as is the case with some of the still-pending contention sets). Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Steve .. +1 ... for example it was about registration restrictions for some gTLDs, not about whether they were just community, geo or otherwise Phil Buckingham: Trang - I agree . Its is the contract that will require different specs pertaining to a "said category " . As you say the evaluators will evaluate according to the conrtract specifications . Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: And brands had special needs that in the end were listened to through the clearing house. But there might be other "categories" that have other needs that should be taken into consideration.

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 8 January 2018
by Steve Chan Jan. 5, 2018

Jan. 5, 2018

Dear Working Group Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group meeting scheduled for Monday 8 January 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Please note, this call is scheduled for 90 minutes. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Work Track Updates Overarching Issue: Application Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ… ) Overarching Issue: Predictability Framework (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8… ) Any Other Business Kind regards, 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

Reminder - Member vs Observer / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group
by Terri Agnew Jan. 5, 2018

Jan. 5, 2018

Dear all, This is a reminder that only members are allowed to join teleconferences. Please do not share join information with non-members including posting on public lists. If you would like to change your status from observer to member, send an email to gnso-secs(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> along with the working group name you would like to adjust your status for. There are two ways to volunteer: * Individual Members - anyone interested can volunteer to join the PDP WG as a WG member, regardless of whether they are members of the ICANN community. Members are expected to actively contribute to mailing list conversations as well as meetings - it is anticipated that the PDP WG will at a minimum meet on a weekly basis via teleconference. Members are expected to provide essential input to the process. Members will be required to provide a Statement of Interests (SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs> ). * Mailing list observers - for those who are merely interested in monitoring the WG's conversations, there is the possibility to sign up as a mailing list "observer" which offers read-only access to the mailing list. Mailing list observers will not be permitted to post, will not receive invitations to the various meetings or calls of the WG and will not have to complete a Statement of Interest. At any point in time, a mailing list observer can join the WG as a member simply by informing the GNSO Secretariat at gnso-secs(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Please send any apologies or dial out request to gnso-secs(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> . Please do not send apologies to the full Working Group mailing list. Happy New Year! With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> terri.agnew(a)icann.org Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy -efforts.htm#newcomers> GNSO Newcomer pages

1 0