October 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

FW: ***REMINDER*** Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 08 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Jim Prendergast Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

Sent to the wrong email. Apologies Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Jim Prendergast Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 3:26 PM To: 'Julie Bisland' <julie.bisland(a)icann.org>; ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: RE: ***REMINDER*** Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 08 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC On last Monday's call I made some comments on the must carry section of the supplemental interim report. Jeff asked me to work them into the doc as well as formulate some questions for the community. See the attached. From: Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg <ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Bisland Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 1:24 PM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] ***REMINDER*** Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 08 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear all, The details are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 08 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 17:00 Paris CEST, 20:00 Karachi PKT, (Tuesday) 00:00 Tokyo JST, (Tuesday) 02:00 Melbourne AEDT For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/ya4xgfxu [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_ya4xgfxu&d…> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/4wirBQ Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldswg If you're having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest…> Please allow yourself additional time before start of meeting to log into Adobe Connect and please log in with First and Last Name when joining the AC room. Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn't receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar. If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> **New join information - Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=D…> Enter passcode on telephone: 4927 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

Jeff, unfortunately this meeting coincides with an ICANN update on GDPR and related subjects so I will miss the first hour. I agree with Jim. We may need a delay, all the more so because this is a holiday weekend for some. Alan At 08/10/2018 09:39 AM, Jeff Neuman wrote: >All, > >We can discuss further on our call in a few >hours, but the release of a Supplemental Initial >Report does not in any way mean that additional >discussions cannot take place about any of the >options. We are working on getting some >additional data and have reached out to several >of the providers of private auction services to get some data (if possible). > >One of the providers has responded so far >indicating a willingness to discuss certain >ideas for improvements that they have, but we >are need to work out scheduling >issues. Although they are willing to discuss >ideas for improvements, they have not indicated >that they are at liberty to disclose any data due to confidentiality concerns. > >Again, we do not see a reason at this point to >hold up the comment period on the Supplemental >Initial Report. Remember, one of the purposes >of releasing the Supplemental Initial Report is >to try and get additional data points. > >Best regards, > >Jeff Neuman >Senior Vice President > >Com Laude | Valideus >1751 Pinnacle Drive >Suite 600, McLean >VA 22102, USA > >D: +1.703.635.7514 >T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 >E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com ><http://www.comlaude.com>www.comlaude.com > >Liability cannot be accepted for statements made >which are clearly the senderâs own and not >made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. >This message is intended solely for the >addressee and may contain confidential >information. If you have received this message >in error, please send it back to us, and >immediately and permanently delete it. Do not >use, copy or disclose the information contained >in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude >USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. > >From: Gnso-newgtld-wg ><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew >Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 9:07 AM >To: jim(a)galwaysg.com; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - >New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC > >I don't disagree with Jim. > >In fact, spending a bit more time to flesh out >Sarah's "draw" mechanism could prove useful, and >as may getting feedback from ICANN Legal on >whether there might be impediments to prohibiting non-ICANN private auctions. > >Justine Chew >----- > >On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 at 19:34, Jim Prendergast ><<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com>jim(a)galwaysg.com> wrote: >Cheryl and Jeff > >I understand from the last call that itâs your >intent to wrap up discussion on the supplemental >interim report on Mondayâs call and finalize >the report soon thereafter. While that timeline >made sense a week ago, Iâm not so sure it does now. > >In the last week, there have been three >developments that I think warrant further deliberation: > >1) There has been renewed discussion around >contention resolution via auctions (private or >ICANN). And it continues. Itâs brought more >voices (new and dormant) into the debate and as >a result we have more issues that are being >worked into the document. This is a good thing >as we want to present as many options to the >community as possible. The document is better because of that. >2) The comment period on the initial report >closed and while I havenât been through all of >them yet, I have seen a few instances where the >issue of auctions was raised. For example: >Some members of the RYSG and the ALAC said the >legality of private auctions should be discussed. >The ICANN Board said that they had concerns >around private auctions and how they can be >reconciled with ICANNâs commitments and core >values. I think we need to get more clarity from the Board on that. >The IPC asked for a study on abuse of private >auctions to take place before it could make a full determination >3) Related to the last bullet point, as part of >our deliberations, there was supposed to be >outreach to auction providers to determine if >there were additional instances of >irregularities. We havenât had an update on >that recently, but the results of that outreach >need to be in this report otherwise it is incomplete. > >We as a group would be remiss if we proceeded to >another public comment period without looking at >those comments and try to determine how they >should be reflected in this document before >us. As many of us know, a lot of time, energy >and effort was put into those and for this group >to not even consider them in this document would send a terrible message. > >As you said when asking for liaisons, comments >from SGs and ACs hold more weight than >individual comments so we should give them such deference. > >I understand this might lead to delaying >releasing the interim till after Barcelona, but >the reality is no one outside this group will be >looking at it leading into and during the >meeting. There is too much other material to >digest prepping for and during the meeting. > >Curious to hear what others think. > >Thanks > > > > > >From: Gnso-newgtld-wg ><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> >On Behalf Of Steve Chan >Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 5:42 PM >To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New >gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC > >Dear WG Members, > >Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD >Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled >for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. > >Agenda review/SOIs >Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued >Planning for ICANN63 >AOB > >For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, >which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to >the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft >here: ><https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ>https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ) >As it was anticipated that changes would be >non-trivial, it was believed that accepting >red-lines prior to making new proposed edits >would improve the readability of this latest draft. > >For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for >the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, >Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule >here: ><https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings>https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings) > > >Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should >have received meeting information from the SOAC >Support team. If you did not receive these >participation details or if you would like to >send your apologies, please contact the SOAC >Support team (<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>gnso-secs(a)icann.org) > >Best, >Steve 2 > > >Steven Chanâ¨ >Policy Director, GNSO Support > >ICANN >12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536â¨ >Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 >Offic > >e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 >Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 > >Find out more about the GNSO by taking our ><https://learn.icann.org/>interactive courses >and visiting the ><http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>GNSO >Newcomer pages. > >Follow @GNSO on Twitter: ><https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO>https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >Follow the GNSO on Facebook: ><https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/>https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/>http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 2 October 2018 at 3:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Oct. 6, 2018

Oct. 6, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 2 October 2018. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ. Kind regards, Emily ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: 1. Agenda review/SOIs -- None 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued -- Goal is to publish the report no later than 12 Oct 2018. -- Comments from several members sent to the list recently, not incorporated into the draft. -- The draft has captured all changes in a cumulative manner. Section 1.1 -- Changes include a potential limit to the number of auctions an applicant could participate in -- ICANN Board has concerns about private auctions -- Could the auction be front-loaded? At the time of application, applicant puts forth the maximum amount they would be willing to pay. If contested, winner is the highest bid, paying the second highest bid amount. Benefits include an accurate valuation to each of the participants, potentially. Would need an applicant support element integrated. Action Item: Sarah L to submit write-up of proposal described above. Rubens Kuhl: One of the challenges for those applying to more than 1 TLD, either 2 or an infinite number of them, is to submit maximum bids for each string, since if hey lose one, they have more resources to pay in another one. -- Do the losing bidders pay anything? Receive any benefit? -- Front-loading the auction flips the emphasis of the current auction of last resort. Would the mony need to go into escrow? Could be fairness issues as there may be subconscious biases related to the bid amouts. -- How would community applications be considered in this process? -- Sarah built off of Greg's idea to front-load contention resolution. Sealed price sealed bid auction. Funds collected should go to public benefit. The highest bidder goes through the initial evaluation process, paying the second highest bid. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: The way to resolve that may be give Community applicants a priority round. Then you are only resolving contention among community applicants. Then in the general round, the bid could be a "silent auction". COMMENT Michael Casadevall: COMMENT: I can see a tie. Two companies bidding the same nice round number. - When would evaluators know the highest bidder, if ever? It seems like in the beginning, as that seems to drive the evaluation order of the contention set. -- Add additional text as suggested by Anne Aikman-Scalese via email, at the end of the second paragraph. Section 1.2 - Unsure of why emphasis is only on private auctions. Is the issue more about the parties that did not win the string are ending up getting paid off? Are other private resolutions problematic as well? Could result in every contention set ending up in auction. It would be odd to ban private auctions, but not other private resolution methods. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Curiously, people seem to be in favor of private resolution by constituing joint-ventures. Rubens Kuhl: But Jon is right, you can't have the cake and eat it too. Michael Casadevall: Well, forming a JV is somewhat different since it's "everyone wins" Jim Prendergast: ff memory serves correct - I think the suggestion for a determination draw was to replace both private auction and ICANN last resort auction Michael Casadevall: It should be noted that banning private resolutions except X is an option. Rubens Kuhl: I can sell shares in a JV for the highest bidder. Justine Chew: Correct, we need to be clear on what should be encouraged vs discouraged (or disallowed). Rubens Kuhl: There's no way to implement such discretionary approach to private resolutions. It's all or nothing. -- Joint ventures seem less objectionable to many. Allowing for changes to strings has been considered as well. - Include concerns about the private resolutions in the private auctions section. Seems like it needs to be all private resolutions are allowed or none are allowed. - Suggestion to pull the preliminary recommendation out of section (c). Prior to Jon's intervention, it seemed like that was the direction of the group previously. - Private auctions is a sub set of private resolutions. There may be some forms of private resolution that could be acceptable, while private auctions may indeed be the most problematic element. Action Item: leadership team to reevaluate how to organize section, given new issues raised by Jon. -- There is still a general sentiment that private auctions are problematic. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: If the award goes to a certain entity and if the entity changes, ICANN approval is needed, right? Does that reduce gaming in the suggested solutions? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese: Its a question related to whether any system we devise could be easily "gamed". -- Change in entity prior to contract signing, additional due diligence is needed. After contract signing, due diligence needed as well. -- There are public comments to the Initial Report that may be of relevance to the supplemental report. Statistics on auctions from Rubens: From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Michael, https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> has the numbers. Rubens Kuhl: Total Contention Sets 234 Rubens Kuhl: Resolved Contention Sets 226 Rubens Kuhl: Contention Sets Resolved via ICANN Auction 16 Rubens Kuhl: Unresolved Contention Sets 8 Rubens Kuhl: Applications Pending Contention Resolution 24 Michael Casadevall: Maybe it's just me, but I haven't heard much support for auctions in general, even as a public last resort. -- Options to auctions are provided, but there is an argument made in section 1.1 for the fairness of auctions. From the chat: Jim Prendergast: here is the Board comment on private auctions - Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on “gaming” or abuse of private auction, the Boardbelieves that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in privateauctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financingtheir other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but putsundue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financingbased on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, weare concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or withno intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled withICANN's Commitments and Core Values. Jon Nevett: Perhaps we should refer to private sales vs. private auctions? Section 1.3 -- No changes since last meeting. Section 1.4 -- Talks about change requests that may allow for contention resolution (e.g., joint ventures and string change). -- No changes since last meeting. - If in a contention set and you are able to choose another string, does it prevent choosing a string that puts you in another contention set? Action Item: Include language above. Section 1.5 -- Added elements about asking registrars for advice. - Is the intention to create a retail space for registry's that are failing? Are we interfering in the marketplace? Is ICANN acting as a regulator by serving in a registrar? Is there a compliance issue here as well? Action Item: Jim P to circulate text to strengthen section concerning elements above. Perhaps create a question. -- ICANN is not just regulating types of things, but it's also regulating how it's distributed. There is already manipulation of the market. From the chat: Jon Nevett: Jim +1 -- if a registry isn't getting sufficient registrar support, it could start its own - Some have noted challenges with starting a registrar, as well as challenges meet the requirements of the code of conduct, especially for smaller organizations. From the chat: Christopher Wilkinson: Section 1.5: just to recall that I hae already posted my comments to the List. Rubens Kuhl: Jon, that doesn't work in practice due to (1) high cost of registrar accreditation when used to sell a single TLD (2) registrants inertia or preferrence to use a single registrar/reseller for all their domain registrations. Michael Casadevall: I see Jim's point, but I have concerns that a registar may refuse to carry a gTLD for non-technical/non-financal reasons. I want to see Jim's comments before I dig in deeper though. Jon Nevett: in the 2005-8 policy debate on use of registrars, the key was that the protections required in the RAA are required for all registrations -- protections could be integrated into the Registry Agreement. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Michael, must-carry obligations were deemed to be over the top. So this doesn't seem to have much traction indeed. Jim Prendergast: Michael - do you envision a scenario where ICANN shoudl force a registrar to carry a TLD? --Everyone should review text, especially questions, options, etc. a. Draft of the additional Supplemental Report sections. - Jeff added additional context about why this supplemental report is being issued. Noted that public comments related to these subjects will not have been considered. -- Was there a Work Track involved in reviewing these issues? -- If relevant, the relevant section is cited in the sections. However, most topics are mostly new. -- When reviewing comments, will try to identify where those comments may be relevant to the supplemental report. 3. Initial assessment of work required for Final CCT-RT Report -- Overview of columns included in the document -- Recommendation 9: Reading through the What Else Needs to Be Done (final column)? -- Any objections to the approach suggested in this column? - no objections raised. -- Anne Aikman-Scalese - Submitted a question to the list about this document. On recommendation 9, the RPM process is not a PDP. It is a review. General question about recommendations coming out of reviews and how the WG is expected to address these. Please see comment/question on list. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: I sent questions to the list on this document. Anne Aikman-Scalese: RPM Review is not a PDP so the question relates to how results of mandated Reviews are considered procedurally. Same basic question applies to CCT-RT Review and relationship of those Recommendations to the PDP. There may be public comment on these questions - not sure. Jeff Neuman: The RPM Review is a PDP Jeff Neuman: It is charged with reviewing and making recommendations Jon Nevett: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/projects-… [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…> Jon Nevett: cite to show it is a PDP -- This comment from Anne does not appear to be contrary to the comments in the "What Else Needs To Be Done?" Due to the overlapping nature of the charters, it will be necessary to take into account the work that this group has done. -- Recommendation 12: reading through "What Else Needs To Be Done?" -- There is a broader question about how this Working Group is required to consider the results of the reviews, including the CCT-RT. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: The CCT-RT is just advice to the Board -- Main takeway: WG members should look at the recommendations and look at the last column about what needs to be done from our perspective. -- This week on the leadership team call, the leadership team will give some thought on the approach to reviewing this documents and the CCT-RT recommendations. - At this stage the recommendations are recommendations to the Board and not the PDP, but if the Board asks the PDP how it is considering the reocmmendations, it would be helpful for the group to complete an initial review of the items directed at the PDP. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: Okay thanks for clarifying that Review reports are recommendations to the Board. My concern is sending differing recommendations from two different groups. If the Board has to resolve, that slows things down. - Clarification: It is not so much that the Board needs to resolve this. To complete the review, the Board will need to provide additional guidance about whether it accepts the recommendations. The Board will provide direction to the GNSO Council, which will direct the PDP. 4. AOB 4.1 Update on the Initial Report public comment review process - Public comments received on Intiial Report - public comment period closed on Wednesday. Close to 70 comments were received including from many of the SO/AC/SG/Cs, GDD, ICANN Board and a number of ccTLDs. - This is a large number of comments. There is a lot of work underway to organize and tabulate comments to support the WG's review of comments. -- Staff has created three Google Sheets that are similiar to the ones used for reviewing CC2. - There is one Google Doc per review SubTeam and one tab per topic area. Each preliminary recommendation, option, and question has a section within the sheet. - Where the specific preliminary recommendation, option, or question is referenced, this excerise is straightforward. Please check staff's categorization of the other comments. -- Goal is to have initial tabulation complete sometime next week, well in advance of ICANN63. Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

6 7

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 02 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 5, 2018

Oct. 5, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 02 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/new-gtld-sub-pro-02oct18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p58xlyba1f7/ 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/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

2 2

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 2 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 4, 2018

Oct. 4, 2018

Hi Rubens, I think Jeff clarified yesterday that the Review Recommendations are in fact recommendations to the Board – in the sense that the Board, as the final arbiter, as to deal with these in some manner. It seems that in the draft, we are taking the position that this PDP can certainly question, reexamine, and disagree with those Recommendations and that some of them relate to matters of contract between the Contracted Parties and ICANN org. You state that these matters are “inside the picket fence” and thus out of scope for the PDP. I would note two things: I. When there is disagreement between two bodies giving policy advice to the ICANN Board, the Board often seems to come back and request a “work-out”. I think that is why Jeff and Cheryl seemed to agree yesterday on the call that our guidance on treatment of the CCT-RT Review Recommendations has to come from the GNSO Council. As we know, these processes can be time-consuming. So I think we all need to think about how to “cut to the chase”. Unless these differences are addressed correctly from a procedural standpoint, there will be a bottleneck to launching the next round. I am not sure our Charter is crystal clear on this point. See reference to CCT-RT work from the final Charter pasted below: [cid:image003.png@01D45A47.10C52380] II. Regarding the “picket fence”, it strikes me there are a number of items being considered in the Sub Pro PDP that might require changes to the RA and RAA, including changes that are desired by the Contracted Parties. Should this PDP be doing an “audit” in this regard as to which policy changes might affect the Contracts? As I understand it, the rule for a GNSO PDP is that the RA and RAA may only be affected by Consensus Policy recommended by the GNSO and adopted by the Board. I do not understand the scope of the PDP to EXCLUDE entirely every topic that would result in a change to the standard RA or RAA. Excerpts from the Charter relative to contracts appear below: [cid:image004.png@01D45A47.10C52380] [cid:image002.png@01D45A47.7858CB50] Pasted below again for convenience are my preliminary questions on the draft “What still needs to be done” box of the Recommendations chart. Anne “Jeff and Cheryl, Regarding agenda item 3 – Initial Assessment of work required in response to the Final Consumer Confidence and Trust Review Team Report, I have the following preliminary questions: 1. Regarding Recommendation 9 of CCT-RT, the draft response for our WG refers that matter to the RPM “PDP”. However, my understanding is that the RPM Review is a required Review and not a Policy Development Process. Is that incorrect? Should the RPM Review results be incorporated into the work of the Sub Pro PDP or do they stand alone as separate policy recommendations to the GNSO? In other words, what is the status of the mandated “Reviews” in relation to future gTLD policy? 1. Regarding Recommendations 14 and 15 of the CCT-RT related to DNS Security Abuse and consideration of a possible DNS Abuse Dispute Resolution Policy, it appears the draft Responses says that such matters are outside the “remit” of the Subsequent Procedures Working Group and not within the purview of the community. It is stated that these are suggestions to be negotiated between ICANN and the Contracted Parties. Has this been discussed in the full WG? 1. Regarding Recommendations 14 and 16, the proposed Responses state that the Sub Pro PDP should look at the data that the CCT-RT has gathered rather than simply relying on the CCT-RT Recommendations. Is the idea here that Sub Pro may elect to ignore CCT-RT Recommendations and form its own conclusions regarding DNS abuse? 1. There appear to be several comments framing questions as to whether the Sub Pro PDP WG “agrees” with the CCT-RT recommendations. Is that an exercise that has to be performed with respect to each Recommendation of CCT-RT? If the Reviews represent separate policy recommendations to the GNSO, does GNSO have to resolve differences between the Reviews and the Sub Pro recommendations before making recommendations to the ICANN Board?” Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image006.png@01D45A47.914A4AD0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 8:49 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 2 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC 3. Regarding Recommendations 14 and 16, the proposed Responses state that the Sub Pro PDP should look at the data that the CCT-RT has gathered rather than simply relying on the CCT-RT Recommendations. Is the idea here that Sub Pro may elect to ignore CCT-RT Recommendations and form its own conclusions regarding DNS abuse? Rec. 14 has two angles, one that can't be looked in a PDP, one that can. The one that can't are financial incentives; this would be a direct violation of the picket fence. But as long as the non-financial incentives do not violate any contract clause, this could be a PDP; but since existing agreements are mentioned, this can only be some other PDP than SubPro. So my guess is that the response is looking into what could specifically apply to subsequent gTLDs, since the recommendation per se couldn't be dealt by SubPro PDP. 4. There appear to be several comments framing questions as to whether the Sub Pro PDP WG “agrees” with the CCT-RT recommendations. Is that an exercise that has to be performed with respect to each Recommendation of CCT-RT? If the Reviews represent separate policy recommendations to the GNSO, does GNSO have to resolve differences between the Reviews and the Sub Pro recommendations before making recommendations to the ICANN Board? The reviews represent advice applicable to all ICANN organisations, including Board and GNSO, but I don't see them as binding. I believe they have to be duly considered either by SubPro PDP, for those applicable to new procedures, or by some other PDP, if applicable to all gTLDs (like rec. 14 and 16) . Rubens ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

2 3

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 2 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC
by Steve Chan Oct. 3, 2018

Oct. 3, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 2 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Draft of the additional Supplemental Report sections. Initial assessment of work required for Final CCT-RT Report AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest staff draft, which seeks to incorporate input received during past WG meetings. For item 2.a, please find an initial staff draft of the other sections intended to be included with the supplemental report. Staff has attempted to ensure that all required elements of an Initial Report are included, but done so in a streamlined fashion. For context, the documentation the WG has been reviewing the last few meetings (i.e., 1.1-1.5) will slot into section two (2) of this template. For Item 3, please find attached an initial staff draft that seeks to assess the level to which the PDP WG has already addressed CCT-RT recommendations and where additional work may be needed. This analysis is similar to that done for SAC090. Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org) Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +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/

7 13