November 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Jamie Baxter June 4, 2019

June 4, 2019

3 2

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 26 November 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 27, 2018

Nov. 27, 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 Monday, 26 November 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uBm8BQ MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-26nov18-en.mp3 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5zvfywye3h/ 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

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 26 November 2018
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 26, 2018

Nov. 26, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 26 November 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/display/NGSPP/2018-11-26+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the attached referenced document. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items Actions: ACTION ITEM re: Jim Prendergast’s request to interview an auction provider. Status: the co-chairs are looking to connect with the provider and then shortly thereafter, intend to have the provider join a WG call in the future. ACTION ITEM: If ICANN Org has made recommendations on improvements in the Program Implementation Review Report (PIRR) connect them to the comments to the Initial Report -- if they aren't already in the ICANN Org comments. Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: -- Maxim Alzoba notes that he is not in the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) anymore. -- From the chat: Michael Casadevall: Actually I have a SOI update as well. I'm a member of NCUC/NCSG now. 2. Update on Sub Group/Work Track 5 Efforts: Comment Review Sub Groups: -- Sub Groups A, B, and C have met. -- Input will come back to the full WG for further discussion. -- If there is divergence or disagreement with the WG recommendations the Sub Groups will bring those back to the WG. -- For a number of Sub Group calls there has been light attendance, so encourage WG members who have joined the Sub Groups to participate. -- Altered the timing to accommodate the membership. Work Track 5: -- WT5 is still moving forward and will have an Initial Report out for public comment soon. -- Next meeting is Wednesday, 28 November, and the goal is to get the Initial Report out in November. 3. Topics for full WG Consideration (topics that have been identified in the Initial Report public comment review): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sl4V7OkGldX-RlGZZO108ln5sUG-H-VOhz3Od2g… --On the last call we went through some general comments that weren't targeted at a particular section of the report. Divided the items up in various sections. -- A few items were determined to be more appropriate to discussion as a full WG. See below: Metrics: -- Could the WG define success metrics? -- Are we trying to determine whether new gTLDs have been successful? Or that the process itself has been successful? -- The question we are going to grabble with: are we going to ask registries/registrars to provide additional data elements? -- Is this group charged with coming up with what those metrics are? -- Metrics are usually connected to something or driven by something. Could look at the goals of the program and the success factors -- look at metrics that can show if you are meeting the goals and success factors. -- One of the measures of success would be innovation and new and different uses of the TLD, rather than redirect. The CCT-RT WG did ask ICANN to commission a study on parking. -- There are varying suggestions for metrics to measure success. >From the chat room: Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION Would the number of registrations in each domain be considered an indicator of success? how do we sort out those which are merely defensive? QUESTION Gg Levine (NABP): Lack of abuse is a factor of success. Maxim Alzoba: it is one of the ideas Jim Prendergast: The Marketplace Health Index has been trying to tackle this topic for 2 years now. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-06-20-en For the Marketplace Health Index, ICANN has recently engaged Matthew Zook from ZookNIC to try and develop more data for the reports. http://www.zooknic.com/ Trang Nguyen: As an fyi to inform this discussion, ICANN commissioned a registrant/end-user survey for the CCT RT. http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/phase2-global-consumer-survey-23ju… Trang Nguyen: There is also the Pearson Linear Correlation Analysis of Parking and Renewal Rates: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56135378/ParkingRenewalCor… -- Michael Casadevall: Would it be useful to have a tool that can go through those zone files and see if there's data there or if we're getting 302 redirects or just CNAMEs? Basically, determining if we're just redirecting or if there's something actually there (either CNAME record, or 30x HTTP Data Gathering: Recommendation 17 from the CCT-RT Report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-final-08sep18-en.pdf -- Question: WG should consider whether this is in the scope of this PDP, or should be dealt with in a new PDP or another effort. Registrars to publish who the registrant deals with on a day-to-day basis? Some of these data are published already -- so what is the problem they (the CCT-RT) is trying to solve? If is to find out the registrar-reseller relationship that is not necessarily in scope. Recommendation 23 (also directed at ICANN org): ICANN should gather data on new gTLDs operating in highly regulated sectors... -- Question: Is this recommendation in scope of this PDP? Comment from ICANN Org: Ability for ICANN org to make suggested improvements during Implementation phase -- Anne Aikman-Scalese: This language should be clarified to state that ICANN org could "suggest to the IRT" -- ICANN Org have to have a clear understanding from the community/this WG that if necessary they have to act. -- If there is something that we are missing that should be brought up and dealt with now. -- ACTION ITEM: If ICANN Org has made recommendations on improvements in the Program Implementation Review Report (PIRR) connect them to the comments to the Initial Report -- if they aren't already in the ICANN Org comments. -- Seems like ICANN Org is asking for confirmation that they are able to propose a resolution or suggest something to the IRT. -- ICANN Org: At the time this comment was drafted the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG hadn't started discussion on some topics, so we didn't want to preclude potential suggested improvements during the policy implementation phase. ICANN Org would not do something without consultation with the IRT during the policy implementation phase. -- Important to remember that the staff will change over time so they need to be reminded of the discussions around the development of the policy recommendations. -- Perhaps the response to ICANN Org on things not talked about by the WG could be handled in a preamble of the Final Report. >From the chat: Steve Chan: Also, the public comments ICANN org made seek to identify gaps as well Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: A lot of issues arose in the 2012 round after the application window closed. That is one reason we need a standing IRT. ICANN.org should make its suggestions to the IRT. COMMENT Steve Chan: FYI, the ICANN org comments here were actually a single comment, but (policy) staff thought it helpful to parse out the separate themes for easier understanding. Suggestion to be more clear when recommendations seek to codify implementation of 2012 round of the New gTLD Program -- The PDP has to codify those aspects of the 2012 AGB that have been implemented if they are not changed by the PDP. -- Concern that there are aspects of the 2012 round that no longer correlate to the DNS. -- ICANN Org: Context to the comment -- the intention was that to the extent the PDP WG could be very clear about what part of the implementation from the last round should stay the same and what should change. -- When is the AGB for the next round being written and who will approve it? Answer from ICANN Org: That is part of the implementation work, so that would be during the policy and implementation phase, making sure it is coordinated with the IRT. -- Will it be published for public comment an how many rounds? Answer from ICANN Org: Yes there will be a public comment process and how many rounds will depend on the number/nature of changes. 4. Next Meeting: 18 December at 0300 UTC.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - Monday 26 November at 20:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Nov. 25, 2018

Nov. 25, 2018

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Working Group call, scheduled to take place on Monday 26 November at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Update on Sub Group Efforts 3. Topics for full WG Consideration (topics that have been identified in the Initial Report public comment review) 4. AOB Working Group members should have received a separate email with call details. If you did not receive call details, need a dial out, or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 1

to whom THANKSGIVING is relevant
by Vanda Scartezini Nov. 19, 2018

Nov. 19, 2018

Dear friends My best wishes for a joyful and peaceful celebration with all you love1 Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 October 2018
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 15, 2018

Nov. 15, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 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/display/NGSPP/2018-10-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the attached referenced documents. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items Actions: Supplemental Report: ACTION ITEM: WG members are requested to review the suggested text, particularly in Section 1.2, and send in any edits/comments by COB 08 October. ACTION ITEM: Make sure that the preamble is clear that we are soliciting feedback on not just the questions but also on the recommendations. ACTION ITEM: Section 1.5 -- incorporate changes from Jim Prendergast. ACTION ITEM: Release a preliminary draft Supplemental Report on 12 October for discussion in Barcelona; publish the final Supplemental Report the week of 29 October and close the public comment on 10 December. Notes: 1. Agenda review/SOIs: No updates. 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued: Section 1.1: Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort Changes: -- Added text on different types of auctions in Section d. Talks about the Vickey auction, and alternatives to an auction. Also added new text/clarifications in Section f. Discussion: -- Section on registrar support -- where Jim Prendergast's comments incorporated? Jim resent the email and mention the comments to that section in the discussion Section 1.2: Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auctions) Changes: -- Differentiate between private resolution and private auctions. -- Section d -- moved from Section c and added as options: First bullet point: Delineation of the concerns about private auction and enforcement could be circumvented with other methods of private resolution. Second bullet point taken from comments on the last call and from the list; third bullet point from a single WG member. -- Additions to Section f Deliberations to make it clear that we aren't just talking about private auctions. Discussion: -- Community applications have strict restrictions for application changes, which puts them at a disadvantage. If we go away from a private auctions we need to give them the same level playing field during the private resolution process. See where we can put this in -- Section 1.4? -- Problem is that basically any private resolution could de facto become a private auction. Needs to be transparency so that those who are interested know what is going on. -- Tried to integrate the private resolution option in Sections d and f -- if something is missing WG members should let us know where it should be added. -- Enforcement issue: private auction is just one way to do a private resolution. Complaints about private auctions are really complaints about private auctions. This needs to be clearer. -- Make sure that the draft reflects that certain types of private resolution don't involve a monetary element -- make sure we have everything in here without stating that it is one option or the other. Don't eliminate the options the WG is discussing. -- What would be fair ground rules for private resolution? -- A number of the comments on the Initial Report are on the notion of the parties' ability to resolve contention between themselves. Be careful that we aren't now implying that coming to a private resolution is somehow inappropriate -- we are talking about one company profiting over another. -- Concerned about negative speculators -- gTLD trolls. Those who are entering into a contention set with the intent to lose and get paid off. -- The other issue is that the winner is by definition is the highest bidder. -- Page 10: Looking for a public comment period in addition to an ICANN approval. Put in a question/reference. Section 1.3: Role of Application Comment Changes: -- Section c -- added comments on the last paragraph. Could ask a question that just says, what do you think of the recommendation? Public comment is to provide response to preliminary recommendations, so question does not have to be called out. Don't need a specific invitation to provide a comment.. Make sure that the preamble is clear that we are soliciting feedback on not just the questions but also on the recommendations. -- Section f Deliberations: Comments added and text amended. Section 1.4: Change Requests Changes: -- Second bullet in Section d -- added comment and amended the text. Section 1.5: Registrar Support for New gTLDs Changes -- From Jim Prendergast: -- Page 21: It wasn't a single group. -- Page 23: Added a bullet/additional question. Update on feedback on private auction providers: >From the Leadership: -- Only her back from one provider and they said they couldn't provide data due to confidentiality. -- Question: should we delay the publication of the Supplemental Report until after ICANN63? Also, should we incorporate feedback from the Initial Report. -- Co-Chairs noted that if we extended the Initial Report public comment period it would be more difficult if not impossible to incorporate feedback into the Supplemental Report. If we delay it could throw off the schedule by several months. Leadership team also discussed that the purpose of the Public Comment period is to get feedback. Also can have the private auction providers to meet with the WG to discuss their feedback. Because we don't know if we will get more data not sure we can justify delaying. Discussion: -- The feedback we did get from the previous report: we got comments specifically on private auctions and think we should address them. Also take advantage of time with the Board in Barcelona. Important for the process even if it takes another few weeks. Also, taking advantage of face-to-face meetings in Barcelona. -- The issues on auctions are not as high on the ALAC's list as others; feeling is that this is a long process that we are in and we have a long way to go. If we delay by a few weeks it may delay the process by a few months, but we'll end up with a better process. -- Council Liaison: Appreciate that people want the best product possible. On auctions we had discussions in Panama and since then. If we can meet the deadline on 12 October that is a good thing to do. Be very respectful that these PDPs cannot go on forever. Need to try to keep to the timeline. -- Do think that we need to be mindful that when this goes to the Council for review that the proper processes were followed. -- The biggest issue here is that there are no actual preliminary recommendations and the WG needs to arrive at some. Otherwise public comment will be very scattered. -- What about carving out auctions from this report and do another supplemental just on auctions. -- Release a preliminary draft for discussion at ICANN63 and then release the final on 29th of October with the understanding that any extension would be a most for a week so that comments are back in December and not into January. Without an extension it would close on 10 December. ACTION ITEM: WG members are requested to review the suggested text, particularly in Section 1.2, and send in any edits/comments by COB 08 October. ACTION ITEM: Make sure that the preamble is clear that we are soliciting feedback on not just the questions but also on the recommendations. ACTION ITEM: Section 1.5 -- incorporate changes from Jim Prendergast. ACTION ITEM: Release a preliminary draft Supplemental Report on 12 October for discussion in Barcelona; publish the final Supplemental Report on 29 October and close the public comment on 10 December. 3. Planning for ICANN63: -- Sessions on Saturday 20 October for WT1-4 and WT5 will be in the morning and afternoon will be WT1-4. Third session is breakout rooms for discussion of Initial Report comments. 4. AOB >From the chat: Jim Prendergast: just resent langauge for Registar Support. had wrong address Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Thx Jim just saw it flash past on my screen so rec'd but not read Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Noted Jamie... edmon 2: do.we anticipate change of applied for string as a way for conflict resolution? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Apologies for joining late. Listened to the first few minutes of the data protection/privacy webinar and decided to move here. Liz Williams: @Jamie B...and when you come up with language make sure you include an end-point for any negotiations with a "drop dead" external timeline. See other comments I've made elsewhere about flattening the application evaluation process to ensure that different types of applicants are not disadvantaged. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Jamie re lack of consideration of special aspects of Community applications - where, for example, several applications for same string qualify for CPE, what happens? Jon Nevett: I'd love to hear an argument of why private auctions are not ok, but paying other applicants to withdraw are ok. To me, the have to be treated the same, as aprivate auctions are just one mechanism for a buyer to pay other applicants to withdraw Jon Nevett: the draft seems still stuck on focusing on private auctions Vanda Scartezini: Jon, guess the general objection is financial. for the auction they pay a fee to ICANN. Liz Williams: @ Jon .... the question is not why private auctions aren't OK...the question is the reverse. What array of options do applicants have to resolve contention? All options should be on the table. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): As I noted in my written comments, I agree with Jon's views w/r/t private auctions & private resolution and would also like to hear the answer to the question he's posed here. Michael Casadevall: @Jon: I feel like we need a mechanism where any devitation from the process (aka any private resolution) if we still allow it need approval from ICANN and/or community Jim Prendergast: To Jeffs point - lots of talk of it in Panama breakouts Anne Aikman-Scalese: I agree with Jim and others that the document should not go out until the options presented by the WG have been stated in the Supplemental Report. The views of the WG are the views on which we are seeking public comment. It's not that the WG members should be submitting public comment. Carlton Samuels: @Edmon: Interesting question. I know of a case in the last round where that action was taken as a means to resolve a conflict but it was never accepted Liz Williams: @jeff...thanks for that and I appreciate the point you've made. This is not about public interest. It is about applicant interest...and we need to do more work about understanding the motivations to resolve contention. Carlton Samuels: Question on private resolution: Would an action to resolve that did not include a priori transfer of money be acceptable? Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: I would favor an open public discussion of private string resolution at the ICANN meeting - dedicated 30 minute session for that alone. Liz Williams: Maybe the way to resolve discussion around private auctions and/or last resort ICANN auctions is to really think about auction proceeds... Michael Casadevall: Anne: +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese: Sarah's option is not there, is it? Jon Nevett: it's not an enforcement issue Jeff Michael Casadevall: just a heads up, I'm really feeling kinda ill. I may drop off the call but I'll see if I can solder on. Jeff Neuman: Sarah's option is in 1.1 on Auctions in general Greg Shatan: Favoring a last resort auction where ICANN gets the money would be seen as more troublesome by many. Jeff Neuman: As it is not just related to Private auctions, but the use of all auctions in general Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Indeed Steve Jon Nevett: "○ Implementation Guidance under discussion: The Applicant Guidebook and program Terms & Conditions should be amended to state that resolution of string contention via private auction is disallowed." Jon Nevett: draft still needs work Anne Aikman-Scalese: Sarah said her proposed language is coming in today or tomorrow I think. sarah l: the icann board, in its comments to the initial report, public auctions might not be reconcilable with ICANNs commitments and core values, we might need to ask ICANN if private resolutions may cause the same concerns Jeff Neuman: @Jon - That is an option that is under discussion Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Yes it makes sense to also add as an option (thanks Sarah in advance of your specific text :-) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): how to distinguish a private resolution from the situation where one of the parties desided to quit under load of new info? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *decided Carlton Samuels: So the entire discussion on 'private resolution' is predicated on knowledge of the transaction before the fact? Are we sure the community would have sight of this to make any enforcement worthwhile? Steve Chan: @Jon, see starting at the 3rd bullet under section (e) Steve Chan: We attempted to note that private auction was only one method of private resolution. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Yes that was requested last meeting Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Jon that would be appreciated (sooner the better ;-) Donna Austin, Neustar & Council Liaison: The concern is not the mechanism, the concern is applicants profiting from private auctions and applying specifically for that purpose. Jon Nevett: no one suggesting that we eliminate options Jeff Neuman: Thanks JOn edmon 2: towards competition, choice and consumer trust? should still be what guide us?... Carlton Samuels: @Donna: I understand that. My question is if private resolutions are to be embraced, what is the baseline for clarity and fairness without a priori knowledge? And assuming a priori knowledge, can they be classed as "private" thereafter? Jon Nevett: Donna +1 and addressing the concern that profiting would result in speculative applications Jeff Neuman: Susan, you are coming in and oyut Kristine Dorrain: +1 Jon Kristine Dorrain: I think we also need to remember that sometimes the cure is worse than the poison. In looking for a way to stop a few speculators, are we just tying our hands for legitmate purposes? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): All good at this time Jeff Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): alleged speculators Liz Williams: I have trouble with the "speculator" thing...how is it speculation if one goes into a process not knowing who would bid for what? It might be "specualation" if one only waited to resolve contention without, in good faith, trying other methods. One always wishes for a contention set of 0. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): So people what is your suggestion(s) for better text in this report to reflect these matters and seek effective public comments We can make these changes with agreed proposed text (or guidleines to text) Jeff Neuman: Thanks Cheryl....that is the key question Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: First Paragraph on Page 10, an application that is changed should be subject to not only ICANN approval, but also to a public comment period. sarah l: folks just checking the draft says a contended applicant can’t jump out of one contention set into another it the applicant is allowed to change the string. we talked about it at the last meeting

3 3

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 12 November 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 12, 2018

Nov. 12, 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 Monday, 12 November 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/UwDVBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-sub-pro-pdp-wg-12nov18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p10v65bbuk8/ 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

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 November 2018
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 12, 2018

Nov. 12, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 12 November 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/display/NGSPP/2018-11-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Track the out-of-scope items and see if there is support for future work on them. ACTION ITEM: Add the items referred to the full WG to the agenda for future WG calls and provide the materials prior to the calls. Notes: 1. Agenda review/SOIs: -- Donna Austin is no longer one of the GNSO Council liaisons as she is no longer on the Council. -- GNSO Council has appointed Elsa Saade as a liaison to replace Donna. -- Liaison is to help the WG understand what is going on at the Council and for the Council to understand what is going on in the WG. -- Keith Drazek is the other liaison, but as he is now the GNSO Council Chair we will confirm if he wants to continue in that role. He is serving on an interim basis. 2. Recap from ICANN63/WG Updates: Work Tracks 1-4: 3 sessions: 1) finalize Supplemental Report; went out on 31 October and comments are due 12 December. Sent reminders to the SO/AC Chairs as well as the Board. 2) Discussion on the implementation aspects of the new gTLD program, and what we can do to keep progress moving. Brainstorming session -- no deliverables. Good to raise the topics to be on the GNSO Council agenda. 3) Breakout sessions with 3 Sub Groups to review the comments on the Initial Report: Sub Group A: Co-Leads Robin Gross and Jeff Neuman Sub Group B: Co-Leads Christa Taylor and Rubens Kuhl Sub Group C: Co-Leads Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Michael Flemming -- Not a formal Sub Group session, opportunity for the Groups to decide how to operate. -- Adobe Connect Recordings are available. Work Track 5: -- Held several sessions. -- Sending an Initial Report out around 20 November. 3. Update on Sub Group Efforts: -- Sub Groups A and C met last week. -- All three Sub Groups are meeting this week. See the schedule at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QLmUjQZB7x2ez74td4m5GC1q1pHeO5ke2eP… -- The schedule for December is still being finalized. -- The role of the Sub Groups is to look at the comments on the Initial Report, organize them in ways that will be instructive to the full WG. Not providing substantive thoughts about the comments, but an analysis of how we categorize the comments (level of agreement with the Initial Report) and whether there are clarifing quesitons. -- On overarching comments that didn't fit in a section, the Sub Groups discussed moving them into a Sub Group/section or to be discussed as full WG items. All comments will be taken into account, regardless of the format they followed. 4. Topics for full WG consideration (several topics have been identified in the CCT-RT report and the Initial Report public comment review): -- Sub Groups may have comments that don't fit into the Sub Group sections; so the sub Group may decide to suggest that they be taken up by the full WG. These topics/comments will then be sent to the full WG for consideration in advance of their discussion on a WG call.See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15zDdzlBwLCz5m2sNXui6N6pporbUq-lDFEw… Second tab: "General" Comment 3: Belief that metrics needed to assess New gTLD Program (ALAC) -- Sub Group A suggested that this is a topic for the full WG to address; also is discussed in the CCT Review. Comment 9: Comments from ICANN Org -- Sub Group A suggests to refer to the full WG. "Although the Initial Report is quite substantial, ICANN org recognizes that due to the large number of program processes, procedures, and issues, it may not be possible for the PDP Working Group to cover all topics in its discussions. ICANN org assumes that if the PDP Working Group does not discuss a topic that it would not preclude ICANN org from suggesting implementation improvements during the policy implementation phase. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could confirm this assumption." -- Caution because it gives a lot of latitude to implementation work that could be policy work. -- May need to require ICANN Org to come back to the GNSO Council or to this WG or the IRT. -- Check where we would be fine with ICANN Org deciding on implementation and where we would expect that they would be referred to the IRT. -- Anything ICANN Org would suggest would be subject to approval by the IRT. -- Balance needs to be struck. -- The comment also says that they want the WG to confirm in the final report that the output of the PDP WG would only apply to subsequent gTLDs (rather than existing or legacy TLDs). Charter has the WG only looking to subsequent TLDs, but the charter does make reference to certain strings that were not allowed in the previous round. Unless the charter asks the WG to consider to legacy/existing TLDs, the WG should confirm that the WG recommendations only apply to subsequent gTLDs. -- For those strings that couldn't proceed in the last round and were withdrawn that doesn't prohibit someone from reapplying if the rules are changed? -- There are strings where people withdrew or not allowed to proceed. There are some strings that have been applied for where there are ongoing evaluations on which our WG made a recommendation on not allowing applications. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENTS - ICANN org should refer such questions to the Implementaion Review Team COMMENT Jamie Baxter | dotgay: +1 .. I'm with Jim Anne Aikman-Scalese: +1 with Jim and Jamie - refer questions to IRT - new standing IRT was recommended Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: It is well-estabablished historically that one person's implementation is another person's policy. GDD staff should not be making that determination. Refer any questions not discussed by the PDP WG to the Standing IRT. Jim Prendergast: This is a perfect example of why we need to see these before the call starts - lots of different angles to think through here. Steve Chan: It seems that the comment from ICANN Org is referencing the IRT phase. Maxim Alzoba: QUESTION: are we on the assumption that the next round RA is the same as 2012 ? (if yes, then RA can be changed only via the methods described in the current RA) Jim Prendergast: At Maxim - was an example - Im sure there are others Iike PICs where came out of now where Maxim Alzoba: @Jim, Temp Specs too ... Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: It is ESPECIALLY important to refer to IRT if a topic is not discussed by the PDP WG. So what Steve is saying should be codified. Ceratainly not clear from the GDD comment. that this is subject to IRT review. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: I was advised in Work Track 4 that our charter does not permit us to make policy applicable to the 2012 round unless specifically stated in our Charter So if we did do that, the Charter would need to be revised. COMMENT Comment 16: Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism -- Sub Group A suggested to refer to the RPM PDP WG. Comment 24: From the SSAC re: dependencies -- Sub Group A suggested to refer this to the full WG. We can comment on whether we agree or disagree that this is a dependency. -- We don't currently have an SSAC liaison to this WG, although Jim Galvin is a member of this WG and could bring questions back to the SSAC. Comment 30: Christopher Wilkinson -- Concerns re: jurisdiction of the incorporation of a registry and tax haven: Sub Group A suggests that this is out of scope for the full WG. -- If Sub Group A determines that it is out of scope, it must be assigned some place else -- ICANN Org should say where it is in scope. -- Don't see how a policy could be made -- where an entity establishes their business is up to them. -- How does the WG address comments that are out of scope? Could note that an issue has been raised but noted as out of scope -- to the GNSO Council or somewhere. -- If one person raises an issue that does not mean the WG has to react to it, but if more than one person raises an issue it should be noted. ACTION ITEM: Track the out of scope items and see if there is support for future work on them. Comment 31: CCT-RT Recommendation 17 -- Collect data and publicize the chain of parties responsible for gTLD domain name registration: Sub Group A suggests to defer to full WG. -- Need the context to understand the comment. 5. AOB: Call scheduled for 19 November has been rescheduled to 26 November. Call in December will be 18 December.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New GNSO Council Liaisons to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
by Vanda Scartezini Nov. 9, 2018

Nov. 9, 2018

Thanks to DONNA for her really great participation and welcome Elsa!! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, November 9, 2018 at 17:09 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New GNSO Council Liaisons to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Dear WG Members, As many of you are probably aware, Donna Austin and Keith Drazek serve as co-liaisons to this PDP WG, but after the recent Annual General Meeting, the GNSO Council membership has changed; Donna was term limited and is no longer on Council and Keith is now GNSO Chair. At ICANN63, Elsa Saade, a new Councilor from the NCSG, volunteered to replace Donna. Keith, who will understandably be busy as Council Chair, is serving in an interim basis as co-liaison until a replacement is found (assuming the Council intends to continue with co-liaisons to this PDP WG). Please welcome Elsa in her new role and thank Donna for her service to this PDP! 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<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>. 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

New GNSO Council Liaisons to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
by Steve Chan Nov. 9, 2018

Nov. 9, 2018

Dear WG Members, As many of you are probably aware, Donna Austin and Keith Drazek serve as co-liaisons to this PDP WG, but after the recent Annual General Meeting, the GNSO Council membership has changed; Donna was term limited and is no longer on Council and Keith is now GNSO Chair. At ICANN63, Elsa Saade, a new Councilor from the NCSG, volunteered to replace Donna. Keith, who will understandably be busy as Council Chair, is serving in an interim basis as co-liaison until a replacement is found (assuming the Council intends to continue with co-liaisons to this PDP WG). Please welcome Elsa in her new role and thank Donna for her service to this PDP! 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/

1 0