February 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

ICANN61: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Nathalie Peregrine 27 Feb '18

27 Feb '18

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings’ team has put together a new ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN61 Meeting Schedule[61.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__61.schedule.icann.org_…> GNSO Remote Participation wiki page[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Step 1 – Create a profile and your personalized ICANN61 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. 1. Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. 2. Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. * For Outlook calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/81449-moving-your-schedu…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> * For Google calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/1313-moving-your-schedul…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__61.schedule.icann.org_…> and on the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>) will provide audio streaming only Adobe Connect room microphones will not be enabled. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN61” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Julie Bisland will be onsite in San Juan to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://FB60497E-61D8-4FE9-BF9C-EB238191E416/gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 27 February 2018 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 27 Feb '18

27 Feb '18

Dear All, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached to this email. The AC Recording and MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/IwWfB> https://community.icann.org/x/IwWfB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-27feb18-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p6w4od6ksvl/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1606aaffffef62ce 66f816ddb69d4c60c61173e4ac6e610e3fb9c1fa3d197b3a> https://participate.icann.org/p6w4od6ksvl/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> 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/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: <https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw> https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 27 February 2018
by Emily Barabas 27 Feb '18

27 Feb '18

Dear Working Group members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Meeting recordings, transcripts and chat transcripts are available at https://community.icann.org/x/IwWfB . Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Item 1: Develop poll to distribute to the WG based on questions displayed on slide 9 and on to 10. Action Item 2: Revisit discussions with GDD about items that could help to speed up implementation. Notes: 2) Work Track updates WT1 -- Next call at Thurs 6 Mar at 15:00 UTC. WIll try to fill in remaining holes in topics/WT1 working document. WT2 -- Next call is Thurs at 15:00 UTC. Will discuss contractual compliance and TLD rollout. Will also discuss what will be covered at ICANN61. WT3 -- Next call is Tuesday at 20:00 UTC, will discuss string similiarity and string confusion objections. WIll also discuss what will be covered at ICANN61. WT4 -- Next call is Thurs 1 Mar at 20:00 UTC. WT5 -- Welcome to Javier Rua-Jovet, the new co-lead from the ALAC. -- On the last call, discussed definition/scope of what geographic names may apply in future new gTLDs. 3) Continuation of discussion on TLD types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…>) -- Reviewing slide 6 -- Reviewing slide 7 -- Reviewing slide 8 -- Reviewing slide 9 -- Some support expressed for the idea that that no substantive change is needed. -- .Brand does still need to be codified, since it was not originally captured in 2012. Chat excerpt: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think we should seek public comment on these various categories. COMMENT Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Cheryl, I think we need to at least to conduct a poll and not to base on the "temperature of the room" in this meeting -- Support expressed by one member for geographic indicators needing specific treatment. Chat excerpt: Donna Austin, Neustar: @Christoper, in my mind they already exist as a category and to that extent would be supported as status quo. Heather Forrest: I understood after Jeff Neuman's response to my question at the start of the last WT5 call that in discussing the 'definition' of geo name the group is questioning whether a particular category of name should be analysed by the group, NOT whether a particular category merits different treatment -- Specification 13 may not be suficient to capture needs of .Brands. Should capture and include holistically in the process, if possible. -- We will definitely have categories in the future, so let’s agree that they will exist. - The categories so far concentrate more on the entity rather than the string. Why would an IGO applying be different than any other organization applying for the same string (assuming an unprotected IGO string)? Chat excerpt: Greg Shatan: Doesn’t it really need to be “entity + type”? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I'd take Donna's point and go farther - we're listing types based on the string, the applicant and the way in which the string is used (which gets us very close to the content line, IMHO). Javier Rua-Jovet: Good points. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and non-for-profit is a form of legal body, so many Registries have this despite being GEO, generic or community Justine Chew: Should be purpose of use of string, taking Donna's point Phil Buckingham: Alan , we should have only two . Ones that will sell second level domains and ones that wont - ie only "selling internally within their organisation / brand .. then we categorizes from there. We need a tree diagram to distinguish the diffferent exceptions to the base .model . Greg Shatan: On the IGO front, there is all the time spent on IGO pre-emotive and curative rights, which may require some treatment for the protected strings. Philip Corwin: IGOs generally have their own .int domains. Highly unlikely to be new gTLD applicants, both for that reason as well as aplication could be viewed as commercial endeavor. Greg Shatan: There are relatively few .ints compared to the number of IGOs, and I doubt that merely having a TLD would be viewed as a commercial endeavor. -- If certain entities get different treatment, perhaps those need to be defined. - Should we also look at purpose? Other entities may want to use their TLD for internal purposes (e.g., infrastructure). Maybe rather than creating categories, maybe the process for exemptions should be the goal. Chat excerpt: Edmon: generally agree with donna but building on what alan said, i feel it is more appropriate to really say that really its a combination of 3 things 1. the string, 2 the entity and 3 how thy are proposing to run it Edmon: and perhaps we need to ask, when we create (or not create categories) whether it adds to the fundamental goals: competition/choice/consumer trust Greg Shatan: Agree with Edmon, it is really a “Trinity.” Alexander Schubert: we need to understand what we USE categories for? evaluation prioritization? prioritization of awarding the string (e.g. community)? RA? appllication requirements? application cost? -- Reviewing slide 10 - Applicant had to provide information about how the TLD was going to be used (question 18) and it was only relevant to community applications. Perhaps question 18 could be the basis for contractual requirements? -- Does not properly take into account innovation and timeliess of application process. -- Challenges about not allowing applicants to change post-launch. -- Could changes be handled via RSEP process? -- RSEP is currently used for technical stability reviews. -- Contractual changes still go through public comment and ICANN Board review. Chat excerpt: Alan Greenberg: I wasn't arguing about the concept, just that RSEP as defined could not be the right vehicle. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kristina, I agree that it could stifle innovation, but I guess the point I was trying to make is that if we decide on additional categories then the applicant shoudl be held to something that they used in their application to make their claim. Alexander Schubert: problematic example: somebody goes for .frankfurt but claims it is not for a city (hence needs no letter of non onjection). they afterwards "change" their application model. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Alexander, most probably mayors office of Frankfurt (one of them) will pull a letter from them Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Given the duration of complex RSEPs, I have significant concerns about the business impact of pushing buiness model changes to an RSEP (in addition to the not-so-minor concern that we're then allowing ICANN to decide business models). Action Item: Develop poll based on questions on slide 9 and on to 10 -- Reviewing slide 12 -- Reviewing slide 13 -- Reviewing slide 14 -- Reviewing slide 15 -- Community-based applications need to be public from the outset, which makes them a target. It's difficult to apply as a community without awareness. This makes them a target for objections and gaming. Chat excerpt: Greg Shatan: Some of those double-dip “communities” were dubious at best. Robin Gross: I was just thinking that, Greg. -- Reviewing slide 16 Chat excerpt: Jamie Baxter | dotgay: Yes. If we change nothing then community applications will continue to be targets of gaming Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: I think public good is relevant to closed generics, but is not a relevant judgment in relation to community applications. I also don't think we can avoid high scrutiny/visibility on community applications. COMMENT -- .brands were not in policy in the last round but existed in implementation. For things to remain the same from the 2012 round, we would need to make changes to the policy. Chat excerpt: avri doria: i thought it was policy + agb + the rest of the rules that were added later in process were taken as the status quo? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Avri, i would support that explanation of the status quo. Justine Chew: I am thinking the same as what Edmon and Avri posted also Alexander Schubert: maxim: if you claimed that your TLD would not be used (marketed) for the city purpose - you only needed a letter of non objection for capital cities! .frankfurt for a brand doesn't need a letter! Michael Flemming: So, the question is more along the lines of do we bring policy up to speed with implementation or make further changes? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Avri. Let's acknowledge that when the Board acts, that is actually current policy even if not made by GNSO. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): some of those decisions in 2012 round were not fact based or were not properly developed via the multistakeholder process avri doria: this is what i reacall was said way back at the beginning. Stauts quo is what exists. -- The status quo would need to be enshrined in policy in the new round as there were a number of provisions developed that are not reflected in the 2007 policy. -- What we are considering the status quo is the AGB plus whatever happened afterwards. Some of this is implementation, some was "ad-hoc" policy. -- In the future, it may not be clear what was policy and what was implementation if it is all approved as a single package. -- Another perspective - anything we put into our final report is policy, unless we affirmatively state that it is not. Chat excerpt: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): implementation is actions of ICANN Staff and their actions does not constitute policy Edmon: @avri agree, but we should still explicitly point to those i think in this iteration of policy recommendation (i.e. if there are any policy changes from the previous recommendation even if we agree with the changes) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): There are GNSO policy recommendations. These don't actually become policy until adoptd by the Board. Alan Greenberg: If everything is policy, to change ANY of the details, no matter how much it looks like implementation, it will take a GNSO PDP (or equiv) to change. Greg Shatan: But of course — rejected policy recommendations are not policy. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): formally in ICANN legal framework there is no such thing as status quo Justine Chew: what we should be concerned about is after we as a group conclude a policy of which elements are 'not adopted' by the Board then it's not policy Kurt Pritz 2: I think the bright line is, if the GNSO & Board voted on it, it is policy: i.e., the GNSO Policy reccommendations + the RPMs Alan Greenberg: We spent a LOT of time a few years ago trying to differentiate policy from implementation. Greg Shatan: Alan, what output of a PDP is not policy (when approved by the Board)? avri doria: isn’t that what the new implementation groups deal with. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): for example current RSEP process, where current implementation contradicts the policy itself Greg Shatan: That was usually in the opposite direction, where certain changes outside a PDP were either advanced as “implementation” or challenged as “policy.” Alan Greenberg: If you go back to the report that created the URS and TM Clearinghouse, it said in large bold type that this as implementation and not policy. Greg Shatan: The P&I Group created some ways of resolving that. Greg Shatan: @Alan I don’t disagree with that. -- Suggestion – put the matrix of pros and cons for having categories out for public comment. 4) Initial Report timeline/next steps -- Review of slide 24 -- Target date for Initial Report - April 2018 -- Work Tracks will reinitiate after public comment period for the Initial Report -- No formal consensus calls will be taken prior to the publication of the Initial Report Chat excerpt: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Cheryl - issues must be highlighted in Initial Report for public comment. The issues I raised in Work Track 4 should form part of the Work Track 4 Initial report. I had understood these would be discussed further. Please add these issues to the call agenda for Work Track 4 March 1 call. Thank you, Anne -- Review of slide 25 - steps that will take place after this group delivers its Final Report and possible timeline. Chat excerpt: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: When do we, as a group, see the Initial Report drafts and how much time will we have to consult our constituencies before the Intiial Report is adopted and published? QUESTION -- After the next leadership team meeting, the leaders will get back to the group on this question. --Was there a communication with Akram last year that there might be ways to speed up the implementation? If this discussion happened through the PDP WG, perhaps we can revisit this. -- This may have been a discussion initiated through the Contracted Parties House. Chat excerpt: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: We must be given enough time to review draft Initial Report with our constituencies. COMMENT Donna Austin, Neustar: @Karen--not sure I understand. Karen Day: Akram has said that FY19 budgeet contains no $ to start implementation work Donna Austin, Neustar: @Karen, I'm talking about something different and it seems it may have been a communication coming out of the GDD Summit. Karen Day: @donna, yes, I remember that was a conversation in Madrid, I was just meaning that if there is no $ they won't do anything no matter where we are 5) ICANN61 planning -- Review of slide 27 and 28 - sessions at ICANN61 6) AOB - The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call will be held on Monday, 05 March 2018 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 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

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 27 February 2018 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes
by Emily Barabas 26 Feb '18

26 Feb '18

Dear Working Group members, Please find below the proposed agenda for our call on Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Note that in some time zones, this call will be taking place tonight (Monday). 1) Welcome/SOI updates/agenda review 2) Work Track updates 3) Continuation of discussion on TLD types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…) 4) Initial Report timeline/next steps 5) ICANN61 planning 6) AOB 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

ALAC Co-Leader of WT5
by Alan Greenberg 18 Feb '18

18 Feb '18

In light of the resignation of Christopher Wilkinson, Javier Rúa-Jovet, an ALAC Member representing North America from Puerto Rico, has now been named as WT5 Co-Leader. Alan Greenberg Chair, ALAC

1 0

Subsequent Procedures Draft Reports for each Work Track.
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne 13 Feb '18

13 Feb '18

Jeff, In today’s Work Track 3 phone conference, you mentioned that all the Work Track leaders will be sending out links to draft reports soon. These will apparently be Google Doc links and participants in the respective work tracks should suggest edits in these draft reports. Could you and Cheryl please provide a bit more detail about the timing and format of the draft reports from the Sub Pro Work Tracks that you mentioned on this morning’s Work Track 3 call? Thanks for alerting participants regarding these important drafts. (Of course I understand this would not necessarily be the case in relation to Work Track 5.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3A4E8.2267C3F0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> ________________________________ 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 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 12 February 2018 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 12 Feb '18

12 Feb '18

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the AC Recording, MP3 recording, and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 12 February 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uZlEB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-12feb18-en.mp3[emails… AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4rx2p97wjj/ 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 Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 12 February 2018
by Julie Hedlund 12 Feb '18

12 Feb '18

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 12 February 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 link to the Applications Submission Periods: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7…. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes Action Item: Application Submission Period: WG members should contribute suggestions for potential criteria to put into our initial report that we could use to say we are ready to go on to the next round and to answer who will make that determination. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7…. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: No updates 2. Work Track Updates: Work Track 3: -- Next meeting 13 February at 1500 UTC. Discussing Applicant Freedom of Expression, Accountability, String similarity. Work Track 4: -- Met on 12 February at 1500 UTC. Topic was Financial Evaluation. Converging on a possible model. Next call is 01 March at 2000 UTC. Work Track 1: -- Next call is 20 February on 2000 UTC. -- Still working on topics. Expect that it will be RSP Program and another topic. Work Track 2: Next call is 22 February at 1500 UTC. Work Track 5: -- Next call is 21 February at 2000 UTC. Continuing from the last call on the different geographic terms in the AGB; looking at each individually to assess the positive and negative attributes. 3. Overarching Issue: Applications Submission Periods See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7… General Discussion: -- Some have said it should be first come, first served, and some have suggested rounds. We don't have consensus. The next application window is likely to be a round format. -- If we can come to a decision that we will always do rounds that would be fine, but don't think we have to put in our recommendations the definitive ongoing process. -- Both models work but we need to figure out what is best before moving forward. Someone applies for .jeff, but the application window would still be open and then others could apply and then go to a contention set. Open application process. -- Agree that we need to consider the open model as opposed to the "black box plus reveal" model from the first round. Open process might create more contention sets but avoid some who might not have applied. -- If we do have something without rounds we have to think about how all the objections, permissions, and rights protections would work. Current procedures assume a pool that is being reviewed. -- The idea of an open model where others could apply could address some concerns, but raises significant concerns about the process being used to blackmail someone into paying them off. -- Issues with window open to everyone simultaneously (as in 2012); too many applications all at once. Consider mini-rounds, which are pre-defined by grouping the criteria and objectives of certain numbers of well-identified groups of TLS, such as brands, geographicals, etc. Evaluation process would be quite different for such groups. -- Anyone disagree with the notion that the next opportunity for applications can be submitted that it should be a round? >From the chat: avri doria: Alan, I thought there was a desire to prevent a future stall point, wouldn't another process risk becoming a future stall point? Alan Greenberg: Sorry, didn't mean to steal your thunder. I did wantto establish that MAYBE, we do not need full clarity for the long term in our recommendations. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): if an application blocks other applications with the same string - then it will lead to private auction where the first auctions off the seat Alan Greenberg: @Avri, yes, perhaps, but we are living in a different world that we were in in 2007 when this process was first (at a policy level) started. We are seeing relatively stagnant domain sales, and that has to ultimately enter into our consideration. Phil Buckingham: i think it is very important that ICANN does some kind of outreach to try establish the level of demand / interest for a R2 .- say in 2020 , - particalarly amongst global .brands Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Rubens, are you advocating for one model over another because of the secrecy consideration or were you just flagging the secrecy consideration as a factor to be taken into account? Alan Greenberg: Id it is known that .jeff is applied for and others could do so as well, that could get REALLY ugly - someone with deep pocketes sees an opportunity that no one had thought of and out-bids them. Rubens Kuhl: Kristina, I don't have a preference in either model, so far. I think we need to establish which one we move forward and tune the process to that definition. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Rubens: Thanks for clarifying. Christopher Niemi: @Phil +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: I don't think it's possible to deal effectively with contention sets unless there is a "window" of some sort. We can't have a situation where the applicant who hits the submission button 2 minutes before the next applicant for the same string gets the string. It will cause bedlam. COMMENT Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what benefit brings to the community identification of the fastest applicants? Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: As Greg said, it would be more difficult with permissions like support/non-objection and objections through first come, first serve applications Rubens Kuhl: FCFS only works in absence of pent-up demand, so it wouldn't be a question of minutes between applications. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): We are also going to have to deal with the high likelihood that the GAC will recommend a priority round for Community applications. (Let's not stick our heads in the ground on this.) Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: Anne +1 Phil Buckingham: + CW I would envisage a round for .brands ( a closed model ) which could be run in parallel with (say) a round for geos ( an open model) . Their application / evaluation criteria / points scoring would be totally different Rubens Kuhl: A community-only round will be rather unfortunate, since it will likely foster gaming that would hurt the image of community-based TLDs, which can exist for very good reasons, but would be used to get that TLDs. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Next oportunity as a "round" Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): let us know if you object to that assumption Christopher Wilkinson: Shpould be Rounds Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): +1 Rubens, in this round only reach/well supported communities communities won Rubens Kuhl: BTW, 2004 was a community-only round, we called it sponsored TLDs at the time. Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: Should be rounds Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): No of "A Round" not yet detailed in specs Rubens Kuhl: There should be a *a* round, moving to FCFS in the long run. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): FCFS does not work when there is pent-up demand. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): That would be a "next step" discussion of course Rubens Requirements Considered (page 2 of the Google doc): -- Agreed that the 2008 GNSO recommendation should remain in place -- that there should be an ongoing mechanism for the introduction of additional new gTLDs. -- Must be clarity and predictability about how and when applications can be applied for in the future. -- There must not be indefinite gaps between the processing of applications to the acceptance of additional new gTLD applications. -- The choice of application submission methodology must address the potential impact on other areas of the program (e.g., objections, string contention, etc. -- The application submission mechanism(s) should not negatively impact the stability, security, resilience and quality of the new gTLD program. -- The application submission mechanism(s) should not negatively impact operational effectiveness and the fiscal feasibility of ICANN or the new gTLD program. Discussion: -- Concern that an excessive rapidity of releasing new gTLD strings could be a security and stability issue. The PDP WG has received responses from ICANN Org, RSSAC, and SSAC on the issue of the rate of delegation into the root. ACTION: Second to last bullet -- rewrite it to include ICANN (as in the last bullet). Not sure why ICANN was left out of the bullet. Change to "Of ICANN or the new gTLD program." -- Not sure why bullet 1 is limited to the clarity and predictability of how and when applications can be applied for in the future -- why it doesn't include other aspects is because what we are considering is just the mechanism for accepting applications. Need it around every aspect of the program, does that impact the mechanism for accepting applications? Not sure that point fits into this part of the process. Predictability and Clarity of the Application Process are actually their very own topics, fwiw. -- To help address Kristina's point, could we add "evaluation" to the 3rd bullet, with objections? >From the Chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): That there must be clarity and predictability in the proposed path Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): The question of "Gaps" not to be "indeffinate" but defined ( asper predictability requiremtnt) Hadia Elminiawi: +1 cheryl Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Clarifying question, Jeff: Why does the last bullet refer to ICANN or the new gTLD program, but the second-to-last one only refers to the new gTLD program? And, fwiw, how does one measure the stability, security and resilience of a program? Emily Barabas: Top of page 3 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so far no scientific proof of the provided numbers was presented (5% growth and 1000 per year are both seems to be "looks safe") avri doria: There may be an iconsideration with the creation of the impementation of the system as Org may not know whether they are building a use once round mechasism or building something that will be used often the same way or are building something that can evolve into FCFS implementation. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Agree that it doesn't relate to rounds vs. non-rounds. Maybe drop a placeholder footnote to remind us that we need to do internal cross referencing later. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Yes but the cosequences will effect intervals between any future offering of submission periods avri doria: a consideration - sorry Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Indeed Avri, good point Martin Sutton: To help address Kristina's point, could we add "evaluation" to the 3rd bullet, with objections? Solutions Considered (page 3 of the Google doc): [See options in the Google doc] Discussion: -- Hold mini-rounds that are restricted to different types -- underserved regions, brands, geographicals, etc. Could be covered in options 2 or 3 depending on the rules. -- Predictable doesn't necessarily mean a set time period, but according to certain criteria -- such as 1 year after an identified dependency. -- Need to capture the above-mentioned definition of predictability. -- Define predictability in terms of either timing and/or occurrence of some sort of dependency or event. -- Flag: thinking about the different mechanisms and what might serve as a trigger and the timing issue. -- Could be a derivative of option 1 -- having staff decide the starting point for the next round? -- If we say that ICANN has to not open a round for a certain amount of time that could be problematic, or forcing them to open a round when they aren't ready could cause problems. -- Could that work with any of the options as long as there is some sort of an escape valve? -- Is there another alternative, which would be some form of batching? -- Not sure that anyone agreed that we could limit the number of applications overall. -- Another issue is ICANN's capacity to process applications. But can't make policy based on what ICANN can or cannot handle. -- Instead of setting a defined time range, could set criteria that would have to be met before a round starts, but haven't come to consensus on any recommendation. -- Criteria make more sense than a hard and fast timeframe. -- Who decides that the criteria have been met? It could be a combination of alternative criteria, but could be others. Doesn't necessarily have to be a time limit or single criteria. -- Great to get a list of potential criteria to put into our initial report that we could use to say we are ready to go on to the next round and to answer who will make that determination. >From the chat: Paul McGrady: @Jeff, could we just leave it to Staff discretion as to when the next round starts? Do we have to dictate it? Paul McGrady: The next, next round, I mean. Rubens Kuhl: Paul, I believe the main concern is the timing between procedures. The start of the next one is indeed something we can leave to discretion. Christa Taylor: Predictability is difficult as we have the yearly delegation rates and projected demand which would extend beyond years. The number of applications will impact the time required which then impacts predictability. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): a round + typical cycle of life in ICANN period (at least a year) Rubens Kuhl: Christa, the delegation rates are, for now, just artificial scarcity, until anything bad really happens, of which there is no sign that something would crash. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): costant period available only in absence of issues (have we seen a round without issues so far?) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Or a next round leading to a perminant or endless batch opportunities to follow @Greg? Greg Shatan: Semi-parallel processing? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): If it can be properly resourced - Why not? Emily Barabas: @Jeff, confirmed -- none of the CC1 comments suggested specific limits (see Subject 6 in the CC2 summary document here https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw ) avri doria: who decides that the crteria have been met? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I am personally very confortable with the "criteria' approach @Paul Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): 80%? Trang Nguyen: If we look at the 2012 round, we released 100 IE results per week. There's probably potential to push that number higher. It's difficult to say without knowing what changes will be made to the next round. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): 80% of issues caused by 20% of applications (one of theories) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and vice versa Rubens Kuhl: Trang, was technical evaluation, registry services evaluation or financial evaluation the slower path in 2012 ? Martin Sutton: 50% passed evaluation or 35% contracts agreed or 25% are delegated Paul McGrady: @Martin - yes! Those are the sorts of fact based triggers we should be thinking about. Susan Payne 2: % have signed contract; or completed PDT. But a criterion tied to IE has the benefit that there would be a steady flow of work for evaluators Phil Buckingham: @ Trang - if ICANN has twice the number of evaluators then they could / should be able to push out 200 IE per week .? Trang Nguyen: They all occurred in parallel. No one of those 3 evaluations was more complicated or took longer than others. Trang Nguyen: Not necessarily. The evaluation firms that we engaged had the ability to scale. 4. Planning for ICANN61; Two sessions in ICANN61: 1) SubPro PDP WG on Saturday, 10 March for Work Tracks 1-4 at 12:15-15:00; 2) Work Track 5 on Wednesday 14 March at 8:30 to 10:15.

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 12 February 2018
by Steve Chan 11 Feb '18

11 Feb '18

Dear Working Group Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group meeting scheduled for Monday 12 February 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Please note, this call is scheduled for 90 minutes. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Work Track Updates Overarching Issue: Applications Assessed in Rounds (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7…) Planning for ICANN61 AOB Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

4 3

FW: Summary document from the RySG Registry Service Provider Discussion Group (RSP DG)
by Jeff Neuman 09 Feb '18

09 Feb '18

All, On behalf of co-chairs, I am forwarding to the full Working Group an e-mail we received this morning from the Registry Service Provider Discussion Group of gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group. Registry Service Providers (RSPs) are those that provide the technical back-end services for Registry Operators. In some cases, the RSP is the same entity as the Registry Operator, but in many cases a Registry Operator outsources its registry services to a third party RSP. Although it primarily relates to Work Tracks 1 and 4 in discussing a potential RSP pre-approval process, much of it relates to other discussions that they are having with ICANN staff on other issues. I wanted to send it to the full group in case anyone else was interested in reviewing. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Stéphane Van Gelder - Milathan [mailto:svg@milathan.ltd] Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 5:37 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> Cc: rsp-program-discussion(a)googlegroups.com Subject: Summary document from the RySG Registry Service Provider Discussion Group (RSP DG) Cheryl, Jeff, In my capacity as Chair of the Registry Stakeholder Group’s RSP DG, I am forwarding the attached document. The document is a summary of our discussions and we are submitting this to you in the hope that it will help the SubPro WG in its own work of forming policy recommendations on procedures for subsequent rounds. Please do not hesitate to get in touch should you have any follow-up questions. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ———————— Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com<http://post.milathan.com/> Follow me on Twitter: @stephvg ————————

1 0