April 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Recording, attendance & chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 30 Apr '18

30 Apr '18

Dear All, Please find the attendance and WebEx chat of the call attached to this email. The MP3 recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/1y_8B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-30apr18-en.mp3 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

Section 1.5 - Rosette comments
by Rosette, Kristina 30 Apr '18

30 Apr '18

Attached contains my comments and tracked suggested changes. K From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 7:58 PM To: 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Attached, please find section 1.5 on Application Submission. Also, as noted, a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:18 PM To: "'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org'" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued) 4. AOB For item 3 of the agenda, we will be reviewing another section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Application Processing, which includes one topic. We hope to also distribute the section on Application Submission over the weekend, which consists of five (5) topics. Please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB 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<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@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<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses…> 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

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 30 April 2018
by Julie Hedlund 30 Apr '18

30 Apr '18

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 30 April 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 also the attached document. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Preamble/Introduction: WG Co-Chairs will suggest some language to make it clear that a consensus call was not held, and put it out to the list for review examples of how we got to a general type of agreement. General Note from the Co-Chairs to the WG list re: the issue of substantive comment vs report review and clarifications should be circulated in writing. 1.2.2.2: Note in the deliberations whether there has been discussion here or elsewhere on whether or when a “full refund” might be considered or recommended. Specifically call out evaluation processes in the language so that it is very clear. 1.2.3: Correct typos: "of" not "or a round", "none months" -> "nine months" Add as a dependency limit of 1,000 delegation per year and note the link to Section 1.7.6. Add as a dependency in addition to the CCT-RT Final Report, the SSAC NCAP study may affect this report if the SSAC develops a list of TLDs or a method for testing TLDs that yields the "DO NOT APPLY" category. 1.2.4: Add an additional question: “What would be the benefit of adding a further category/further categories?” 1.2.5: Add to the deliberations section: Reflect the discussion that you could limit that applications by entity, if we could determine if an entity is making multiple applications. Change the pros and cons to a tabular format. Instead of “none” under the feedback section, should ask at least one question: "Do you concur with the assessment made by the WG?". 1.2.6: Accreditation Programs Feedback section, Question 4:” Add text that this is not intended to limit that to only itself providing registry services, an application could also put forward a separate RSP. Section b, last paragraph: New RSPs, etc. They aren’t really new gTLD RSPs. Add a note that the example is from the 2012 round and is not a complete list, or don’t identify by name. Include links to the applicable sections in Work Track 4 that deal with technical evaluations. Include in feedback a question about what minimum timing might be acceptable. On the amount of time on when the pre-approval process should be complete, or when it starts? Add two questions. Notes: 1. Initial Report Excerpts -- General note from the chat: Given the fact that the issue of substantive comment vs report review has interfered with the progress of successive meetings, perhaps the repeated responses and clarifications by Jeff & Cheryl should be circulated in writing. With approximately 50 members joining the calls it does consume a lot of time that could be used more effectively to review the report. 1.2.2.1: Community Engagement: No comments. 1.2.2.2: Clarity of Application Process -- Should be a priority for entities that have not gotten any prior TLDs – dealt with this in Section 1.2.5 on application limits. -- We are trying to see if the initial report reflects the discussions that have occurred so far. If you have comments on substance those should be made in the public forum. -- Question on the section where we talk about providing appropriate refunds when there is a change in the AGB after they applied. Did we discuss what was appropriate? Did we discuss the opportunity for a full refund? Answer: I don’t think we decided whether it is in full or part, so that is why we used the word “appropriate”. We may have had that discussion in another sections, such as name collisions. We will note this and make sure it gets addressed. -- Question: What is considered “multiple” with respect to applications? Also, what do we mean by “community”? Answer: This section only deals with the clarity of the application process. If multiple applications are allowed this section only notes that there should be a mechanism to handle multiple applications. Whether to allow multiple applications would be addressed in the section on Application Limits. From the chat: “Re some of your other questions. Multiple is any number more than 1; Cost is flat fee Per Application; We are not at the Section that discussed "Community" just yet.” -- From the chat: “Question to the WT1 group .. does the reference to "all associated processes" include specific acknowledgement to evaluation processes? For example, community priority evaluation process was not formalized until after applications were submitted.” Answer: “To my understanding yes. The Applicant Guidebook should reflect and include all processes including community priority evaluation.” Response: “Could I request that evaluation processes be specifically called out in this language to that it is very clear.” ACTION: Call out language on evaluation processes. 1.2.3: Applications Assessed in Rounds -- Will change the language to not use terms such as “recommending”. -- Minor edits: "of" not "or a round", "none months" -> "nine months" ACTION: Correct typos. -- Question: Who decides on the final processing of the pros and cons? If we count the number of pros and cons it is not possible to decide based on the number since they might have different weights; Answer: The WG will decide on the final recommendations based on the comments in the public forum. The WG won’t do a quantitative assessment, but weigh each pro and con appropriately. From the chat: it's not about the numbers or weight of pros and cons at this time, it’s to ensure that they are all captured. -- Question: Does the limit of 1,000 delegation per year also impact this? Addressed also in 1.7.6 Security and Stability. ACTION: Add in this section as a dependency. -- COMMENT: In 1.2.3 Dependencies, in addition to the CCT-RT Final Report, the SSAC NCAP study may affect this report if the SSAC develops a list of TLDs or a method for testing TLDs that yields the "DO NOT APPLY" category. ACTION: Add in this section as a dependency. 1.2.4: Different TLD Types -- Question from the chat: What would be the benefit of adding a further category/further categories? ACTION: Add this as an additional question. 1.2.5: Application Submission Limits -- Even if there was no recommendation could we reflect the discussion that you could limit that applications by entity, if we could determine if an entity is making multiple applications? Answer: There were discussions about putting limits, but the WG could not agree on a mechanism to enforce those limits. ACTION: Ensure this is included in the deliberations. -- There should be a principle relating to people who try to warehouse TLDs via multiple applications. -- From the chat: Just a formatting suggestion. Pros and Cons were listed in a table in a previous section, but not this one. I think the tables are better presentationally. ACTION: Put pros and cons in tabular format. -- From the chat: I feel we should include questions for the public comment period. Just stating that there are none does not help to trigger the discussion. At least: "do you concur with the assessment made by the WG?" ACTION: Add as a question in the feedback section. 1.2.6: Accreditation Programs -- Feedback -- Question 4:” If RSPs that go through the Pre-Approval process are required to go through a reassessment process, should RSPs/applicants that do not take part in the Pre-Approval Program also be required to go through the reassessment process?” Do you feel it will lead to inconsistent treatment of RSPs otherwise? Add text that this is not intended to limit that to only itself providing registry services, an application could also put forward a separate RSP. ACTION: Edit text. -- Section b, last paragraph: New RSPs, etc. They aren’t really new gTLD RSPs. Add a note that the example is from the 2012 round and is not a complete list. From the chat: Perhaps best not to identify any entities by name. ACTION: Edit text. -- Include the applicable sections in Work Track 4 that deal with technical evaluations. ACTION: Add a reference. -- Include in feedback a question about what minimum timing might be acceptable. On the amount of time on when the pre-approval process should be complete, or when it starts? ACTION: Maybe ask two questions on this issue. 2. ICANN62 Planning -- Monday: Two sessions on Work Tracks 1-4; cross-community session on Work Track 5. -- Thursday: One session on Work Tracks 1-4, cross-community session on Work Track 5. -- See the draft GNSO schedule at: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/icann62-d…. Note that these are tentative and may change.

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan 30 Apr '18

30 Apr '18

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of the Initial Report (continued) AOB For item 3 of the agenda, we will be reviewing another section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Application Processing, which includes one topic. We hope to also distribute the section on Application Submission over the weekend, which consists of five (5) topics. Please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB 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  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/

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan 28 Apr '18

28 Apr '18

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find section 1.5 on Application Submission. Also, as noted, a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:18 PM To: "'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org'" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of the Initial Report (continued) AOB For item 3 of the agenda, we will be reviewing another section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Application Processing, which includes one topic. We hope to also distribute the section on Application Submission over the weekend, which consists of five (5) topics. Please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB 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  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 24 April 2018
by Julie Hedlund 24 Apr '18

24 Apr '18

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 24 April 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 also the attached referenced document. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: WG members should review the Initial Report excerpts and provide comments/edits in email to the WG list, with references to the relevant sections. WG Co-Chairs will suggest some language to make it clear that a consensus call was not held, and put it out to the list for review examples of how we got to a general type of agreement. Notes: 1. Initial Report Excerpts Applicant Guidebook: Page 4 -- More user friendly. -- Put online. -- Terms of use should be finalized. -- Page 5: Bullets – 6th and 7th are supported. -- Discussed in Work Track 1. Should know the source of the material, such as which Work Track. -- Taking all WG input on the Initial Report. Use this as a sanity check to see if there is anything we have missed. Oversight and issue we need to pick up on. -- Leadership will review all comments. -- In Work Track 4 many members said the business of strings on the name collision side – strings that fit that category should be identified early on so that applicants don’t apply for them. In terms of the AGB you might end up with a pre-qualification stage where you could suggest a string, but not do a full application. Need to see the language from Work Track 4. -- Only a proposal to do a study on name collisions and if there is a study that might fit better under things like reserved names. Look at Work Track 4 language to see where there are dependencies. 1.4.2: Communications: Page 7 -- Nothing about a global communication effort --- need for a global communications campaign. More focused on applicant support -- 1.5.4 . -- What do we mean by “global communication effort”? Worldwide plan to ensure that internationally it is known that we have this program. -- Are we saying we need a constant communications period for every round? -- It depends on the periodicity of the round. 1.4.3: Systems: Page 10 -- No policy but implementation guidance. -- What do you mean by “live support”? Answer: Online support option. Overall Suggestions: -- Need to change the phrasing “the Work Track agreed”. Rarely a full agreement, so how will we express that? Suggestion is to say, “the general understanding of the Work Track/Working Group was...” -- How to express areas where there was no consensus? Not operating on formal definitions. Important to point out that there have not been formal consensus calls for these recommendations. Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines defines levels of consensus. -- Can’t say “the Work Track agreed” because no consensus call was held per the Working Group Guidelines. -- Suggest some language to make it clear that we did not do a consensus call. -- Put out to the list for review examples of how we got to a general type of agreement. Something that is in between agreement and observation. The Work Track leaders were pretty careful to get the sense of the group. -- This report has been developed based on CC1 and CC2 comments, transcripts and notes. The leadership team is trying to be innovative. Consensus calls are not happening now. 2. Next Meetings/Steps: -- May Calls: Will need first two weeks in May to continue to finalize the Initial Report. -- Future systems: Start rolling out testing of Adobe Connect on the 3rd of May. Blog post and looking for more feedback on a survey: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/adobe-connect-what-next. -- ICANN62: Likely to be three sessions on Monday, 25 June, and one on Thursday, 28 June.

1 0

Recording, attendance & WebEx chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 24 April 2018 03:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 24 Apr '18

24 Apr '18

Dear All, Please find the attendance and WebEx chat of the call attached to this email. The MP3 recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 24 April 2018 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/1S_8B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-24apr18-en.mp3 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

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 24 April 2018 at 03:00 UTC
by Steve Chan 23 Apr '18

23 Apr '18

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Tuesday (Monday for some) 24 April 2018 at 03:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of the Initial Report (continued) AOB For item 3 of the agenda, we will be reviewing another section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Pre-Launch Activities, which includes three (3) topics. Note that the extract includes a full listing of the topics, which hopefully helps provide context for this particular section, but also provides a preview of what else can be expected to be distributed in the near future. 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  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/

2 1

FW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018
by Steve Chan 20 Apr '18

20 Apr '18

Dear WG Members, You may be aware that Work Track 4 has sought to investigate ways in which the Financial and Technical & Operational questions could be improved, with the goal of reducing the number of clarifying questions that would be needed in the future. ICANN Org has consolidated materials (FAQs, Knowledge Articles, Reference Materials, and Supplemental Notes) and just recently made them available to Work Track 4 here: https://community.icann.org/x/gggFBQ. As the full WG may find these materials useful as well, we are making you aware of their availability. Please see the email thread below for additional detail. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 4:42 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018 Dear WT4 Members, Please see a subsequent response from ICANN org in support of the WT4 request below. “As a follow-on to the March 20th, 2018 message, the Supplemental Notes materials referenced in that message are now located at https://community.icann.org/x/gggFBQ. In addition, we are providing WT4 with FAQs, Knowledge Articles, and Reference Materials previously published in the SugarCRM knowledge base. These materials are historical information that ICANN org is providing to WT4 to inform PDP deliberations.” Once you navigate to the link above, you will see that there are separate Wiki page for FAQs, Knowledge Articles, Reference Materials, and Supplemental Notes. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 4:05 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018 Dear WT4 Members, Per the WT’s request to ICANN Org in the email below, please find their response directly below and information/resources compiled to date attached. The information/resources can also be found on the topic specific Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/YT2AAw Best, Steve ** As per your request sent via Steve Chan on 9 February 2018, attached is a compilation of existing and published information and resources regarding application questions and clarifying questions. Please note that the Supplemental Notes information referenced in the document is not yet available. This information was hosted in our old CRM system, which has been decommissioned. It is taking longer than we thought to bring this system back up online, but we continue to work with our IT team on this. We will provide you with the links to the Supplemental Notes for all application questions once the system is back up online. In the meantime, we are sending you all other information and resources relevant to this request. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 4:41 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018 Dear WT4 Members, For those that may have missed the last call, as noted below in the action items, it was decided that in relation to WT4’s request for data related to clarifying questions, it would be pursuing option 1, “Compile and share existing information and resources regarding application questions and clarifications.” Please see a fuller description here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735969/ICANN%20Org%20Res… Note, this does not preclude WT4 from seeking additional clarifying question information it deems necessary, which could include options in the letter referenced above and/or other options. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 1:08 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018 Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. 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 or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB. Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included below. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 – 05 February 2018 Action Item 1) CQ Options: Agreement for Option 1: Compile existing info regarding questions and CQs (what was done for PIRR); but doesn't preclude other options; consider survey question for the survey of applicants in option 5 ………….

1 0

ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan
by Nathalie Peregrine 20 Apr '18

20 Apr '18

Dear all: Please take a look at this blog on Adobe Connect. And note the request: Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org<mailto:RP-tool@icann.org> Best regards, David https://www.icann.org/news/blog/adobe-connect-what-next[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? As you know, the ICANN organization took down its Adobe Connect service midway through the ICANN61 meeting in response to reported issues[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> with this service. Concurrently, we began to conduct our own forensic analysis of the reported incident and began working with our Adobe cloud service provider, CoSo Cloud LLC, and through them with Adobe to learn more. Shortly thereafter, we rolled out instances of Zoom and WebEx for the community to support remote participation (RP) and collaboration. Here's where we are now: The Forensics Investigation With respect to our forensics work, we received application logfiles from CoSo Cloud, going back for a period of one year. ICANN Engineering and Security teams have examined these application log files and the results of our investigation clearly show "fingerprints of incursion" by the researcher who reported the issue. We were unable to find any other indication that anyone else either identified or exploited this issue. Thanks to the person who found the bug again. Working closely with CoSo Cloud, we were able to recreate the reported issue, and understand the conditions required to trigger it. This information has been communicated to Adobe, and Adobe is working on a software fix to address the root cause of the issue. We have also been working with CoSo on options to re-enable Adobe Connect in the shorter term. We have determined there are two viable paths to accomplish this goal. They are: 1. Deploy a hardened configuration to eliminate "man-in-the-middle" exploitations by encrypting relevant traffic, or 2. Implement a programmatic fix from CoSo Cloud to substantially reduce the window during which the issue can be exploited. With respect to the first option, we attempted to hack the hardened configuration in a test environment last week, and were not able to do so over the course of 7 hours. Separately, CoSo Cloud and Adobe conducted similar tests and confirmed that this configuration is protected from exploitation of the issue. Community Feedback and Next Steps For the last three weeks, we have been gathering limited feedback regarding users' experiences with WebEx and Zoom. So far, we have input from about 200 people, including ICANN org meeting organizers and the ICANN community. Our analysis of this feedback indicates a desire to revert back to an Adobe Connect, providing the security of the service is ensured. Accordingly, we would like to propose the following plan to the broader community for consideration: 1. We would like to restore Adobe Connect services with both the new hardened configuration and the programmatic fix discussed above. Our intent would be to restore service by 3 May. This would allow us to use Adobe Connect during several upcoming events including the Board Workshop, the GDD Industry Summit, and ICANN62. 2. Once Adobe releases a new version of the software with a fix for this issue from their perspective, and provides assurance the update has been adequately tested, we will move toward that release of Adobe Connect in a prudent manner, with the help of CoSo Cloud. We believe that this approach will ensure the security of our content, and of our community interactions, while also enabling our community to use the collaboration tools of their choice. Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org<mailto:RP-tool@icann.org> Meanwhile, we will continue to offer WebEx and Zoom for RP and collaboration purposes. We will also continue to follow industry developments, including the research ALAC is doing on the RP and collaboration space, to ensure we are using secure and cost-effective tools that are appropriate for our needs. I look forward to your comments! David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0