April 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 April 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Steve Chan April 17, 2018

April 17, 2018

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 16 April 2018 at 20:00 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 Overarching Issues, which includes eight (8) topics. 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/

3 4

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
by Jamie Baxter April 17, 2018

April 17, 2018

2 1

Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments
by lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson April 17, 2018

April 17, 2018

Good evening: > > Allow me to amplify and confirm my few Chat comments during the conference call last Monday afternoon, 9 April 2018. > > In general the working document (1.12 Deliberations etc .) is an excursion into a working method with which I am quite unfamiliar, so I ask those of you who have this for your bread-and-butter to bear with me for a little while. I also have noted that the document is in the form of questions for discussion and not recommendations at this stage. So I hope that some of my comments may still be taken into account. > > Indeed, at some points, I find the drafting on some issues rather uncertain; there are ambiguities and options that - from the point of view of a rather more conventional approach – might be described as loopholes. ICANN and GNSO will no doubt have gathered that the next 'round' will be scrutinised by third parties far more thoroughly than was the case in 2004 or 2012. More specifically: > > 1. Rollout: It would be helpful to have information about how many new TLDs have still not been implemented, and why. > > For instance, after the 24 months allowed, it is not clear why “… extensions…should continue to be available according to the same terms and conditions as they were allowed during the 2012 round.” > > In a related question, “The Work Track was also careful to avoid drawing the conclusion that only having <nic.TLD> registered constituted 'squatting' or 'warehousing' “ > > Taken together these two statements leave the strong impression that the Work Track would in practice accept squatting and warehousing of new TLDs. Was that intended? > > If there has been 'unwanted behaviour' – and the subsequent discussion suggests that there has been – then one might have expected a rather more proactive approach to discouraging such in the future. > > 2. Contractual compliance - pricing for premium domains. > > The document discusses the issue of 'pricing for premium domains' but reports that 'The WT has not reached any conclusions on this issue'. Whereas it is quite likely that applicant representations and related authorisations would address prmium pricing. > > For instance, in the case of a geographical name, there would normally be a presumption of non-discrimination between Registrants, such as towns or other communities, within that geo-TLD. > > More generally, ICANN might consider moving towards a policy whereby the economic 'rent' for a 'premium name' should accrue to the Registrant and not to the Registry. Otherwise it would appear that the Registry would be taking advantage of its monopoly over their TLD in question in an unjustifiably discriminatory manner. > > 3. Contractual compliance – enforceability of representations > > The document reports that the WT considered a proposal 'that all applicant representations should be included in the registry agreement' and that 'There was no agreement … in support of this proposal.' > > This would appear to be a rather weak conclusion which might be queried at a later stage because it does not really respond to the four questions indicated under f. Deliberations. > > > * * * > > The above is but a summary of the main concerns evoked by this section of the draft. I look forward to discussing these and other aspects in due course. > > Christopher Wilkinson

10 13

GNSO Council Liaisons to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
by Steve Chan April 17, 2018

April 17, 2018

Dear WG Members, This message is to inform you that Paul McGrady, the previous Council liaison to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, has stepped down from the position to serve instead as the Council liaison to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs PDP WG. At ICANN61, the GNSO Council acknowledged the broad list of topics within the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG’s remit and noted that serving as an informed liaison can prove challenging with a plenary group and five (5) Work Tracks. In order to mitigate that challenge, at least to some degree, two Councilors volunteered to serve as Council liaisons to this PDP WG; please note that Donna Austin and Keith Drazek have agreed to jointly serve in this role. 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

Recording, attendance & Webex Chat | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group Call | Monday, 16 April 2018 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland April 17, 2018

April 17, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and Webex chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 16 April 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ti68B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16apr18-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, Julie

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 16 April 2018
by Julie Hedlund April 16, 2018

April 16, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 16 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 documents. 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. Staff will explore other possibilities for WG members to provide comments/edits. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates. 2. Initial Report Excerpts: -- Sent overarching issues. -- Goal is to get all sections out by 20 April. -- People have sent in comments, some of which are opinions on the substance in the report – ask that you make sure those go into the public comment forum. We aren’t changing the substance of the report, unless we missed something that was discussed. Discussion: -- May not be realistic to submit comments in email; wonder if it would be feasible to allow edits to be made in the Google doc. Putting the comments in the email allows others on the list to see it. But staff could handle it in another form. -- Concern about holding substantive comments to the public forum. -- All of these issues were discussed by Working Group members. They were debated. The work of the Work Tracks has resulted in this Initial Report, which isn’t arranged by Work Track but more logically. Each of these subjects have been thoroughly discussed, debated, and subject to comments by the Working Group. The Initial Report is a presentation to the public on the work we have been doing, preliminary recommendations, and questions. There may be yet another report for comment. It is not the Final Report. At this point we had to put the marker down and consider substantive comments in the Public Comment period. -- The Work Track leads have reviewed the content, and the WG member can help make sure we haven’t missed anything that was raised in the deliberations of the Work Tracks or WG. -- Could be helpful to include page numbers and also links to the work tracks. -- We are preparing a document under the PDP rules that must be called an “Initial Report”. It has to have a public comment period. We are asking WG member to look at this draft to make sure we have accurately and appropriately covered the material that the Work Tracks and WG have discussed. This is not closing an opportunity for input. Wanted everyone in the WG the opportunity to review and comment on the products from the Work Tracks. -- Were there was no consensus on certain topics we’ve included questions. Need WG members to help with these questions: are these clear, do they need more/less context, do we need to add questions? -- Should not appear that any recommendations or suggestions were rejected. -- May I suggest a path forward: To the extent that WG members are submitting substantive comments/answers to questions, would it be possible to have staff arrange for the submission of those comments/answers, with the commenter's permission, once the public comment period opens with the significant caveat that it's the commenter's responsibility to make sure her/his comments/answers are submitted during the public comment period? -- Procedurally the question will be whether Working Group members agree with the characterization of the document as an Initial Report. A lot depends on the introductory paragraph in this report. It may be wise to allow a dissenting statement to be made by those who object to this process. This is in addition to suggestions on individual sections. We all need to keep in mind that we have strongly encouraged early GAC participation in PDPs. Don’t know how we can get past these objections without allowing a dissenting statement on the process. -- Concern about using the phrase “the Working Group recommends”. Suggest "No member of the Working Group objected to the structuring of the next application process in a "round". This seemed to be the favored approach. Other options discussed were as follows:" -or- "The Working Group is leaning toward a recommendation that" - or give that explanation in the Intro. -- Don’t use recommends that often, but when we do it was the leaders/co-chair judgment that it was appropriate, but if there is other language to use let us know. Or if you disagree, speak up. -- The question is whether these are in fact "Recommendations of the WG" when the requirements in the PDP Manual for Initial Report require a Consensus Call". Approach will be to include a preamble in the document to explain that a consensus call was not taken, but will be in the Final Report. Comments on Excerpts: -- If there are sections that say “none” or “not applicable” that means that nothing came out of the deliberations, not that the information was somehow missed or deliberately not included. -- Can link the sections to the work track, but the material has been provided by a number of sources. -- 1.2.1 – Continuing Subsequent Procedures: In the options section, the WG didn’t come to any consensus. If we have a preliminary recommendation then you may not see the options under section c. -- On rounds, there was discussion of specific rounds/batches. Should be smaller, quicker, and focused. -- Predictability 1.2.2.1: process for application – discussion included that documents created after the CPE should never have been included. This is be reflected in the deliberations. Key difference is that this was additional guidelines that were used by the evaluating team. They were not published until after the application process. Makes it unfair for the applicant when the only expectation was that they would be evaluated on the Guidebook. This is a practice that shouldn’t happen as it does not align with goals around predictability. ACTION: Staff should revise the deliberations of that section. Helpful to get this in an email and note where it should be included. -- Predictability framework questions: WG members should consider whether there are questions to add (page 9 of the attached document). -- I cannot see whether specific reference is made to GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, Expedited PDP. If not, it should be added. Also, reference the consensus policy adopted by the Board.

1 0

Initial Report Sections (With References to Work Tracks)
by Steve Chan April 16, 2018

April 16, 2018

Dear WG Members, As discussed during the Working Group call, please find a document that illustrates how the Draft Initial Report will organize the topics being included in the Initial Report. As requested, this document will tell you which Work Track discussed the topic. The document is also available on the Wiki in the Latest News section on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw 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

Section 1.12 - Comments/suggestions
by Rosette, Kristina April 16, 2018

April 16, 2018

All, I've listed below some additional comments and suggestions on Section 1.12. 1. 1.12.1.e, first bullet: Need citation to statement that delegation deadline put into place to avoid squatting and warehousing 2. 1.12.1.f, 3rd sentence: Even if terms aren't precisely defined, report should provide whatever definitions are being relied upon. 3. 1.12.1.f, para 2, 4th & 5th sentences: Confusing to have "use" in quotations. Juxtaposition of sentences 4 and 5 (not clear what use is, but use satisfied) is confusing. 4. 1.12.1.f, para 3, 3rd sentence: Need to explain what constitutes "actively used" - especially given statements in preceding paragraph. 5. 1.12.1.f, para 5, 2nd sentence: It's a stretch to refer to targeted deadlines as SLAs (although I wish they had been). 6. 1.12.1.f, para 6, 3rd sentence: "in relation to this issue" is unclear. Identify the issue (e.g., in relation to X). 7. 1.12.1.f, para 6, 4th sentence: words missing after support - the view that? 8. 1.12.3.b, para 2: need citations to RA provisions 9. 1.12.3.c, 2nd sentence: replace "granular" with "detailed" and/or "more specific" 10. 1.12.3.e, question 1: need to provide basis for referring to application statements as "representations and/or commitments"; also, second-to-last question should be revised to ask commenter to explain why they've identified any specific representations and/or commitments. 11. 1.12.3.e, question 2: Need to ask "How will the proposed mechanisms effectively address these issues"? 12. 1.12.3.f, para 1, 3rd sentence: Base Registry Agreement (for consistency) 13. 1.12.3.f, para 2: revise 4th bullet - Should representations made by the applicant be integrated into the Registry Agreement going forward and, if so, why and how? 14. 1.12.3.f, para 4, 2nd sentence: insert ", non-confidential" between "additional" and "data" Talk to everyone later. K Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP - Domains rosettek(a)amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com>

1 0

Test Message
by Aslam Mohamed April 10, 2018

April 10, 2018

Please ack receipt

2 1

Recordings, attendance & Webex Chat | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group Call | Monday, 09 April 2018 15:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland April 9, 2018

April 9, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and Webex chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 09 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/TC68B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-09apr18-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, Julie

1 0