May 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg - lists.icann.org

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Steve Chan 04 Jun '18

04 Jun '18

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Tuesday 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org) in advance of the meeting. Section 1.7 (Reserved Names; Registrant Protections; Closed Generics; String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) AOB For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, 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. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation 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] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne 30 May '18

30 May '18

Rubens, As noted, the discussion on this issue in Work Track 4 was lively. Should applicants be required to describe all new services intended to be offered in their applications as per existing Question 23 or not? Clearly this would be required if closed (exclusive) generics are permitted - in order to evaluate whether those applications serve a public interest. There is also a question about whether the public should know what services are being proposed in connection with each new gTLD. Admittedly there are trade-offs here. It strikes me that given the delays in the 2012 round, the Contracted Parties would be interested in aggregated technical and financial evaluation and pre-approved services in order to get under contract quickly and be able to launch. This is because "time is money". They would then follow the RSEP process to add services, which is a process that occurs as a negotiation between the registry and ICANN only. The trade-off is that the true purpose of the TLD may not be disclosed at a time when the public is paying attention. For example, can RSEP be used to request a waiver for a dotless Top Level Domain? Members of the community will watch and analyze new gTLD applications. They don't necessarily "watch" RSEP requests. The Subsequent Procedures PDP runs on the principle that if the PDP recommendation does not change existing policy, the policy remains the same. In this case, it has not been clearly pointed out that not requiring disclosure of new services at the time of application (if they are actually intended at that time) is a CHANGE in policy when viewed in light of existing Question 23. Again, this was discussed at length in Work Track 4. The fact is that in Work Track 4 discussions, there was support for each of the three proposed models: one proposed by you, one proposed by me, and one proposed by Kurt Pritz. In all three models, there was agreement on development of a list of pre-approved services, but there was in fact no agreement on eliminating the part of Question 23 that requires disclosure of all new services at the time of application. (We cannot get around this fact by stating - hey, don't worry, there was no consensus call - because we are indeed treating the Initial Report as if there had been agreement on recommendations within the Work Track itself.) Regarding San Juan, I do not know who arrived at the "one model". I was in the session remotely, but had been assured repeatedly that there would be future discussion of the three models. As you and Jeff and Cheryl know very well, I expressed concern that such discussion should occur before the draft Initial Report was prepared. Jeff responded on February 28 that the comments would be captured and that staff was tracking all the correspondence. Jeff kept saying, "let's just see what the draft Initial Report says when it comes out." So now here we are. (The November 30 calls and the follow-up e-mails in January and February as well as questions about this in subsequent calls are on record.) All the draft Initial Report says is There was support for continuing to allow applicants to submit new registry services at application submission, or after delegation, as is the case currently, though some sought to make the declaration of registry services compulsory at application submission." This sentence is drafted as if requiring a description of new services at the time of application would be a change in policy, while the opposite is true. It is also misleading in its use of the phrase "as is the case currently". That applies currently to RSEP requests, but is not the case currently as to descriptions of services required at the time of application. Once again, below is the text of Question 23 as it now stands. This time I highlight the relevant policy in red lettering in order to emphasize the point that the AGB language change proposed (and characterized as being proposed by Work Track 4) is a CHANGE in policy. 23. Provide name and full description of all the Registry Services to be provided. Descriptions should include both technical and business components of each proposed service, and address any potential security or stability concerns. The following registry services are customary services offered by a registry operator: A. Receipt of data from registrars concerning registration of domain names and name servers. B. Dissemination of TLD zone files. C. Dissemination of contact or other information concerning domain name registrations (e.g., port-43 WHOIS, Web- based Whois, RESTful Whois service). D. Internationalized Domain Names, where offered. E. DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The applicant must describe whether any of these registry services are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD. Additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described. Certainly it is not accurate that Work Track 4 agreed on eliminating the requirement to disclose "all services" proposed to be rendered in accordance with existing Question 23. I also think that regarding "Deliberations" and "how this was handled in the 2012 round", we need to clearly state what Question 23 said when this type of change is being proposed. (This is reflected in the redline previously forwarded to the list and forwarded again here - with redline changes beginning on page 36.) The issue presented was the subject of much discussion and was documented via numerous e-mails and comments in Work Track 4. The draft Initial Report does not accurately reflect this discussion. Hopefully Leadership will be ready to correct this in the interest of transparency and for the purpose of collecting genuine and informed public comment. 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@01D3F808.8AAF7DE0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:59 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC Importance: High Thus, the Initial Report should be revised to accurately reflect the discussion in Work Track 4. Various other points relevant points are raised in the attached redline beginning on page 36 and continuing to the end of Section 1.7 Anne, Your recollection doesn't seem to include the face-to-face session in San Juan, when the topic of registry services was discussed and a replacement model has been introduced. You can see the transcript here, starting page 19: https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/169219/1520870375.pdf?1520870375 The Adobe Connect recording is still unavailable, but the audio starts at 41:00 into the recording: http://audio.icann.org/meetings/sju61/sju61-OPEN-2018-03-10-T1620-104abc-To… I don't remember any interventions from you during the session. Rubens ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland 30 May '18

30 May '18

Dear All, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached to this email and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/kRwFBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-29may18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2l84mg1ub9/<https://participate.icann.org/p2l84mg1ub9/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ad71d795d72bf506…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: 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/ 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 29 May 2018
by Julie Hedlund 29 May '18

29 May '18

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 29 May 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 slides. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: 1.7.1: a. Section g -- Add: internal dependencies of Work Track 5 Geographic Names and Work Track 3. b. Top of page 5: Check the date -- 08 November 2016? Note also that this resolution has been contested. Add this as a question in section e seeking feedback as to what if anything can or should be done. Also mention the work that has been done to communicate the reasoning behind the resolution from the ICANN Board as to why this resolution was taken. c. Add as a footnote: Add special use domain names at https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domai…. d. Change 1.7.1.2 Geographic Names" to "Geographic Names at the Top Level" 1.7.2: a. Section c: Add reference to PIRR. Also this reference: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf b. Section e: i. Add: A single registrant is defined as a top-level name in which all domains are registered to a particular entity. For those that license out their domain should this recommendation apply to them? ii. Add: In the third question, ask something about affiliates of publicly traded companies (exempt from certain types of registrant protections). c. Section f: Page 14: In the sentence, "Whether the EBERO Service "insurance" should be provided to all RSP clients is a complex issue and merits more discussion." Suggest using a different word, such as "protection". However, "insurance" was the word used in the actual deliberations. 1.7.3: Section e: -- Bullet 3: It would be helpful to identify the referenced potential conflict that the WT identified. -- With respect to the definition of closed generic -- make sure that is referenced in the deliberations. Notes: 1. Roll Call/SOIs: No updates. 2. Review of the Initial Report (continued): Section 1.7 (Reserved Names; Registrant Protections; Closed Generics; String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) -- see: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org) in advance of the meeting. As a reminder, 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. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation 17.1: Reserved Names (page 5) -- Two types of reserved names -- top level and second level. -- Item g in reserved names -- other activities or dependencies: "none" would be inaccurate. Mention Work Track 5 and the objections work in Work Track 3. -- Intention was more about external dependencies, so that's why it is not included. Could consider whether to include internal cross-references. -- Add dependencies to section g: Work Track 5 Geographic Names and Work track 3, as internal references. -- Top of page 5: Check the date -- should be 08 November 2016? Note also that this resolution has been contested. Add this as a question in section e seeking feedback as to what if anything can or should be done. Also mention the work that has been done to communicate the reasoning behind the resolution from the ICANN Board as to why this resolution was taken. -- Add special use domain names at https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domai… . -- Release of names only through ICANN acredited registrars -- check text. -- Make sure nobody applies for a string that his still be resolved from the 2012 round -- not sure if that is a reserved string. That was captured, but make sure it is cross-referenced (to section 1.5). -- Section e, first bullet, first question allows feedback on the specific example of geographic names. Perhaps if you have a city top-level domain perhaps you may be able to reserve more than that. -- Change 1.7.1.2 Geographic Names" to "Geographic Names at the Top Level" 1.7.2 Registrant Protections Section c: -- 2nd bullet: spec 13 does allow spec 13 registries to have third party exemption. -- 3rd bullet: helpful to flag whether or not the WT considered whether the exemption should apply to affiliates? May need to address how a single registrant TLD is formed. Include a question the point on this point: A single registrant is defined as a top-level name in which all domains are registered to a particular entity. For those that license out their domain should this recommendation apply to them? -- 4th bullet: Question: where did that come from? Can we include the background? Answer: It came from the post-mortem report. One of the comments was that it was difficult to do background checks and screening in certain parts of the world. Such as South Korea's restriction on providing certain types of information. -- Privacy law developments since 2012 may make background checks a lot more complex to conduct and less meaningful (potentially). Section e: -- In the third question, ask something about affiliates of publicly traded companies (exempt from certain types of registrant protections). Section f: Page 14: In the sentence, "Whether the EBERO Service "insurance" should be provided to all RSP clients is a complex issue and merits more discussion." Suggest using a different word, such as "protection". However, "insurance" was the word used in the actual deliberations. Could include a clarifying footnote. 1.7.3 Closed Generics -- With respect to definitions: Was there a definition of closed generics from the new gTLD Program Committee? did explore that in the deliberations. Make sure that is included in the deliberations text. Section e: -- Bullet 3: It would be helpful to identify the referenced potential conflict that the WT identified. 3. AOB: Timeline -- Intention is to release an initial report prior to ICANN62. -- Need to consider the timing of the public comment period and want to get as much feedback as possible. -- Will come out with an email on the timeline and planning for ICANN62.

1 0

Written Comments - Draft Initial Report Section 1.7
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne 26 May '18

26 May '18

Dear all: Regarding accurate reflection of the discussions which occurred in Work Track 4 - see Section 1.7 of the draft Initial Report - items raised several times are summarized in my e-mail of February 28, 2018 below. These items were raised in the Work Track 4 call on November 30, 2017 as documented in the attached email of January 17, 2018. (The attached email notes the points in the mp3 recording from November 30 at which these items were discussed.) Thus, the points were raised, at a minimum, on November 30, 2017, January 17, 2018, and February 28, 2018. Please note that the items set out below are specifically identified as issues/questions that should be put out for public comment and that should be highlighted in the Initial Report. Accordingly, could staff please make certain that Section 1.7 of the draft accurately reflects the items below? That should save a lot of time on the May 29 call. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D3F451.D1953020] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 1:42 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl'; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org Cc: Jeff Neuman; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25 Importance: High Thanks Rubens. Regarding AOB, I had previously raised issues in relation to topics discussed in Call #21 and was assured that these would be addressed in upcoming calls. A copy of my e-mail of January 17 concerning these issues is again attached. In the plenary meeting on Monday, I requested that these issues be added to the agenda for the March 1 call. My concern is that the issues will be skipped. It seems that a draft Initial Report is imminent. Thus, these issues should be raised for further discussion in AOB so that the work of the group on those issues can be accurately reflected in the draft Initial Report before it goes out for public comment. A very short summary of the noted issues appears in bullet point form below: 1. Aggregated technical evaluation should not affect the order of processing applications. Kurt Pritz objected to the “as much as feasible” language in the slides and stated “Additional technical evaluation should not retard or slow down applications….they should retain their place in queue and should not be penalized in any way from a timing standpoint.” This issue should be raised for public comment. 2. Issue Still to be Defined – whether a new gTLD applicant should or should not be required to disclose planned new services at the time of application. This is an important question for public comment in that the current policy requires such disclosure where as several in the group commented that they disfavor public disclosure of new services and favor the RSEP process. This also relates to Question 18 of the application. Three straw models were proposed and discussed. Friendly amendments were offered, but no final recommended model was adopted by the group. Will all three models go out for public comment? 3. Name Collisions – Items which should be put out for public comment are: (a) Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption rather than the registries? (b) What should be the period of controlled interruption? (c) Re the proposal for “do not apply” and “exercise care” lists, as well as low and medium risk categories, we need public comment on how to establish standards for these lists so that our input can be provided to the SSAC, and (d) we need public comment on whether or not applicants should be able to propose name collision mitigation plans on an individual string-by-string basis and what mechanism, if any, could be put in place to approve such an individualized mitigation plan. (Again, this will be important for providing input to the SSAC.) The above issues should be highlighted in the Initial Report. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D3B099.F3BB0040] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 7:29 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25 Dear WT4 members, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place for 60 minutes on Thursday, 01 March 2018 at 20:00 UTC, 21:00 Brussels, 20:00 London, 12:00 Los Angeles, 15:00 Washington DC; Friday 02 March, 04:00 Singapore, 05:00 Tokyo, 07:00 Sydney. The proposed agenda, as previously mentioned during the last WT4 call, is as follows: 1. Welcome, SOI updates 2. WG Co-chairs guidance on Initial Report 3. Registry System Testing 4. AOB Since RST (Registry System Testing) was described in AGB as PDT (Pre-Delegation Testing), reading section 5.2 is recommended: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/transition-delegation-04jun12-… More documents are available at ICANN's RST website, https://www.icann.org/resources/registry-system-testing , of which this chart - https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/rst-1280x720-31jul17-en.jpg - is an useful high-level summary. For WG members, please use the instructions in the calendar invite for connecting to AC and phone bridge, with phone bridge recommended for those willing to speak. Best, CLO & Rubens ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

2 1

Announcement: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar
by Terri Agnew 23 May '18

23 May '18

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-23-en Register Now: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar - 12 June 2018 The Policy Development Support Team is pleased to announce two webinar sessions to assist with the community's preparations for the ICANN62 Policy Forum: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar Tuesday, 12 June 2018 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) The webinar will run in English with simultaneous Spanish interpretation. The presentation materials will be translated into Spanish, and posted following the Webinar with the recordings of the sessions <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en> here. Please register via <https://goo.gl/vZw8kM> this form by 11 June 2018! In this 90-minute webinar, the Policy Development Support Team will summarize the key policy activities taking place across the ICANN community. The Team will also answer your questions about ongoing community policy and advisory work and discuss what to expect at the ICANN62Policy Forum. To ensure that your questions about policy activities are addressed during the session, the Policy Team invites you to submit your questions through the <https://goo.gl/forms/dVbmhQOT8sakSsmg2> registration form or by email to <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. To assist with your preparation for this webinar and for ICANN62, the "Pre-ICANN62 Policy Report" and "Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Briefing: ICANN62 Edition" will be published by Tuesday, 5 June 2018. Please be sure to download and review these materials beforehand for helpful background on policy activities and topics that the Policy Development Support Team will cover during the webinar, such as: * The cross-community discussions that will take place at ICANN62: * Geographic Names at the Top-Level (Work Track 5) * Update from the Registration Directory Service-WHOIS2 Review Team * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Compliance, Access to WHOIS and Accreditation * The expected Initial Report from the New generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group * Presentation of the Final CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Recommendations * The various policy development processes underway in the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Address Supporting Organization (ASO): * Retirement of Country Code Top-Level Domains * Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs * Next steps in relation to Registration Directory Services policy work * Curative Rights Protections for International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations * New gTLD Subsequent Procedures * Regional Internet Registry policy development activities * Advisory Committee activities within the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) and Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC): * Organizational Review of the At-Large community: Next steps, implementation, and ALACsessions during ICANN62 * GDPR and Key Signing Key (KSK) Rollover discussions * At-Large discussion on new gTLDs and Work Tracks 1-5 * Regional At-Large Organization (RALO) Policy Hot Topics * GAC discussions on .amazon, IGO protections and 2-character codes at the second level * Board-GAC GDPR consultations * RSSAC statement on the distinction between RSSAC and Root-Ops (RSSAC033) * SSAC work concerning name collisions * Other topics of note: * Organizational Review of the ASO * ccNSO sessions on disaster and recovery and business continuity, ccNSO members meeting sessions, and Tech Day. * GAC onboarding initiatives * Report from the RSSAC May 2018 Workshop (RSSAC034) To complement this Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar, the GNSO Policy Development Support Team will host, with the Council leadership and Policy Development Process (PDP) working group chairs, a GNSOpolicy-focused webinar on Monday, 18 June 2018 at 21:00 UTC for 90 minutes. This webinar is intended to serve as a replacement for the previously-offered GNSO PDP updates provided during the GNSO weekend sessions and will assist the community in preparing for GNSO policy-related discussions at ICANN62. If you would like to participate in the GNSO Policy Webinar, please register <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Z5ENBC3wa2IOvAeYr27-pGU0lJIEeZCmgZkpAo2l0S 0/edit> here. The Policy Development Support Team looks forward to helping the ICANN community prepare for ICANN62!

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 21 May 2018
by Julie Hedlund 21 May '18

21 May '18

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 21 May 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 documents. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: WG members should review section 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria as preparation for the call on 29 May at 20:00 UTC (see attached section in PDF and Word) Section 1.5.5: Add a question in section e.: “Under what conditions would an applicant be entitled to a full refund?” Section 1.10.2: Question: For those of us who weren't on this work track, how did the work track propose to address the problem faced by at least one RO, namely, that no registrars were willing to sign its RRA? (It's my understanding that that situation has been resolved, but it raises the potential for anticompetitive behavior by registrars that don't like a particular RO's business model.) Thanks. Answer: There weren’t specific conversations on that particular RO. There were discussions of registries being able to seek an exemption if no registrars were willing to sign. Question re: the recommendation “Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars, unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted”-- Any consideration of proposed changes to provisions in the Registrar SG charter concerning exemptions from the registry code of conduct? Answer: The Work Track didn’t make the connection between proposed changes to the Registrar SG charter and the terminology used in the recommendation. Could consider including this as a question in section e as to whether the recommendation should say, “unless the Registry Code of Conduct doesn’t apply” rather than “an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted”. 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. Notes: 1. Roll Call/SOIs: No updates. 2. Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. As a reminder, 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. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation -- Administrative Item: Please limit your intervention on the specific items we are covering to 2 minutes and if a second intervention please try to keep it to 60-90 seconds. Section 1.5: Application Submission (Application Fees; Variable Fees; Application Submission Period; Applicant Support; Terms & Conditions) -- Caveat: Don’t tie ICANN down to restrictive conditions – jurisdiction of incorporation of a registrant. In 2012 a certain number of registries deliberately registered in tax havens. -- Make sure that we capture that a full refund is an option that is available. Could add it as a question. “Under what conditions would an applicant be entitled to a full refund?” >From the chat: -- from Jim Prendergast to All Participants: for those not familiar - there was a graduated scale of refunds available to applicants depending on which stage they withdrew. But by the time ICANN made post submission changes, the refunds available were for 50% or less of the $185k fee. Thats not fair so there ws talk of ensure there would be a 100% refund if ICANN Changes the rules Section 1.6: Application Processing (Application Queuing) -- Question: Would there be any assurance with Digital Archery that there isn’t human intervention in setting the date of receipt? Answer: Because it is a random drawing there isn’t expected to be human intervention. -- Question: Would there be an acknowledgement sent to the applicant that the applicant was received? Answer: In 2012 as soon as the applications were drawn it was made public. The Work Track assumed it would be done in a similar manner. -- Question: Would people be able to have a clear picture of the situation, processing, and what priorities are assigned? Answer: The Work Track didn’t not discuss the system in this detail. The Work Track expected that it would be similar to the first round where you could log in and look at the status. -- Question: Can applicants choose which priority number to assign to which application? Answer: Not sure if the Work Track discussed this in detail. Section 1.10.1 Base Registry Agreement >From the chat: from Rubens Kuhl to All Participants: ICANN already sent the agreement in the governmental version for gov. applicants, there was no need to ask specifically for it. -- In the 2012 round, to the extent that ICANN knew that one was a government applicant they were then given the alternate sections. -- Possible dependencies on the Base Registry Agreement – Registry Agreement may need to be changed to reflect the policies adopted by other relevant PDPs impacting new gTLDs, the results of the CCT-RT Final Report as well as the final recommendations of this Working Group, including those adopted with respect to Geographic Names at the Top-Level in Work Track 5. Section 1.10.2 Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization >From the chat: -- from kristina rosette to All Participants: Question: For those of us who weren't on this work track, how did the work track propose to address the problem faced by at least one RO, namely, that no registrars were willing to sign its RRA? (It's my understanding that that situation has been resolved, but it raises the potential for anticompetitive behavior by registrars that don't like a particular RO's business model.) Thanks. Answer: There weren’t specific conversations on that particular RO. There were discussions of registries being able to seek an exemption if no registrars were willing to sign. -- Question re: the recommendation “Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars, unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted”-- Any consideration of proposed changes to provisions in the Registrar SG charter concerning exemptions from the registry code of conduct? Answer: The Work Track didn’t make the connection between proposed changes to the Registrar SG charter and the terminology used in the recommendation. Could consider including this as a question in section e as to whether the recommendation should say, “unless the Registry Code of Conduct doesn’t apply” rather than “an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted”. Section 1.11.1: Pre-Delegation (Registry System Testing) -- Question: What was the modality of the demonstration and procedure to verify capabilities and if the applicant is not accepted can it provide an argument? Answer: Did not close the possibility to provide self-certification. It was ICANN decided what were the criteria that the registry had to provide and the Work Track is not suggesting changes to that procedure. -- Question: Any case where that demonstration of this capability was rejected? Answer: Don’t think there were any that failed. They all eventually passed, but were some benefits of the tests. They were a mixture of some self-certification and some actual live tests. -- Question: Who checks the demonstration and if it is a self-certification how was that verified? Answer: There is text in the deliberation section that is applicable. If there are questions or clarifications, or things that aren’t included, let us know. -- Two dependencies: RSP Pre-Approval Program (Discussed in Section [1.2.6]) and Evolution of ICANN SLA Monitoring. 3. Next Meeting: 29 May, 20:00 UTC: WG members should review section 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria as preparation.

2 1

Recording, attendance & WebEx chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 21 May 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 21 May '18

21 May '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, 21 May 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/jxwFBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-21may18-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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 21 May 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Vanda Scartezini 21 May '18

21 May '18

Dear Emily, colleagues. I will be speaking in an event about Privacy Monday morning, so not be able to participate. My apologies! However Here some comments about the points to be debated 1. ( Section 1.5 item c.2 ) - I am still not think that to implement this recommendation ( refund applicants) will be an easy and/or fair task- I believe keep the excess in a fund for destinations as described in item c.4, will cost less to ICANN’s administration, otherwise the administration cost may generate more fee cost to all. 2. ( Section 1.5 item e) : What are the considerations/implications if we move to continuous rounds, especially as it relates to ensuring the program is run in a revenue neutral manner? Refund solution will not work in this alternative. the Application administration for a continuous rounds will probably use the same “more accurate applicant fee” and will need to have a more reduced but permanent structure to face continuous application. Adjustment of the applicant fee will be a continuous task and shall be monitoring annually reporting to the community. Additionally the whole external support, as independent panels, shall be registered as a list of persons open to join in a different panels, any time, for an specific task they are experts. For each application, when needed a reduced panel of 3 will be selected for a working day to analyse the application. 1. Under the circumstance where the application fee is set at the floor amount, do you have additional suggestions or strategy on the disbursement of excess funds? I believe the best alterative will be in Fund to be disbursed as defined in isection1.5 c.4. My 2 cents Have a successful meeting Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, May 18, 2018 at 14:31 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 - 21 May 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 21 May 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>) in advance of the meeting. 1. Section 1.5: Application Submission (Application Fees; Variable Fees; Application Submission Period; Applicant Support; Terms & Conditions) 2. Section 1.6: Application Processing (Application Queuing) 3. Time Permitting, Section 1.10: Contracting (Base Registry Agreement, Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization) 4. Time Permitting, Section 1.11: Pre-Delegation (Registry System Testing) 4. AOB For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, 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. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation 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>). Kind regards, Emily

2 1

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 21 May 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas 18 May '18

18 May '18

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 21 May 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>) in advance of the meeting. * Section 1.5: Application Submission (Application Fees; Variable Fees; Application Submission Period; Applicant Support; Terms & Conditions) * Section 1.6: Application Processing (Application Queuing) * Time Permitting, Section 1.10: Contracting (Base Registry Agreement, Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization) * Time Permitting, Section 1.11: Pre-Delegation (Registry System Testing) 4. AOB For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, 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. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation 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>). Kind regards, Emily

1 0