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

Recording, attendance & chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 14 May 2018 at 22:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland May 15, 2018

May 15, 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, 14 May 2018 at 22:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/WAwFBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-14may18-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 ** 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 14 May 2018
by Julie Hedlund May 14, 2018

May 14, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 14 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 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. 1.5.4: Section c. recommendations: 3. Seems to suggest that if you don’t meet the requirements of the ASP suggests that you would transition to a standard application, but that application could be a community one. Need to use a term other than “standard application”. Question re: #7: i. Were Community Priority Evaluation fees considered in this discussion? Would the Community Priority Evaluation Fees something that could be supported, because these aren’t small. Answer: I think a direct response is that no, the community-based application connection was not discussed. It would probably need to be discussed after the Initial Report or as a public comment, since it was not already discussed? While not specifically referred to, some members of the group may have assumed all were included. Since it was not discussed i think it is an important item to flag to ensure that a discussion does occur at some point. ii. “Attorney Fees” – Don’t see where that fits in here. If it is to write the application, then that’s included in the application. Otherwise it could significantly increase covered fees. iii. Also, what is included in ICANN annual maintenance fees. Consider including a footnote. Section e. Questions: i. Add the following question: “Should geographic outreach include outreach to indigenous tribes on various continents?” ii. Break up the questions in the final bullet into sub-bullets. iii. Add the following question: “Did the ASP provide the right tools to potential program participants" should we add..."If not, what was missing?"" Section f. Deliberations: i. What are “gTLD purchasers”? The only purchaser is the final registrant. Who is referred to here? Update to “gTLD potential applicants” ii. Bottom of page 19: “likelihood of succeed” should be changed to “likelihood of succeeding”. 1.5.5: WG members should review and comment on the list if the preliminary outcomes and deliberations are not accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. 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 1.5.4: Applicant Support -- Scope in this area for joint financing. -- Not sure who are the “gTLD purchases” (page 17). Not sure of that terminology and think we should use more conventional language. -- Quite reasonable that an applicant that doesn’t meet the requirements of the ASP should be given an opportunity to pay. -- Careful with the language – Seems to suggest that if you don’t meet the requirements of the ASP suggests that you would transition to a standard application, but that application could be a community one. Need to use a term other than “standard application”. -- Question re: #5: Is there an ICANN definition of "Global South"; Does the term encompass underdeveloped regions or territories of rich countries? Same question about “middle countries”, though we do define it ourselves. I wonder if an indigenous tribe in Canada or US, or the "inner city" would be "Global South". Answer: The way it was discussed in the WG, indigenous tribes were an example but not expressly noted as "Global South". Question re: #7: -- Were Community Priority Evaluation fees considered in this discussion? Would the Community Priority Evaluation Fees something that could be supported, because these aren’t small. Answer: I think a direct response is that no, the community-based application connection was not discussed. It would probably need to be discussed after the Initial Report or as a public comment, since it was not already discussed? While not specifically referred to, some members of the group may have assumed all were included. Since it was not discussed i think it is an important item to flag to ensure that a discussion does occur at some point. Also, what is included in ICANN annual maintenance fees. Consider including a footnote. From the chat: from Justine Chew to All Participants: Thanks @CLO. @Christa, perhaps just add a reference pointing to the source for "ICANN annual maintenance fees". Tx. >From the chat: -- from Justine Chew to All Participants: @Greg, agree with you on attorney fees. But I am also thinking we may need to be careful to deal with unintended thoughts of "Why only attorney fees, and not other applicable professional fees?" -- from Martin Sutton to All Participants: Perhaps "reasonable and relevant fees" could capture this? -- “Attorney Fees” – Don’t see where that fits in here. If it is to write the application, then that’s included in the application. Otherwise it could significantly increase covered fees. -- ICANN has to be protected in territorial disputes at the local level. [No suggestion for a textual change.] -- Section f. Deliberations: What are “gTLD purchasers”? The only purchaser is the final registrant. Who is referred to here? 1.5.5: 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. -- WG homework: WG members should review and comment on the list if the preliminary outcomes and deliberations are not accurately captured and written in an understandable manner 3. Next Meeting: 21 May, 15:00 UTC.

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 May 2018 at 22:00 UTC
by Steve Chan May 11, 2018

May 11, 2018

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 14 May 2018 at 22:00 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. 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) 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 (*New, shared in this email) 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/

1 0

Initial Report Excerpts - Section 1.10: Contracting
by Steve Chan May 10, 2018

May 10, 2018

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the Initial Report excerpt for section 1.10 on Contracting. This section consists of: Base Registry Agreement Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization This section has been added to the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. 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

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 7 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Steve Chan May 8, 2018

May 8, 2018

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 7 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Where are we now with the Initial Report? Review of the Initial Report (continued). Section 1.5: Application Submission (Application Fees; Variable Fees; Application Submission Period; Applicant Support; Terms & Conditions) Section 1.6: Application Processing (Application Queuing) AOB For Item 4, all relevant documents were already shared but are again attached again for your convenience. 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. 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 2

Recording, attendance & chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 07 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland May 7, 2018

May 7, 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, 07 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/VgwFBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-07may18-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 ** 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 07 May 2018
by Julie Hedlund May 7, 2018

May 7, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 07 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 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. 1.5.1: Add a definition of “speculation” and “warehousing”. Add a question in the Feedback section: “Should additional fees be added for certain aspects of application processing? For example, should additional fees apply when objections are made or when an application proposes new services that require a Registry Service Evaluation Process? Should additional fees apply where more than one application is received for the same string and an auction process becomes necessary?” 1.5.2: Add a question in the Feedback section: “If we established variable fees how can we be sure there is no gaming?” Add a question in the Feedback section: “How do we ensure there is predictability for the application?” 1.5.3: Re: dependencies – Note that whether or not there is only one window is a dependency. Add a question in the Feedback section: “Is 6 months enough time to complete a community application?” Notes: 1. Initial Report Excerpts: -- Sent to the list: 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.12; will send 1.10 soon. 1.5: Application Submission 1.5.1: Application Fees -- ICANN should continue to justify how the $185,000 was determined – couldn’t get an exact breakdown of how the fees were spent. Important that 30 percent of the application fee was for contingencies, which is the excess. Not released until the program is complete. -- $80 million left in the excess application fees, but this WG does not have jurisdiction to make recommendations on what is done with excess fees from the last round. -- The WG should contemplate the methodologies used to determine fees in the future. -- Did the WG discuss the use of these funds for ICANN’s legal defense? WG didn’t have the specific conversation about whether this should not be allowed in future application fees. We couldn’t dig into the methodologies without have the breakdown of the activities that related to the costs. Important that ICANN can have a contingency – shouldn’t have to dig into the reserve fund as a result of a legal challenge arising from the program. -- If there are no limits on the number of applications or no way to feasibly limit, then the WG is seeking feedback on this issue relating to speculation or warehousing. The discussions were relating to the correlation between price and demand of applications. A floor price was assumed to increase the number of applications. Noting the request for a definition of “speculation” and “warehousing”. 1.5.2: Variable Fees -- Did the Work Track consider whether different application fees should be applied to different categories of applications? Shouldn't the WG be asking for public comment on this? Yes, in the Variable Fees section, 1.5.2. -- If we established variable fees how can we be sure there is no gaming? ACTION: Add as a question. -- How do we ensure there is predictability for the application? ACTION: Add as a question. 1.5.3: Application Submission Period -- Time in which the application system is open to accept applications. -- I'm not sure if a period of 1 month between end of communication period and end of application period is sufficient to propose. Even in Europe many applicants made the decision on the last minute. Could be good to respond to the questions in the public comment period. -- Re: dependencies – Whether or not there is only one window. Some chapters of the report assume that there will be a single window. -- Was there a thorough discussion about the nature and logistics of a community application – is 6 months enough time to complete a community application?

1 0

Initial Report Excerpts - Section 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria
by Steve Chan May 4, 2018

May 4, 2018

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the Initial Report excerpt for section 1.7 on the Application Evaluation/Criteria. This section consists of: Reserved Names IGO/INGO Protections Geographic Names (this is only a placeholder/notice that the substantive work is still taking place in Work Track 5) Registrant Protections Closed Generics String Similarity IDNs Security and Stability Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services Name Collisions This section has been added to the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. Note, the WG will NOT be reviewing this section on the upcoming 7 May 2018 call. 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

Working Group Newsletter - May 2018
by Emily Barabas May 4, 2018

May 4, 2018

Dear Working Group and Work Track 5 members, The May edition of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group newsletter is now available: http://go.icann.org/SubPro. Please feel free to share this newsletter with individuals and groups who may be interested in the Working Group’s activities. An archive of previous editions of the newsletter is available on the WG wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001970> and on the GNSO website<https://gnso.icann.org/en/news/working-group-newsletters>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0