June 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

- Initial Report Excerpts Red-lines and Updated Preamble
by Steve Chan June 28, 2018

June 28, 2018

Dear WG Members, As noted by Jeff a short while ago, the red-lined excerpts have all been made available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. On this page, you will a full set of red-lined excerpts, all sections in a single document. You will also find extracts of each section as well. All of these documents are available in Word and PDF. Included as well on this page is the latest version of the remaining elements of the Initial Report, which includes edits suggested by WG members to the Preamble. The next steps from the staff side are to complete some of the remaining elements in the Initial Report, as well as to begin integrating the excerpts into the report. If you have any questions, please do let us know. Best, Steve, Emily, and Julie 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/

7 8

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Initial Report Excerpts Red-lines and Updated Preamble
by Jamie Baxter June 27, 2018

June 27, 2018

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Initial Report
by Rubens Kuhl June 23, 2018

June 23, 2018

The attached email was about call #21, Registry Services, as I mentioned before, not about Aggregated Evaluation. And that's exactly what drove the registry services outcome that was discussed in San Juan and later published in the report. So, I still don't see any evidence of anyone besides you making that point on aggregated technical (or financial) evaluation. Rubens > On 19 Jun 2018, at 21:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> wrote: > > In order to refresh your memory, please see attached email with references to the specific minute of the mp3 recording for each issue. > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > 520.629.4428 office > 520.879.4725 fax > AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > _____________________________ > <image003.png> > 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 <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>] > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 5:14 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Cc: Jeff Neuman; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Initial Report > > > > > On 19 Jun 2018, at 20:48, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: > > Rubens, > > See comments inline. If these issues are not raised in the Initial Report, the discussions that occurred in Work Track 4 are not accurately reflected. (See especially the mp3 of the November 30 call and my follow up emails in January and February citing to the exact minute of the mp3 recording.) > > Anne, while you are focused on the report, I referred to the actual substantive discussions in WT4. I'll let staff and co-chairs answer anything related to the report, which was not the focus of my responses. > > > > 2. Disclosure of New Services at the Time of Application. Regarding the portion of the draft report that deals with disclosure of new services at the time of application, Question 23 of the existing application requires that all new services proposed be described, including any security and stability issues that may be associated with that. The initial draft report skipped over this issue that was clearly raised in Work Track 4 and talked about the flexibility to propose new services either at the application stage or later on in the RSEP process (even if known at the time of application). As mentioned, there are “trade-offs” here in relation to opportunities for Objections and Evaluations and these should be highlighted for public comment. > > Actually, it is quite the opposite. What is said there is that applicants would be able to disclose services at application time even if not submitting them to evaluation, increasing opportunity for Objections. There is no point in arguing this difference of opinion further. The 2012 round application Question 23 REQUIRES disclosure of all services at the time of application. This is not optional “would be able” disclosure. That’s why the draft does not reflect the discussion in Work Track 4. > > I mentioned above how the WT4 outcome described how it could be done, not how 2012 round was done, which is only part of the report. > > > The draft says it’s optional and does not highlight the issue discussed in Work Track 4 which I have raised and documented multiple times. > > It's actually silent on that, and others also didn't take that language as saying that, as you probably remember. > > > > > > > > > > 3. Aggregated Technical and Financial Evaluations. There was discussion in Work Track 4 about not putting applications that propose new and innovative services at a disadvantage as to timing of contract award based on the fact that these could not be processed as quickly. The purpose of the new gTLD program is innovation. Again, there are “trade-offs” here. This question falls into the category of items as to which there has been no coordination among the Work Tracks. While this may not have been the responsibility of Work Track 4 per se, that does not mean it is not a concern and does not mean it was not discussed. I am not the only person in the Work Track who mentioned this problem. > > There is a fundamental difference between evaluation processing and results publishing. WT4 only addressed the first part; if a result is ready but due to the application sequencing it's publishing is not yet timely, then it won't be published. The process is not meant to be a waterfall, but a series of parallel efforts that have some control points, and any fairness issue is address at those control points. I and others expressed concern about the effect of this aggregation on time of processing applications in Work Track 4. > > Actually not; only in Registry Services other have mentioned that, regarding aggregation of evaluations. > > > > 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.

3 5

ICANN62 sessions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG and Work Track 5
by Emily Barabas June 22, 2018

June 22, 2018

Dear Working Group and Work Track 5 members, Please see below the schedule and links for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and Work Track 5 meetings at ICANN62. Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Working Sessions: Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Face-to-Face Session 1: Mon, Jun 25, 2018 from 9:00 - 10:15 in Salon 7 (GNSO) Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Face-to-Face Session 2: Mon, Jun 25, 2018 from 10:30 - 12:00 in Salon 7 (GNSO) Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Face-to-Face Session 3: Thu, Jun 28, 2018 from 13:30 - 15:00 in Salon 7 (GNSO) Work Track 5 Cross-Community Sessions: Cross-Community Session: Geographic Names at the Top-Level (1 of 2): Mon, Jun 25, 2018 from 15:15 - 16:45 in Salon 1-3 (GAC) Cross-Community Session: Geographic Names at the Top-Level (2 of 2): Thu, Jun 28, 2018 from 15:15 - 16:45 in Salon 1-3 (GAC) Working Group and Work Track 5 members may also be interested in: ccNSO: Members Meeting Day 1: Tue, Jun 26, 2018 from 10:30 - 12:00 in Salon 4 (ccNSO) -- Work Track 5 co-leaders will be discussing WT5 during this policy session. GAC: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WT1-5 (incl. GAC Geographic Names WG) Discussion: Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 14:00 - 15:00 in Salon 1-3 (GAC) 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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: - Initial Report Excerpts Red-lines and Updated Preamble
by Steve Chan June 21, 2018

June 21, 2018

Dear Anne, Jorge, all, As Jeff noted, compiling a verbatim list of preliminary recommendations, options, and questions is one of the last things we envision doing, to avoid having to make any changes in multiple places. However, we will begin integrating the excerpts (i.e., the substantive sections we have been discussing the last few months) into the Initial Report template. While on the surface, this might seem like a simple copy-paste exercise, the Initial Report template and excerpts have some formatting differences that we would prefer to resolve. We would also like to do a full review of the report, so that to the extent possible, we are able to normalize the way terms are phrased (e.g., Applicant Guidebook versus AGB), capitalization is consistent, and other things that seek to increase the overall consistency of the document. As Jeff stressed, these changes are exclusively administrative, but staff believes they are important to the overall quality of the work product. These changes take time and with ICANN62 rapidly approaching, we are hesitant to provide a precise timeline. We understand the preference to have a single, complete product, but if you can identify how it will substantively affect your review, perhaps there is something we can do to mitigate those concerns. Best, Steve On 6/21/18, 9:20 AM, "Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> wrote: Anne, To be honest, the Annexes which are going to literally copy word from word from the main body of the document (like the preliminary recommendations and the things we are soliciting for public comment), we were not planning to do a draft of for version control reasons. We didn’t want to have a separate Annex now, then have to fix changes in both versions if there are changes to either of those. I will discuss with staff today to see what we can do. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 2:46 AM To: AAikman(a)lrrc.com; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; steve.chan(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Initial Report Excerpts Red-lines and Updated Preamble +1 ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Datum: 21. Juni 2018 um 02:45:13 MESZ An: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Initial Report Excerpts Red-lines and Updated Preamble Thanks Jeff. Is there a particular time when we will have the complete, entire redlined draft report including Annexes with the all the questions in one document? (That would be handy.) 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@01D408BE.55AF5770] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=Fm…> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 4:03 AM To: Steve Chan Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Initial Report Excerpts Red-lines and Updated Preamble Thanks Steve. Just to clarify what Steve has said below, when he refers to the”remaining elements in the Initial Report” he is referring to purely administrative items such as (a) insertion of the participant list in the applicable Annex, (b) copying the preliminary recommendations and the questions for community input and putting them in the appropriate Annexes, (c) ensuring that the font is the same throughout the report, (d) ensuring consistency with how we refer to the Applicant Guidebook, the 2007 GNSO Final Report, and other terms, etc. He is not referring to substantive sections that have to be written which would need Working Group review. Thanks. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude USA / Valideus USA 1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 600 McLean, VA 22102 Jeff.Neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com> +1 (202) 549-5079 On Jun 20, 2018, at 1:30 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, As noted by Jeff a short while ago, the red-lined excerpts have all been made available on the Wiki here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…. On this page, you will a full set of red-lined excerpts, all sections in a single document. You will also find extracts of each section as well. All of these documents are available in Word and PDF. Included as well on this page is the latest version of the remaining elements of the Initial Report, which includes edits suggested by WG members to the Preamble. The next steps from the staff side are to complete some of the remaining elements in the Initial Report, as well as to begin integrating the excerpts into the report. If you have any questions, please do let us know. Best, Steve, Emily, and Julie 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 and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN… Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icann… https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=Dw… _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ 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.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Initial Report Excerpts Red-lines and Updated Preamble
by Jamie Baxter June 20, 2018

June 20, 2018

1 0

Short Update from the Leadership Team
by Jeff Neuman June 20, 2018

June 20, 2018

All, As promised, we just got off of a call with the full Working Group Leadership team consisting of the 2 Co-Chairs, the 5 of the 7 Work Track Co-Leads for Work Tracks 1-4, one of the Co-Leads from Work Track 5, our 3 ICANN Policy support staff and 1 of our 2 Council Liaisons. We have taken all of the recent concerns expressed on the mailing list and have come up with the following plan. Please note that this is high level at this point since we just got off the call, and more details will follow. 1. In the next few hours you will see the redlines to each of the Sections that we have discussed over the past few months. The should include the comments that were made either by e-mail or on the calls about those sections. The revisions have all been reviewed by the Work Track Leaders as well as by Cheryl and I. As we discussed, there were a number of comments that were submitted by Working Group members that related to the substance of the issues as opposed to comments related to clarity of the substance, issues for community input, or whether the sections accurately reflected the discussions that took place over the past 1.5 years. Those comments are NOT being ignored. Rather, they will be included with all of the public comments that come in from the community on the Initial Report. 1. Because the redlines are only going out now, instead of "locking down" the document on June 20th, we are keeping the document open for comments on the redlines until Friday, June 29th. Comments on the redlines should not be to change the substance of the Initial Report, but only whether the Leadership Team and ICANN staff have captured all of the comments that have been received by Working Group members over the past few months on the clarity of the substance, issues for community input and whether the sections accurate reflected the discussions in the Work Tracks. 1. In addition, we have decided to discuss the Initial Report and any issues at ICANN during the scheduled 3rd session of the SubPro Working Group. More specifically, this will be discussed on Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 13:30 - 15:00 Local Panama Time. This will replace our discussion on the CCT-RT Report. * Although we will be having a brief discussion about the Initial Report and next steps in the first session on Monday, June 25, 2018 starting at 9:00 am local time in Panama, this session will not be used to discuss the redlines. The reason we are not discussing the redlines at the first session is two-fold. First, having it at the last session gives you all more time to review the redlines. Second, there are some groups like the ALAC and the Registries that have cancelled or at least modified their meeting on Monday so that members could attend our SubPro sessions. We believe a better use of that time will be for talking about the topics that we were previously scheduled to discuss. To not stick to that original agenda would be unfair to those that had planned to attend those sessions to discuss the other topics (Regardless of how much some would like to discuss the Initial Report). 1. We will describe the ICANN agenda in more detail in a subsequent note, but at a high level, the plan for the first two sessions on Monday, June 25 at 9:00am local time to 10:15 am local time; then again at 10:30 am local time to 12:00 pm local time) is to discuss an update on where we are, a roadmap on where we go from here, a level set on how we will measure consensus, the role of supplemental report (and when they are needed), and tools to clear up any potential logjams. We will then get into some substantive discussions on topics that we already know have not been addressed in the Initial Report including things like (a) Auctions of Last Resort to resolve contention sets, (b) the use of Private Auctions by parties to avoid Auctions of Last Resort, (c) Change Requests to applications - When should they be allowed and when should they not, (d) other topics to be spelled out in the next 24-48 hours. Other than the initial update on where we are, the plan is to make both sessions as interactive as possible given the limitations of Adobe Connect and having remote participants. As always, please do not hesitate to reach out to either Cheryl or myself, or for that matter anyone on the Leadership Team, if you have any questions. Best regards, Cheryl Landon-Orr Jeff Neuman SubPro Co-Chairs

2 1

Section 1.5.5.c &f - Terms & Conditions - Covenant Not to Sue
by Rosette, Kristina June 20, 2018

June 20, 2018

All, I'm writing to request changes in Section 1.5.5.c, e and f of the report so that it is consistent with and reflects WT(2) discussions. (Section accessible at https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/f.+Report+Drafting?preview=/69272…) During the 18 January 2018 WT call discussing this issue, I opposed the covenant not to sue - regardless of any appeal mechanism. Based on statements by the WG Co-Chairs (one verbally and one in chat), I understood that the report would reflect that opposition. I also understood based on statements in chat that we would seek public comment on the covenant not to sue - independent of any appeals mechanism - in the Initial Report. Moreover, the discussion was clear that, for even those WT members who supported an appeals mechanism, that support is dependent on the efficacy of the appeals mechanism. The current draft of the report doesn't reflect either of these points (c and f), and doesn't seek public comment on either of them, either (e). I believe these inadvertent omissions need to be corrected. I apologize for the timing of this request, but didn't realize until yesterday's meeting that the text I was looking for was in Section 1.5 (and not Section 1.8) Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP - Domains rosettek(a)amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354

4 3

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Initial Report
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne June 20, 2018

June 20, 2018

As everyone knows, I also support the approach of finalizing the version for public comment AFTER the meeting in Panama, as did many commenters on the last call. It’s a policy meeting. The Preamble looks good with the exception of the following: A. “different” should be “differently” B. “man-hours” should be “hours” Listing the questions for public comment in separate Annexes (with links to the deliberations) is a terrific idea. Thank you Leadership for thinking of this! I think Jeff made it clear on the last call that members of the Working Group could submit changes and comments up until Friday June 29. That makes sense. Due to time constraints on the drafting process, I am underlining the items below (from my previous comments) in advance of seeing the revisions. These revisions are necessary to accurately reflect discussions in Work Tracks 3 and 4 respectively. With respect to work actually discussed in the Work Tracks, I was disappointed that several issues I raised in those (time-consuming) discussions did not appear in the draft Initial Report. I have raised these again (and again – even going back and documenting them from the calls in the case of Work Track 4) and will be looking for revisions to the draft report to accurately reflect those discussions. Some of the more significant are: 1. Predictability Framework. The proposed framework is duplicative of the GNSO Procedures already adopted by the Board for GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, and Expedited PDP. At first Jeff and Steve Chan thought these existing procedures only applied to the pre-launch phase. This is obviously not the case and was never intended by the P & I Working Group. Many of the examples provided in the draft Initial Report were carefully studied by the WG before recommending the policy to the GNSO which was later adopted by the Board and now appears in the GNSO Operating Procedures Annexes. This was mentioned several times in the plenary calls. The conflict should be highlighted, as should be clear from the fact that the GNSO is now launching an EPDP. 2. Disclosure of New Services at the Time of Application. Regarding the portion of the draft report that deals with disclosure of new services at the time of application, Question 23 of the existing application requires that all new services proposed be described, including any security and stability issues that may be associated with that. The initial draft report skipped over this issue that was clearly raised in Work Track 4 and talked about the flexibility to propose new services either at the application stage or later on in the RSEP process (even if known at the time of application). As mentioned, there are “trade-offs” here in relation to opportunities for Objections and Evaluations and these should be highlighted for public comment. 3. Aggregated Technical and Financial Evaluations. There was discussion in Work Track 4 about not putting applications that propose new and innovative services at a disadvantage as to timing of contract award based on the fact that these could not be processed as quickly. The purpose of the new gTLD program is innovation. Again, there are “trade-offs” here. This question falls into the category of items as to which there has been no coordination among the Work Tracks. While this may not have been the responsibility of Work Track 4 per se, that does not mean it is not a concern and does not mean it was not discussed. I am not the only person in the Work Track who mentioned this problem. 4. Definition of “community”. I raised the Principle of Freedom of Expression numerous times within Work Track 3 discussions in relation to concerns that the proposed policy change to narrow the definition of community to those community applications that are “deserving” of CPE violates that principle and involves content regulation that is beyond ICANN’s Mission. This issue did not appear in the initial draft report so I had to raise it again in the full WG calls. Karen Day says that she and Robin Gross are “on it” so thank you Karen! It is not appropriate for any of the above issues to be “sidelined” by suggesting that the WG post the comments to the public comment section rather than describing the issues in the Initial Report exactly as they were raised in the Work Track discussions. I agree with those who have remarked that if the issues clearly raised in the Work Tracks are not clearly set forth for public comment, the failure will merely “blow up later”. In this regard, I have never had this much trouble getting bottom-up participation reflected, notwithstanding the fact that Jeff is doing a yeoman’s job in dealing with this much material and trying to coordinate his Work Track leaders. Thank you Jeff. 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@01D407C1.74F1C030] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 9:02 AM To: 'Jon Nevett'; 'Jeff Neuman' Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC I’d like to support Jon here. This seems like a sensible approach. Jonathan From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 4:11 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC Jeff: There are a number of examples, like this one, where I am hearing about last minute proposed improvements to the report. We should have the time in Panama to go through theses changes vs. on the fly now. I propose that we consider and make any final clarifications/improvements in Panama. We should lock down the report after Panama and then send it out for public comment. Locking it down before Panama would only prevent us from making final clarifications and improvements necessitating comments on stale or incorrect language. Wouldn't we be better off getting comments on a better version? Thx. Jon On Jun 19, 2018, at 7:40 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: All, I think we can find a way to incorporate Kristina and Anne's comments because upon thinking about this, they are correct. Although the Guidebook uses the term "infringe" many times, technically, the Guidebook does not use an "infringement" standard in the supporting text. Perhaps generalizing the text to just ask if the standard that was applied was the correct one. So how about this: • Should the standard for the Legal Rights Objection remain the same as in the 2012 round? Please explain. And we drop a footnote quoting section 3.5.2 in full as Anne did below. Does that work? Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 10:26 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC Anne, The policy reads "Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law." (Source: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm) Anything different than that, including AGB which was supposed to be its implementation when it does not follow policy, is a change of GNSO policy. It also doesn't work picking 1 AGB reference when other 3 references in AGB say exactly what the GNSO policy says. We can't just pick references that go to one view and not the others from the same document. Rubens > On 18 Jun 2018, at 23:00, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: > > Rubens, > This is definitely not a “change in policy” that Kristina and I are suggesting. The clear language of the AGB which codifies the grounds for the LRO is at 3.5.2 as follows: > > 3.5.2 Legal Rights Objection > In interpreting and giving meaning to GNSO Recommendation 3 (“Strings > must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are > recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally > recognized principles of law”), a DRSP panel of experts presiding over > a legal rights objection will determine whether the potential use of > the applied-for gTLD by the applicant takes unfair advantage of the > distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s registered > or unregistered trademark or service mark (“mark”) or IGO name or > acronym (as identified in the treaty establishing the organization), > or unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the reputation > of the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym, or otherwise creates an > impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and > the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym. > > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > 520.629.4428 office > 520.879.4725 fax > AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > _____________________________ > <image003.png> > 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: Monday, June 18, 2018 6:06 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Cc: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Proposed agenda - New gTLD > Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC > > > Anne and Kristina, > > While we can reckon the actual standard used in 2012, we can't simply > ignore that we have > - The current applicable GNSO Recommendation (3) saying infringement > - Three AGB references using infringement > 3.2.1 Grounds for Objection > Legal Rights Objection – The applied-for gTLD string infringes the existing legal rights of the objector. > 3.2.2.2 Legal Rights Objection A rightsholder has standing to file a legal rights objection. The source and documentation of the existing legal rights the objector is claiming (which may include either registered or unregistered trademarks) are infringed by the applied-for gTLD must be included in the filing. > Attachment to Module 3 > Article 2 (e) (ii) > “Existing Legal Rights Objection” refers to the objection that the > string comprising the potential new gTLD infringes the existing legal > rights of others > > (not counting 3.5.2, where infringement is redefined to the criteria > actually used) > > That means that in order to keep 2012 status-quo, the policy recommendation needs to be changed and AGB also needs to be changed. > > What I find curious is that ICANN's own Program Implementation Review failed to acknowledge this deviation from policy, and we probably need to state that somehow. Even if the PDP finds that it was for the better, and it looks that way to me, we shouldn't miss the learning that this mistake provided. > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 18 Jun 2018, at 19:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: > > I support Kristina’s comments shown in the attachment and note that she also states in her comment on page 10 that the LRO in 2012 was not an “infringement” standard. Kristina suggests in the attachment that we simply refer to the “standard used in 2012” if we are not willing to set out the three grounds set forth in the AGB and copied again below. > > This same reference to “infringement analysis” occurs on page 15 of draft Section 1.8 so the language there should be conformed to the language chosen for page 10. > > Again, the standard for LRO from 2012 is as follows: > > As provided for in section 3.5.2 of the ICANN Applicant Guidebook, the independent panel will determine whether the potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the applicant: > (i) takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s registered or unregistered trademark or service mark (“mark”) or IGO name or acronym, or > (ii) unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym, or > (iii) otherwise creates an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym. > > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > 520.629.4428 office > 520.879.4725 fax > AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > _____________________________ > <image003.png> > Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP > One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 > Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com> > > > From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-newgtld-wg > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 7:52 AM > To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC > > This time with attachment. Apologies. > > > From: Rosette, Kristina > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 10:51 AM > To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Cc: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC > > My comments and suggestions on 1.8 attached. > > From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Steve Chan > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2018 1:25 PM > To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC > > Dear WG Members, > > With apologies for the late delivery, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 18 June 2018 at 15:00 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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>) in advance of the meeting. > • Review of Section 1.8 (Accountability Mechanisms) > • Review of Section 1.9 (Community Applications) > • Review of other sections in the Initial Report > • 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. > > For Item 4, you will find a draft of most of the other sections within the Initial Report, including the Preamble and the Executive Summary. You will see a placeholder in Section 2, which states, “Insert sections from the excerpts reviewed by Working Group…” – here, staff will insert the sections we have been reviewing for the last couple of months, inclusive of any changes as needed from discussions on calls and on list. > > 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 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/ > > > > 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. > <RosetteK cmts Section 1.8 Dispute > Proceedings_7June2018.docx>___________________________________________ > ____ > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg > > > > 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ 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.

4 6

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne June 19, 2018

June 19, 2018

I support Kristina’s comments shown in the attachment and note that she also states in her comment on page 10 that the LRO in 2012 was not an “infringement” standard. Kristina suggests in the attachment that we simply refer to the “standard used in 2012” if we are not willing to set out the three grounds set forth in the AGB and copied again below. This same reference to “infringement analysis” occurs on page 15 of draft Section 1.8 so the language there should be conformed to the language chosen for page 10. Again, the standard for LRO from 2012 is as follows: As provided for in section 3.5.2 of the ICANN Applicant Guidebook, the independent panel will determine whether the potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the applicant: (i) takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s registered or unregistered trademark or service mark (“mark”) or IGO name or acronym, or (ii) unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym, or (iii) otherwise creates an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym. 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@01D40716.126BB2F0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 7:52 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC This time with attachment. Apologies. From: Rosette, Kristina Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 10:51 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC My comments and suggestions on 1.8 attached. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2018 1:25 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, With apologies for the late delivery, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 18 June 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. * Review of Section 1.8 (Accountability Mechanisms) * Review of Section 1.9 (Community Applications) 4. Review of other sections in the Initial Report 5. 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. For Item 4, you will find a draft of most of the other sections within the Initial Report, including the Preamble and the Executive Summary. You will see a placeholder in Section 2, which states, “Insert sections from the excerpts reviewed by Working Group…” – here, staff will insert the sections we have been reviewing for the last couple of months, inclusive of any changes as needed from discussions on calls and on list. 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/ ________________________________ 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.

9 12

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan June 19, 2018

June 19, 2018

Dear WG Members, With apologies for the late delivery, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 18 June 2018 at 15:00 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. Review of Section 1.8 (Accountability Mechanisms) Review of Section 1.9 (Community Applications) Review of other sections in the Initial Report 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. For Item 4, you will find a draft of most of the other sections within the Initial Report, including the Preamble and the Executive Summary. You will see a placeholder in Section 2, which states, “Insert sections from the excerpts reviewed by Working Group…” – here, staff will insert the sections we have been reviewing for the last couple of months, inclusive of any changes as needed from discussions on calls and on list. 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/

7 8

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-igFBQ/ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-18jun18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3xseetlry8/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&p… 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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2018
by Emily Barabas June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 18 June 2018. 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, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/x/-igFBQ Kind regards, Emily --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actions: 1.8.2 -- Section b: Factual correction for 1.8.2.b: Some applicants also filed DIDP requests (and DIDP is considered an accountability mechanism). To get documents. --Section e: Add a question: Ask what the impact if any this appeal mechanism would have on an applicant's ability to pursue other accountability mechanism and, if so, why. Relating to: "ICANN should create a new substantive appeal mechanism specific to the new gTLD Program. Such an appeals process will not only look into whether ICANN violated the Bylaws by making (or not making) a certain decision, but will also evaluate whether the original action or action was done in accordance with the Applicant Guidebook." 1.9.1 Section e: -- Add: "How can the CPE process be more transparent and predictable? What are the elements that make the process transparent and predictable? -- Questions could be answered as "yes" or "no" -- We need to add: "if, yes, please provide your reason." (change throughout the document, or in the preamble) -- At the beginning of section 1.9, consider whether it would it be appropriate to cross-reference other conversations about string contention that are not related to communities so it is clear where to find these sections within the document? -- Consider removing paragraph referencing .navajo or revising the text to omit this example. Notes: 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) in advance of the meeting. Review of Section 1.8 (Accountability Mechanisms) 1.8.2: Accountabililty Mechanisms -- Don't see how this accountability mechanism would interplay with the Appeals mechanism. Ask what the impact if any this would have on an applicant's ability to pursue other accountability mechanism and, if so, why. -- The question we are asking the community if we should allow two types of appeal -- substantive or procedural grounds. -- Question of whether it is even possible to distinguish between what is substantive and what is procedural. From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Factual correction for 1.8.2.b: Some applicants also filed DIDP requests (and DIDP is considered an accountability mechanism). Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): Noted Kristina ... Thx Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): To get documents. Considered an accountability mechanism. Christopher Wilkinson: Regarding costs, we could ask the community whether they would support the Panelists being pro-bono volunteers. ICANN would fund expenses and kperhaps a perdiem, not more. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: having continuation of a process challenge (ie Reconsideration Request) is not a change to the current policy. Adding an appeal for substance is what i think we are putting questions out for. 4. Review of other sections in the Initial Report (i.e., Preamble) -- Next steps: WT Leads have until close of business today PDT, and then all the sections with revisions will be sent out tomorrow to the WG. -- WG members should let us know if any questions or comments have been missed. -- Will pull out the recommendations, questions, and options and put them in an annex to the report. Discussion: -- Template is the standard format; does anyone object to combining annex B and C? -- These are not to collect additional input, it is to provide a historical record of input we sought. -- Question: Will there be a public comment period for this report, or is it being made available in Panama? From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: On the subject of consensus, Leadership should not "lock down" the document on June 20 and post to the wiki per work plan since we only received the documents on Sunday and we have not seen several revisions yet. In addition, short Minority Statements should be permitted to outline issues for public comment so that the process is not entirely dependent on the version intended to be posted. COMMENT Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): Is that not covered in the proposed preamble Anne? Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT Panama is a policy meeting. Feeback from constituencies should be taken before the Initial Report is posted for public comment. See list comments from Ken Stubbs, Vanda, and me prior to this call. COMMENT Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): the additional Statements part Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: Minority views should also be reflected in the questions for public comment to outline the issue as discussed in our last call - you agreed to that. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese: Jeff - you pointed out on IPC list that they had not provided much input (other than Greg and me). You were looking for more cmment from them prior to publication of the report. I feel the same way. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): Anne we have been addding questions proposed from the plenary Anne Aikman-Scalese: Jeff - please give this WG more than one day to review those revisions before releasing to the Wiki. That is way too short for such a long report. Anne Aikman-Scalese: In the preamble, the word "different" should be "diffierently". Again, we need a chance to review as Jim mentioned. this is another reason we need more time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): an easy look up for the questions via Annex Anne Aikman-Scalese: Great idea to put Annexes listing the questions for public comment! Thank you! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): we hope that will aid PC preparation 5. (Item 3 contined...): Review of Section 1.9 (Community Applications) -- Section e: Maybe needs to be an extension to the recommendation as to what they mean by transparency and predictability. Add: "How can the CPE process be more transparent and predictable? What are the elements that make the process transparent and predictable? -- Section e: Questions could be answered as "yes" or "no" -- We need to add: "if, yes, please provide your reason." (change throughout the document, or in the preamble) From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: We cannot review the substance of drafts received less than 48 hours ago on non-busines days. COMMENTS Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): award. it's a typo Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): For example, questions 23, and 5 could easily be answered with "yes" or "no." Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: I will definitely be lookin for a question whether "community" should be defined more narrowly than in the 2012 round or not? ken stubbs: I am in agreement with anne's comments & concerns Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): BTW, in section f, the other strings we used in our discussion were .MAORI and .BANK. .MAORI is thematically similar to .NAVAJO, but .BANK is not and the use of only a nation/peoples name could be misleading or misunderstood. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): And by our discussion, I'm referring back to the 2006-07 PDP. Anne Aikman-Scalese: The Work Track summary seems to be proposing a policy change - to narrow the definition. It is not clear from Question 1 that this is what is happening. Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: I still need to look at what is said about .NAVAJO - please note our firm represents the Navajo Nation for various matters. NAVAJO is a registered trademark for numerous goods and sevices. I don't know whether it is appropriate to frame this example in this manner. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese: I certainly mentioned Indian Tribes in general in the Work Track 3 discussion. I doubt I would have specifically mentioned the Navajo Nation. -- Would it be appropriate to cross-reference other conversations about string contention that are not related to communities so it is clear where to find these sections within the document? -- Conversations in Panama may cover auctions. From the chat: Susan Payne: great, thanks so it sounds like we might end up with somethig on auctions going into this section - subject to discussion in Panama Christopher Wilkinson: Section 1.9.1, pae 6 para. 6: The reference to the European Commission and the GAC seems to be a non-sequitur. the CoE is a self sanding entity and thier positions are not delpendent on 'official endorsements by other entities. -- Consider asking a question about whether community needs to be further defined? The current questions seem to assume that the term should be further defined. -- Consider adding to question: Is the definition from the 2012 appropriate? Why or why not? From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: Sorry I am only on one screen at home. Could staff Just search the doc for "Navajo" please? Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Jamie's comment on question 1. -- Question: Is the problem with the paragraph referencing .navajo specific to the use of this word or are there other elements of the paragraph that are a problem? From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: Use of the name Navajo is problematic. Rubens Kuhl: "should an specific native American tribe receive priority if" , perhaps ? Anne Aikman-Scalese: Thank you! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): simple fix then remove the reference Christopher Wilkinson: There are many tribes in many countries and histories. It is a real generic, not North Admerica specific. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: Thanks Jeff .. i think it is important that the question not presume that current policy definition of "community" is insufficient. I would be uncomfortable if the record states that the reason CPE was controversial was becasue it lacked a clear definition of "community" and not for other reasons, such as the evaluators or the evaluation process. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Folks - dealing with Native American Tribes is very sensitive stuff. Please be culturally sensitve here. Tribal names are not generic. -- Paragraph in section F that references .navajo does not take into account that the original intention of the community category was much broader. It seems to presuppose an outcome of this discussion. Economic communities were also anticipated (for example .bank). -- Question: Is this paragraph needed, should it be removed? -- From Work Track discussions it became clear that there were many different ideas about what the term community should include. The text is not intended to exclude anything from the discussion, but is intended to provide some concrete examples to support common understanding. From the chat: From the chat: Karen Day (WT3): I believe we need to either drop it or go broader. I distinctly remember a discussion with the GAC about creating economic communities. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): Dropping the example would also avoid concerns as Anne raised Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree the overall draft in the current version presumes the answer to the question we SHOULD be asking and I raised this many times in the Work Track discussions. We need to acknowledge that the shared understanding in 2012 was much broader than this summary . So again this is a policy change being suggested. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): We ask for that in the questions Robin, so the example dosent seem to still enhance Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I think it's cleaner to drop it, imo. Vanda Scartezini: totally agree Robin the concept of community varies a lot around the world 6. AOB -- WT leaders will finalize revisions today. -- Some of the comments were not suggested revisions but substantive input. The leadership team is tracking these. They are considering posting these comments on the public comment forum. -- This can be handled by WT members submitting the comments themselves or by staff posting the comments. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: The point is to raise issues for public comment. We should not be avoiding that. COMMENT -- Full document with revisions will be posted on Wednesday. Working Group members will have until a week from Friday for any final comments. -- The document will go out for public comment on 3 July. -- The leadership team is disussing whether to spend some of the time in Panama to discuss the content of the report and go over some of the revisions. -- The Panama sessions will also include people not involved in the WG. There is some concern that it will not be a productive use of the session to discuss the report because they have not been involved in this process. From the chat: Vanda Scartezini: we intend to put it to public even with some substantitve issues to be consider? Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes - please - Do use the first session to discuss the report. It's a policy meeting. Then you will have everyone on board! Jim Prendergast: if not these revisions, then what will be on the agenda? Anne Aikman-Scalese: It's useful for the public to understand the report. If you go over it in the first session, the public will be able to better participate. Vanda Scartezini: nobody will read this complex docuemnt before Panama. they will be focusing on their own communities , local jobs and traveling Anne Aikman-Scalese: That's another reason the WG should review it in the first session. Vanda Scartezini: agree @ Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese: You could limit the first session to review of the Questions in the Annexes - then you would get public participation and interaction. Jim Prendergast: Ill repeat a concern I have with having a closed Generics discussion while we have an interim report with lots of questions to the community. It we spend time in Panama trying to advancing any of the less settled issues that at the same time are out for community input - we risk looking like we are not really interested in the community input - even thought we are. Rubens Kuhl: Jim, AFAIK the idea for Closed Generics is trying to build a resolution method, not to find the solution. Jim Prendergast: @Vanda - i would also argue that people wont have time to read it durign an ICANN meeting as well. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Or else pick some Questions from the Annexes where you believe this Policy Forum has its highest and best purpose. -- The last session will focus on recommendations from the CCT-RT. The other sessions will focus on areas that have not yet been discussed but need to be covered. For example, public and private auctions. The other area of focus will be how to make progress on topic areas where there is not yet agreement, for example, Closed Generics. -- Intention is to make the sessions interactive. -- The public comment period will last 60 days and end around 5 September. -- Notes will be sent out to the Board, the GAC and GDD staff to invite input on the report. From the chat: Jim Prendergast: Rubens - is that resolution specific to closed generics or for all issues where there currently is no consensus? Vanda Scartezini: @jim agree , sessions on FACE 2 FACE for community shall start with explanation about it.. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Vanda and Jim- explain to public the issues around the questions you are focusing on. do this in first session. Vanda Scartezini: yes Jim, we need to consider that different expected by public Justine Chew: And the collation of feedback received on these set of drafts will be posted somewhere? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): we will be doing that as we currently plan the sessions Jim Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Jim. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): but we also need to briefly reiterate things for each session Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): +1 to Jim. Although given my circuitous flight plan to Panama, I may have enough time to read it on the plane. -- Participants will not necessarily show up at the beginning of the first session and stay through the end of the last sessions. People will come and go, so we need to have a clear objective at the beginning of each session and create opportunities for both intensive and more casual participation. -- The parts of the report will be ready by Wednesday, but the mechanics of moving the revisions from the Google Doc currently in use to the Word template is fairly complex. This may take more time. -- It may be helpful to use part of the session time in Panama to set the stage and set expectations for next steps.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
by Vanda Scartezini June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

Guess Anne has a point. We should post for the public comment at same time, with more discussions during Panama. Best regards, 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 "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 19:18 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 Jeff and Cheryl, The Work Plan says we will share the full Initial Report on the Wiki on June 20 – prior to the ICANN meeting. I don’t see how we can say that this Working Group will have arrived at an agreed Initial Report by that time. Why are we sharing the report on the Wiki long before it is put out for public comment on July 3? Shouldn’t the WG be finalizing the version of the Initial Report that it wants to approve for public comment in the course of meetings at ICANN62? Maybe I don’t understand what is meant by publication of the report on the Wiki. That seems premature. I don’t think we will have agreement. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D4049D.7BAFC380] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 3:05 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 14 June 2018. 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, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-06-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the attached referenced documents. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items: 1.8.1: Objections, Section e: Action Item 1: Re: "A transparent process for ensuring that panelists, evaluators, and independent objectors are free from conflicts of interest must be developed." Add a question in Section e: concerning who would administer the conflict of interest process; cite current mechanism and ask if others are necessary. Action Item 2: Legal Rights Objections: provide explanation in the question concerning the use of the term "infringement". Action Item 3: Re: delay in the process (question) of course an objection is supposed to delay the process -- the question needs to be reformulated. Action Item 4: Re: string confusion resulting from exact translations of existing TLDs -- concerns received from the community that were shared with the Work Track that said that exact translations of existing strings in highly regulated sectors that don't apply the same safeguards -- need to add a question for feedback. Action Item 5: Clarify the question on Legal Rights Objections and the use of the term “infringement”. Action Item 6: General Questions -- 3rd bullet – Use more neutral language for the question regarding limits on funding for objections filed by ALAC? Change the question to: "If this does continue, should limits be placed on such funding? If yes, what limits should be applied?" Working Group Actions: Action Item 7: WG members should review Section 1.8.2 Accountability Mechanisms, and Section 1.9.1 String Contention Resolution in preparation for the meeting on Monday, 18 June. Notes: 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs: No Updates 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. a. Review of Section 1.8 (Objections; Accountability Mechanisms) 1.8.1 Objections -- If they are purely questions of clarification, not what we discussed, etc., then that is appropriate. We are trying to avoid opinion, new information, etc. as they belong in public comments. -- We are taking note of those types of comments and record them to make sure that none of those inputs are lost. -- Co-Leaders need to do more about the coordination of issues and discussions between the different work tracks -- there are some inconsistencies. -- There is a general issue between Work Track 5 and the extensive discussion of objection procedures. We need a caveat or qualification up front in this document that the objection procedures do not necessarily apply to all categories of applications subject to the work of Work Track 5. -- We will make it clear that the material we are putting out relates to everything except for geographic names at the top level. -- The work being done in the Work Tracks and the work being done in the WG: the Initial Report seems to only reflect work being done in the Work Track. Need to be very clear on the hierarchy and methodology. -- Page 7-8: Don't think it is possible to make objectors worldwide to bear the costs of their objection. Section c: Recommendations -- Question: 1st bullet -- did the WT consider who would administer the process? Answer: Discussed that whoever is appointing the panels should take care to make those assurances (ICANN Org through RFPs, for example) but we did not go into whose responsibility it was. So that the interests of the evaluators are stated up front. ACTION: Add for feedback. But perhaps point to existing mechanisms and ask if others are needed. Section d: Other items that were discussed, but didn't rise to the level of recommendations, so the WG is seeking feedback on them. Section e: Questions the PDP WG is seeking feedback on: -- Re: delay in the process (question) of course an objection is supposed to delay the process -- the question needs to be reformulated. -- Re: string confusion resulting from exact translations of existing TLDs -- concerns received from the community that were shared with the Work Track that said that exact translations of existing strings in highly regulated sectors that don't apply the same safeguards -- need to add a question for feedback. -- In order to be clear with this question, needs to be changed to strike infringement and say unfair advantage -- the rules state three grounds. -- From AGB: "“Existing Legal Rights Objection” refers to the objection that the string comprising the potential new gTLD infringes the existing legal rights of that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law." AGB used infringement wrongly, but that's what it was. -- General Questions -- 3rd bullet -- can we use more neutral language for the question regarding limits on funding for objections filed by ALAC? something along the lines of "If this does continue, should limits be placed on such funding? If yes, what limits should be applied?" Section g: dependencies: -- Re: Independent Objector: On page 18 there is a question about whether there are other activities that would be a dependency, and mention the accountability work with respect to human rights. There was a section in the Accountability Work Stream 2 Sub Team on human rights that could have an impact on this section. The independent review process went into great detail, but the IO as relating to new gTLDs didn't have particular recommendations. There were things like the diversity of a panel, transparency, conflicts of interest -- so hopefully our recommendations will be founded on those models. None of the recommendations are finalized. 4. Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m5W9S7Eigjs0OER6wv2skbG-eaObojBWMxvK4i1… Friday, 15 June 2018 -- Initial Report -- Share other standard sections of the Initial Report, with placeholder for red-lined revisions -- Share revised sections (with possible exception of sections just reviewed) Monday, 18 June 2018 -- Full WG Meeting: Discuss full Initial Report, Discuss red-lined revisions Wednesday, 20 June 2018: Share full Initial Report (on Wiki only) Tuesday, 3 July 2018 -- Officially publish Initial Report for Public Comment --- Send correspondence to Board, inviting them to submit public comment -- Send email to ICANN org, inviting them to submit public comment -- Start a 60-day public comment period, through 05 September. Discussion: -- The level of detail tries to show what we can accomplish by what time. -- Try to develop a work plan of how we get to a final report, meeting-by-meeting with topics. -- At ICANN62: talk about how we organize this WG; put forward some proposals and get insight from the WG members and community. -- Develop a more detailed work plan to provide clarity. -- Question as to whether we need the CCT-RT Report and the WT5 report before the PDP can put forward a "final" document for public comment? We will consider this question. ________________________________ 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.

7 9

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 14 June 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email. The MP3 and Adobe connect recording are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-CgFBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-14jun18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6n9nnte8fh/ 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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
by Julie Hedlund June 14, 2018

June 14, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 14 June 2018. 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, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-06-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the attached referenced documents. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items: 1.8.1: Objections, Section e: Action Item 1: Re: "A transparent process for ensuring that panelists, evaluators, and independent objectors are free from conflicts of interest must be developed." Add a question in Section e: concerning who would administer the conflict of interest process; cite current mechanism and ask if others are necessary. Action Item 2: Legal Rights Objections: provide explanation in the question concerning the use of the term "infringement". Action Item 3: Re: delay in the process (question) of course an objection is supposed to delay the process -- the question needs to be reformulated. Action Item 4: Re: string confusion resulting from exact translations of existing TLDs -- concerns received from the community that were shared with the Work Track that said that exact translations of existing strings in highly regulated sectors that don't apply the same safeguards -- need to add a question for feedback. Action Item 5: Clarify the question on Legal Rights Objections and the use of the term “infringement”. Action Item 6: General Questions -- 3rd bullet – Use more neutral language for the question regarding limits on funding for objections filed by ALAC? Change the question to: "If this does continue, should limits be placed on such funding? If yes, what limits should be applied?" Working Group Actions: Action Item 7: WG members should review Section 1.8.2 Accountability Mechanisms, and Section 1.9.1 String Contention Resolution in preparation for the meeting on Monday, 18 June. Notes: 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs: No Updates 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) in advance of the meeting. a. Review of Section 1.8 (Objections; Accountability Mechanisms) 1.8.1 Objections -- If they are purely questions of clarification, not what we discussed, etc., then that is appropriate. We are trying to avoid opinion, new information, etc. as they belong in public comments. -- We are taking note of those types of comments and record them to make sure that none of those inputs are lost. -- Co-Leaders need to do more about the coordination of issues and discussions between the different work tracks -- there are some inconsistencies. -- There is a general issue between Work Track 5 and the extensive discussion of objection procedures. We need a caveat or qualification up front in this document that the objection procedures do not necessarily apply to all categories of applications subject to the work of Work Track 5. -- We will make it clear that the material we are putting out relates to everything except for geographic names at the top level. -- The work being done in the Work Tracks and the work being done in the WG: the Initial Report seems to only reflect work being done in the Work Track. Need to be very clear on the hierarchy and methodology. -- Page 7-8: Don't think it is possible to make objectors worldwide to bear the costs of their objection. Section c: Recommendations -- Question: 1st bullet -- did the WT consider who would administer the process? Answer: Discussed that whoever is appointing the panels should take care to make those assurances (ICANN Org through RFPs, for example) but we did not go into whose responsibility it was. So that the interests of the evaluators are stated up front. ACTION: Add for feedback. But perhaps point to existing mechanisms and ask if others are needed. Section d: Other items that were discussed, but didn't rise to the level of recommendations, so the WG is seeking feedback on them. Section e: Questions the PDP WG is seeking feedback on: -- Re: delay in the process (question) of course an objection is supposed to delay the process -- the question needs to be reformulated. -- Re: string confusion resulting from exact translations of existing TLDs -- concerns received from the community that were shared with the Work Track that said that exact translations of existing strings in highly regulated sectors that don't apply the same safeguards -- need to add a question for feedback. -- In order to be clear with this question, needs to be changed to strike infringement and say unfair advantage -- the rules state three grounds. -- From AGB: "“Existing Legal Rights Objection” refers to the objection that the string comprising the potential new gTLD infringes the existing legal rights of that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law." AGB used infringement wrongly, but that's what it was. -- General Questions -- 3rd bullet -- can we use more neutral language for the question regarding limits on funding for objections filed by ALAC? something along the lines of "If this does continue, should limits be placed on such funding? If yes, what limits should be applied?" Section g: dependencies: -- Re: Independent Objector: On page 18 there is a question about whether there are other activities that would be a dependency, and mention the accountability work with respect to human rights. There was a section in the Accountability Work Stream 2 Sub Team on human rights that could have an impact on this section. The independent review process went into great detail, but the IO as relating to new gTLDs didn't have particular recommendations. There were things like the diversity of a panel, transparency, conflicts of interest -- so hopefully our recommendations will be founded on those models. None of the recommendations are finalized. 4. Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m5W9S7Eigjs0OER6wv2skbG-eaObojBWMxvK4i1… Friday, 15 June 2018 -- Initial Report -- Share other standard sections of the Initial Report, with placeholder for red-lined revisions -- Share revised sections (with possible exception of sections just reviewed) Monday, 18 June 2018 -- Full WG Meeting: Discuss full Initial Report, Discuss red-lined revisions Wednesday, 20 June 2018: Share full Initial Report (on Wiki only) Tuesday, 3 July 2018 -- Officially publish Initial Report for Public Comment --- Send correspondence to Board, inviting them to submit public comment -- Send email to ICANN org, inviting them to submit public comment -- Start a 60-day public comment period, through 05 September. Discussion: -- The level of detail tries to show what we can accomplish by what time. -- Try to develop a work plan of how we get to a final report, meeting-by-meeting with topics. -- At ICANN62: talk about how we organize this WG; put forward some proposals and get insight from the WG members and community. -- Develop a more detailed work plan to provide clarity. -- Question as to whether we need the CCT-RT Report and the WT5 report before the PDP can put forward a "final" document for public comment? We will consider this question.

2 1

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Steve Chan June 14, 2018

June 14, 2018

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 14 June 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. Review of Section 1.8 (Objections; Accountability Mechanisms) Review of Section 1.9 (Community Applications) Next Steps 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. With the release of section 1.9 and as you can see in the link, all preliminary draft sections have now been released. 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 3

1.9 - Community Applications
by Jamie Baxter June 14, 2018

June 14, 2018

Dear Working Group members, A few additional items not contained in the deliberation section of Community Applications that were raised in the WT3 discussions. 1. Concerns about processes described in the AGB and the CPE Guidelines that were not adhered to by the CPE Providers, or were not adhered to as strictly as the language provided for in published materials: a. Verification of support/opposition letters - all were to require verified, many were not verified without reason b. Party responsible for verification letters - was described by the CPE Provider in their own guidelines as a responsibility of one of the two CPE panelists, but actually done by CPE support staff 2. Concerns about the lack of oversight during CPE which resulted in poor performance of the CPE Providers: a. Verification emails were sent to endorsing organizations that contained response date requirements that had already expired. When reported to ICANN, no email correction was sent to the effected parties and ICANN instructed applicant to carry the burden of informing endorsing organizations to respond to emails anyway, despite the expired due date b. CPE Providers falling short on letter verification duties I believe these are important points to include from our deliberations given that every applicant should at minimum feel assured that their application is be handled with the utmost care and respect for the described procedures, without exception or alternative interpretation. Otherwise the words of the published materials mean nothing, lacking predictability and transparency. Much thanks Jamie Jamie Baxter dotgay LLC <mailto:jamie@dotgay.com> jamie(a)dotgay.com <http://www.dotgay.com/> www.dotgay.com A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE) Please join us on Facebook at <http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/> www.facebook.dotgay.com and follow us at <http://www.twitter.com/dotgay> www.twitter.com/dotgay --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

2 2

1.9 - Community Applications
by Jamie Baxter June 14, 2018

June 14, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Some additional comment for tomorrows call regarding section 1.9 that was just released tonight. I am extremely disappointed to be missing this particular call given that Community Applications are on the agenda. f. Deliberations 1. Second bullet point - I believe this is intended to say "only after the 2012 application window closed;" 2. Although mentioned in other sections, it is worth repeating concerns discussed in the WT about the lack of redress or appeal on substantive matters including: errors of fact, misinterpretations, visibility or challenge to research cited and relied upon by CPE providers, content expertise, etc. 3. Concern about contractual agreements ICANN knowingly made with CPE providers that prevented transparency of CPE documents and other related materials (as evidenced by recent threats by EIU to sue ICANN if information was released) 4. How successful Reconsideration Requests about CPE are addressed when there is only one CPE Provider to be sent back to for what ICANN has called a "new" CPE. This raises concerns about applicants ability to receive a fair and unbiased CPE from a CPE Provider that was shown to have mishandled their application on first attempt. The original plan by ICANN was to contract with two CPE Providers, which would have at minimum offered the applicant an alternative to their prior mishandling. I will absolutely review the recording following the meeting and offer anything further at that time. Much thanks Jamie Jamie Baxter dotgay LLC <mailto:jamie@dotgay.com> jamie(a)dotgay.com <http://www.dotgay.com/> www.dotgay.com A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE) Please join us on Facebook at <http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/> www.facebook.dotgay.com and follow us at <http://www.twitter.com/dotgay> www.twitter.com/dotgay --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

Initial Report Excerpts - Section 1.8: Dispute Proceedings
by Steve Chan June 14, 2018

June 14, 2018

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the Initial Report excerpt for section 1.8 on Dispute Proceedings. This section consists of: Objections Accountability Mechanisms & Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures. This section has been added to the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. We may be able to begin review of this section on the 12 June 2018 meeting, so please begin your review and feel free to provide your input on these sections ahead of their discussion during the WG meeting. 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 3

June 14 call - "Objections"
by Jamie Baxter June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Dear Working Group members, My advance apologies for not being able to attend the June 14 call due to other commitments. I would like to add the following when discussing section 1.8.1 of Dispute Proceedings (Objections). Missing from the deliberations section on Community Objections (1.8.1, f, page 12) is the issue I raised in WT3 that panelists must be properly trained and managed to ensure they avoid delivering decisions that are based on (or rely on) any assumptions about future contention resolution proceedings and decisions. The example that I provided was a Community Objection filed against .LGBT. In this case, the panelist made a statement in his decision that assumes the gay community would be awarded a gTLD of its own (ie. .GAY) and therefore he believed that material detriment did not exist in letting .LGBT proceed. This assumption has not yet come to fruition and therefore the material detriment has not yet been eliminated. It was the panelists' job to eliminate harm to a community, but instead he punted his responsibilities. Panelist decision on .LGBT - https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/25nov13/determination-1- 1-868-8822-en.pdf (page 8) 23. ILGA has shown a likelihood of material detriment to the legitimate interests of the gay community if there is no gTLD designed to serve the gay community and to operate under appropriate principles that grant safety and financial rewards for the gay community. ILGA has not proven that other gTLDs with names that can also be targeted to the gay community are likely to cause material detriment to the legitimate interests of the gay community or a significant portion thereof. They can only cause a certain amount of competition, and Afilias has convincingly argued that there is a legitimate interest in targeting the gay community without belonging to it or without belonging to the portion of it that supports the string .gay. A coexistence of an "official" gTLD of the gay community and another "unofficial" gTLD is no material detriment to the legitimate interests of the gay community. Concern about this shortcoming was raised with ICANN at the time and a request was even submitted to ICANN to consider putting .LGBT put on hold until all material detriment highlighted by the panelist was eliminated (ie. the gay community being awarded .GAY as assumed by the panelist). ICANN rejected the request and also made it clear that the decisions in Community Objections have no mandatory bearing on other contention resolution proceedings like CPE. Despite the panelist acknowledging the likelihood of material detriment to the gay community in certain conditions of this particular Community Objection, there was no procedure or accountability to ensure the conditions were avoided once the decision was given to ICANN. I request that this issue be included in the deliberations section for full transparency on the Objections topic. I am happy to take any questions on this topic here on the list. Much thanks Jamie Jamie Baxter dotgay LLC <mailto:jamie@dotgay.com> jamie(a)dotgay.com <http://www.dotgay.com/> www.dotgay.com A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE) Please join us on Facebook at <http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/> www.facebook.dotgay.com and follow us at <http://www.twitter.com/dotgay> www.twitter.com/dotgay --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

2 2

Reminder of Meetings this Week / Panama Schedule
by Jeff Neuman June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Dear SubPro WG Members and Observers, First, we wanted to remind you that this week we will have 2 Full Working Group calls and one call the week of June 18th to finalize all of the materials for the Preliminary Report. The calls are at: * Tuesday, June 12: 03:00 UTC (For those in the US, that means 11:00 pm on the East Coast and 8:00 pm on the West Coast tonight) * Thursday, June 14: 20:00 UTC * Monday, June 18: 15:00 UTC Second, as you are aware, we are fast approaching ICANN 62 in Panama in just a few short weeks. The entire leadership team is actively preparing for our scheduled 5 face to face sessions. Those sessions are currently scheduled for: * SubPro WG Work Tracks 1-4 Session 1: Monday, June 25: 9:00 - 10:15 (Local Panama Time) * SubPro WG Work Tracks 1-4 Session 2: Monday, June 25: 10:30 - 12:00 (Local Panama Time) * SubPro WG Work Track 5 Session 1: Monday, June 25: 15:15 - 16:45 (Local Panama Time) * SubPro WG Work Tracks 1-4 Session 3: Thursday, June 28: 13:30 - 15:00 (Local Panama Time) * SubPro WG Work Track 5 Session 2: Thursday, June 28: 15:15 - 16:45 (Local Panama Time) The leadership team is aware that there are a number of conflicting sessions that have been scheduled during the times that we are scheduled to meet and that as a result many of you will be in a position of having to decide which sessions to attend. We sincerely hope that you can attend all of our meetings. Because this is the Policy Forum, a meeting that is structured to further our policy development work, we are planning some critical interactive sessions that will enable us as a group to move forward with some of our most contentious issues. Although the Initial Report will hopefully be out by the time that we are in Panama, there is still a lot of work ahead of us as we hit the home stretch working towards a final report. Completion of our Final Report is a key gating item before the implementation work for the next application window for new gTLDs to begin. As a reminder, the plan is to publish the Initial Report before Panama, but not start the Public Comment period prior to the ICANN Meeting. We will likely start the comment period the week after the ICANN meeting. We will discuss this again on the call tonight/tomorrow. With respect to Work Tracks 1-4, the leadership team will likely be finalizing the list of topics to be discussed over the next week, but those topics are likely to include: (a) working towards a final proposal on exclusive use / closed generic TLDs, (b) the use of Private Auctions to resolve string contention, and (c) working on deliverables expected to be delivered to us by the CCT Review Team. We will likely be breaking up into smaller groups during the scheduled sessions to provide everyone with the opportunity to weigh in on these topics and to develop the tools we need to complete our work. The sessions in Panama will be the only chance to do this in a face to face setting and will be used to decide how we move ahead. For Work Track 5, the four Co-Leaders will be reaching out to you all shortly on its finalized agendas. We understand that you have some difficult choices on how to prioritize your time at ICANN 62 and sincerely hope that you attend our sessions. There will be recordings, notes and transcripts from all of the meetings and if you are unable to attend, you will still nonetheless be expected to have reviewed those materials before our next meeting after ICANN 62. Best regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr Jeff Neuman SubPro PDP Co-Chairs Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

7 15

Updated Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 June 2018
by Emily Barabas June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please find below updated notes providing clarification on Action Item 12 and adding an Action Item 12a. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 12 June 2018 at 18:43 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 June 2018 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 12 June 2018. 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, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/x/_CgFBQ [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> . Kind regards, Emily ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items: 1.7.8 Name Collisions Action Item 1: Correct typo in first sentence. Change "tie" to "time." Action Item 2: part c., bullet 2: add link to the place where "DITL" and ORDINAL" are defined. Action Item 3: Find out later this week the status what is expected to be discussed in Panama at the NCAP sessions. Action Item 4: Incorporate suggestions from Anne Aikman-Scalese from the mailing list on questions in part e. Action Item 5: Regarding question that references evaluation by RSTEP - make the text for general -- "Members of the work track discussed evaluation by RSTEP, but feedback is sought on the evaluation. . . " In the question currently referencing NCAP, make the question more general by asking "who should evaluate . . ." Action Item 6: IETF Special TLDs Initiative referenced in g – add reference for more information 1.3.1 Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Action Item 7: add text to subsection f that explains what the WT will do once it receives the CCT RT Final Report and what the best estimate is of the time required for that work. 1.3.2 Global Public Interest Action Item 8: Consider in part b paragraph 1 suggested revisions by Anne Aikman-Scalese: "In October 2012, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided > advice to the ICANN Board of Directors of ICANN that it should come up > with a mechanism to require an applicant to incorporate into its registry agreements by reference certain commitments, business plans, > registration restrictions, additional rights protection mechanisms and > other objectives specified in the application as filed such that these commitments could > be overseen by ICANN’s compliance department." Action Item 9: in part part b. where the report lists what is included in Specification 11, three of the four additional obligations are listed. Add the fourth obligation. Action Item 10: part e. third bullet -- add “If not, what mechanism do you propose?” Action Item 11: Check status of GAC Public Safety Working Group and Registries Stakeholder Group discussion on mandatory PICs, referenced in part g. 1.3.3. Applicant Freedom of Expression Action Item 12: Work Track leaders will consider feedback for the deliberations section to remove reference to dispute resolution providers (see email from Anne Aikman-Scalese for proposed edit). Action Item 12a: Part d. last bullet, to either delete "the" or "a" in the second line. 1.3.4 Universal Acceptance Action Item 13: Add citation for additional information on the work of the UASG. Action Item 14: Add question: Should any additional work be undertaken in the community? Notes: 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs - No SOI updates 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued) - Going over of the purpose of the review, as included in the agenda. 1.7.8: Name Collisions - Typo in the first sentence. Replace "tie" with "time." - part c. in the second bullet, add link to the place where "DITL" and ORDINAL" are defined. From the chat: Jim Prendergast: Does anyone know the current state of NCAP? I know there was acomment period and the staff report is sue by 6/16 but any other activity? Rubens Kuhl: Jim, there are NCAP sessions in the Panama schedule, but that's all I know so far. - Anne Aikman-Scalese submitted suggested revisions to the questions over the mailing list – suggested additional three questions. Rubens responded over the mailing list. - Suggested question: Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption? Suggestion accepted by Rubens. - For the do not apply and excerise care list, how should technical standards be established? Should experts be consulted? Rubens suggested saying should experts other than NCAP be consulted. - Questions raised to the SubPro WG: Should independent experts be consulted or should we defer to the NCAP study? - Suggested question – should applicants be able to submit name collision mitigation plans on a string by string basis with each application? If so, should evaluation be done by ICANN or an independent expert. Rubens says the Report states that they can already do that. Anne’s concern is that there is not yet consensus that applicants should be able to submit name collision mitigation plans individually, and therefore the questions are appropriate to ask. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: SSAC said NCAP will be run as a more wider effort than an SSAC-Only working party. But likely more an invitation system than an Open WG. - On the evaluate the name collision framework, this is already included in the report. - There needs to be something that the applicant can suggest in cases that might generate refusal of an application. That is why they have the opportunity to submit a framework. - Suggestion - be more high-level with the questions that we ask. For example, instead of referencing the NCAP specifically, ask "who should be the evaluators?” There are unanswered questions about the future state of NCAP, and it is not yet clear if it is definitely going to happen. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT - Jeff I agree we can rephrase - it may be important to note whether or not evaluator shoudl be independent. Rubens Kuhl: NCAP was mentioned for the framework, not application evaluation... Anne Aikman-Scalese: INdependt of contract relationship with ICANN Anne Aikman-Scalese: Should ICANN evaluate or not? Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes - ICANN staff be evaluating name collision risk? Rubens Kuhl: Anne, at meeting #12 of WT4, this was one of bullet points: "Mitigation frameworks would be evaluated by RSTEP" - Clarification - "independent" in Anne’s comment means not a current registry or registrar. - Suggested edit: Members of the work track discussed these mitigation frameworks evaluated by RSTEP, but feedback is sought on whether that would be appropriate or not. - Where there is context for a question in the deliberations, the relevant text in the deliberations should be referenced so readers know where to find the information. - IETF Special TLDs Initiative referenced in g – add reference for more information, provided in the deliberations - Comment: It is not sufficient to add items to the deliberations and expect that people will comment. If there are items that we want public comment on, we need to include these in the questions. 1.3.1 Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice - 1.3.1 is a brief section that says we are waiting for the CCT-RT Report. These issues will be addressed once the report is available. From the chat: Jim Prendergast: whats ballpark timing on CCT-RT report? soon right? - The lastest information is that it may be available at the end of June, but this group will get a preview of the recommendations that are relevant to this group so they can be discussed in Panama. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Apologies for joining late. My only comment on 1.3.1 would be to add a sentence (or 2) to subsection f that explains what the WT will do once it receives the CCT RT Final Report and what the best estimate is of the time required for that work. 1.3.2 Global Public Interest - Consider in part b paragraph 1 suggested revisions by Anne Aikman-Scalese: "In October 2012, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided > advice to the ICANN Board of Directors of ICANN that it should come up > with a mechanism to require an applicant to incorporate into its registry agreements by reference certain commitments, business plans, > registration restrictions, additional rights protection mechanisms and > other objectives specified in the application as filed such that these commitments could > be overseen by ICANN’s compliance department." -- Language is misleading. It sounds like ICANN was initiate a requirement for commitments in certain cases or for certain business plans. The language should be clarified. - part b. Where we list what is included in Specification 11. In the third bullet on additional obligations, three of the four additional obligations are listed, which seems strange. Include the fourth element which is not currently there. - part e. third bullet -- add “If not, what mechanism do you propose?” - Need to check status of GAC Public Safety Working Group and Registries Stakeholder Group discussion on mandatory PICs. 1.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression - There are several references to dispute resolution, but this is a term of art focused on UDRP and URS proceedings. The language needs to be clarified and should not refer to dispute resolution, since the section is focused on Freedom of Expression for applicants (see email and chat submission from Anne Aikman-Scalese for suggested revision). From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: Work Track 3 discussed the protection of an Applicant’s Freedom of Expression rights and how to ensure that evaluators and Objection Panels (delete dispute resolution as this term means UDRP and URS) providers performed their roles in such a manner so as to protect these fundamental rights. The Work Track generally believes that the implementation guidelines should be clarified to ensure that dispute resolution panelists and evaluators are aware that freedom of expression rights are considered throughout the evaluation and any applicable Objection and auction (DELETE dispute resolution as this term generally means UDRP and URS) processes as well as any Requests for Reconsideration and/or Independent Review Panel proceedings. Rubens Kuhl: "Objection Grounds, Standing and Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP) Information" Justine Chew 2: So perhaps it should be "Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP)" instead of "dispute resolution providers" Rubens Kuhl: That's ICANN language in the 2012 round. Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Rubens - A Dispute Resolution Service Provider is to do with UDRP and URS - not I think with respect to Applicant's procedures Rubens Kuhl: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> Rubens Kuhl: @Anne, that's the language ICANN used in the 2012 round... I am not advocating for either one, but it will create confusion either way. Justine Chew 2: +1 Jeff, the question for Robin is to confirm what was meant by "dispute resolutions providers" in that part of the text. Anne Aikman-Scalese: This is because the Principle provided in the background relates to APPLICANT's freedom of expression. Greg Shatan: The procedure was an Objection, but the entities hired to resolve the objections were called “Dispute Resolution Service Providers” in the AGB. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Thank you. Anne Aikman-Scalese: I think we also need to mention Applicant's Freedom of Expression in relation to Request for Reconsideration and IRP. Anne Aikman-Scalese: I thought this was just about recommendations related to Applicant's Freedom of Expression Justine Chew 2: d. Last bullet either delete "the" or "a" in the second line. --- typographical error Greg Shatan: This section is entitled “Applicant Freedom of Expression”.... Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Greg - Applicant issues arise if Board denies the award of a TLD for whatever reason - e.g. GAC Advice - Applicant Freedom of Expression is involved. - Is the discussion on Request for Reconsideration and IRP suggested in chat more appropriately placed in section on Accountability Mechanisms? 1.3.4 Universal Acceptance - Relatively short section because these issues are also addressed elsewhere at ICANN. - Add citation to additional information on the UASG. From the chat: Alan Greenberg: Not on bridge: Question Given that UA has continued to be problematic, do you think that other efforts need to be undertaken. - Suggestion on the additional question: Other than the UASG, do you believe that additional efforts need to be undertaken by the community? Alan Greenberg: wording not optimal. Tried to get it in before you went onto the next section. Jim Prendergast: like question after it is massaged Alan Greenberg: I do think we need the given... Perhaps Ruben's workding challenging AOB - It is the intent of the leadership team to send out redline edits to the WG. The intent is to make sure that the report captures what was discussed. - Language for the additional sections (exec summary etc) will also be released. - Intent is to release the report prior to Panama and open the public comment period shortly after ICANN62. - To encourage all groups to submit comments, a longer public comment period is expected From the chat: Jim Prendergast: will the exec summary try to explain how this is more like an interim report than an intitial report and there may be further possible comment periods prior to final report? I dont think that language has been circulated back Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: Jeff, could you please repeat your first comment about the nature of the changes that will be made in redline? QUESTION - Additional sections that have not yet been shared will include information about the intent of the report and what the report is and is not. - An email was sent to list a few hours ago regarding the sessions that are being planned for ICANN62. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: HOW TO INCLUDE REMOTE PARTICIPANTS IN SMALL GROUP WORK? - The leadership team is working with ICANN Org to get more information about options for remote participation in small group work. - Focus of the discussion at ICANN62: on some of the more difficult issues, how can we get to a set of recommendations? - Third session for SubPro will kick off review of CCT-RT recommendations. The intent is to work on reviewing these recommendations while the public comments come in. From the chat: Alan Greenberg: Jeff, discussions on tools is fine, bt there will potentially be people there who d onot otherwise participate and therefore we do need a brief intro on the substance. - Regarding scheduling conflicts, SubPro leadership is speaking with Council leadership about how to avoid conflicts in future Policy meetings. Conflicts with SG/C meetings are particularly problematic. WG members are encouraged to speak with other members of the community and encourage everyone to attend. From the chat: Alan Greenberg: ALAC has cancelled its ouwn meetings for monday morning in favor of the PDP meetings. Alan Greenberg: But that is one of needs for a bit of intro. 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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 June 2018
by Emily Barabas June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 12 June 2018. 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, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/x/_CgFBQ . Kind regards, Emily ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items: 1.7.8 Name Collisions Action Item 1: Correct typo in first sentence. Change "tie" to "time." Action Item 2: part c., bullet 2: add link to the place where "DITL" and ORDINAL" are defined. Action Item 3: Find out later this week the status what is expected to be discussed in Panama at the NCAP sessions. Action Item 4: Incorporate suggestions from Anne Aikman-Scalese from the mailing list on questions in part e. Action Item 5: Regarding question that references evaluation by RSTEP - make the text for general -- "Members of the work track discussed evaluation by RSTEP, but feedback is sought on the evaluation. . . " In the question currently referencing NCAP, make the question more general by asking "who should evaluate . . ." Action Item 6: IETF Special TLDs Initiative referenced in g – add reference for more information 1.3.1 Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Action Item 7: add text to subsection f that explains what the WT will do once it receives the CCT RT Final Report and what the best estimate is of the time required for that work. 1.3.2 Global Public Interest Action Item 8: Consider in part b paragraph 1 suggested revisions by Anne Aikman-Scalese: "In October 2012, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided > advice to the ICANN Board of Directors of ICANN that it should come up > with a mechanism to require an applicant to incorporate into its registry agreements by reference certain commitments, business plans, > registration restrictions, additional rights protection mechanisms and > other objectives specified in the application as filed such that these commitments could > be overseen by ICANN’s compliance department." Action Item 9: in part part b. where the report lists what is included in Specification 11, three of the four additional obligations are listed. Add the fourth obligation. Action Item 10: part e. third bullet -- add “If not, what mechanism do you propose?” Action Item 11: Check status of GAC Public Safety Working Group and Registries Stakeholder Group discussion on mandatory PICs, referenced in part g. 1.3.3. Applicant Freedom of Expression Action Item 12: In the deliberations, remove reference to dispute resolution (see email from Anne Aikman-Scalese for proposed edit). 1.3.4 Universal Acceptance Action Item 13: Add citation for additional information on the work of the UASG. Action Item 14: Add question: Should any additional work be undertaken in the community? Notes: 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs - No SOI updates 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued) - Going over of the purpose of the review, as included in the agenda. 1.7.8: Name Collisions - Typo in the first sentence. Replace "tie" with "time." - part c. in the second bullet, add link to the place where "DITL" and ORDINAL" are defined. From the chat: Jim Prendergast: Does anyone know the current state of NCAP? I know there was acomment period and the staff report is sue by 6/16 but any other activity? Rubens Kuhl: Jim, there are NCAP sessions in the Panama schedule, but that's all I know so far. - Anne Aikman-Scalese submitted suggested revisions to the questions over the mailing list – suggested additional three questions. Rubens responded over the mailing list. - Suggested question: Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption? Suggestion accepted by Rubens. - For the do not apply and excerise care list, how should technical standards be established? Should experts be consulted? Rubens suggested saying should experts other than NCAP be consulted. - Questions raised to the SubPro WG: Should independent experts be consulted or should we defer to the NCAP study? - Suggested question – should applicants be able to submit name collision mitigation plans on a string by string basis with each application? If so, should evaluation be done by ICANN or an independent expert. Rubens says the Report states that they can already do that. Anne’s concern is that there is not yet consensus that applicants should be able to submit name collision mitigation plans individually, and therefore the questions are appropriate to ask. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: SSAC said NCAP will be run as a more wider effort than an SSAC-Only working party. But likely more an invitation system than an Open WG. - On the evaluate the name collision framework, this is already included in the report. - There needs to be something that the applicant can suggest in cases that might generate refusal of an application. That is why they have the opportunity to submit a framework. - Suggestion - be more high-level with the questions that we ask. For example, instead of referencing the NCAP specifically, ask "who should be the evaluators?” There are unanswered questions about the future state of NCAP, and it is not yet clear if it is definitely going to happen. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT - Jeff I agree we can rephrase - it may be important to note whether or not evaluator shoudl be independent. Rubens Kuhl: NCAP was mentioned for the framework, not application evaluation... Anne Aikman-Scalese: INdependt of contract relationship with ICANN Anne Aikman-Scalese: Should ICANN evaluate or not? Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes - ICANN staff be evaluating name collision risk? Rubens Kuhl: Anne, at meeting #12 of WT4, this was one of bullet points: "Mitigation frameworks would be evaluated by RSTEP" - Clarification - "independent" in Anne’s comment means not a current registry or registrar. - Suggested edit: Members of the work track discussed these mitigation frameworks evaluated by RSTEP, but feedback is sought on whether that would be appropriate or not. - Where there is context for a question in the deliberations, the relevant text in the deliberations should be referenced so readers know where to find the information. - IETF Special TLDs Initiative referenced in g – add reference for more information, provided in the deliberations - Comment: It is not sufficient to add items to the deliberations and expect that people will comment. If there are items that we want public comment on, we need to include these in the questions. 1.3.1 Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice - 1.3.1 is a brief section that says we are waiting for the CCT-RT Report. These issues will be addressed once the report is available. From the chat: Jim Prendergast: whats ballpark timing on CCT-RT report? soon right? - The lastest information is that it may be available at the end of June, but this group will get a preview of the recommendations that are relevant to this group so they can be discussed in Panama. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Apologies for joining late. My only comment on 1.3.1 would be to add a sentence (or 2) to subsection f that explains what the WT will do once it receives the CCT RT Final Report and what the best estimate is of the time required for that work. 1.3.2 Global Public Interest - Consider in part b paragraph 1 suggested revisions by Anne Aikman-Scalese: "In October 2012, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided > advice to the ICANN Board of Directors of ICANN that it should come up > with a mechanism to require an applicant to incorporate into its registry agreements by reference certain commitments, business plans, > registration restrictions, additional rights protection mechanisms and > other objectives specified in the application as filed such that these commitments could > be overseen by ICANN’s compliance department." -- Language is misleading. It sounds like ICANN was initiate a requirement for commitments in certain cases or for certain business plans. The language should be clarified. - part b. Where we list what is included in Specification 11. In the third bullet on additional obligations, three of the four additional obligations are listed, which seems strange. Include the fourth element which is not currently there. - part e. third bullet -- add “If not, what mechanism do you propose?” - Need to check status of GAC Public Safety Working Group and Registries Stakeholder Group discussion on mandatory PICs. 1.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression - There are several references to dispute resolution, but this is a term of art focused on UDRP and URS proceedings. The language needs to be clarified and should not refer to dispute resolution, since the section is focused on Freedom of Expression for applicants (see email and chat submission from Anne Aikman-Scalese for suggested revision). From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: Work Track 3 discussed the protection of an Applicant’s Freedom of Expression rights and how to ensure that evaluators and Objection Panels (delete dispute resolution as this term means UDRP and URS) providers performed their roles in such a manner so as to protect these fundamental rights. The Work Track generally believes that the implementation guidelines should be clarified to ensure that dispute resolution panelists and evaluators are aware that freedom of expression rights are considered throughout the evaluation and any applicable Objection and auction (DELETE dispute resolution as this term generally means UDRP and URS) processes as well as any Requests for Reconsideration and/or Independent Review Panel proceedings. Rubens Kuhl: "Objection Grounds, Standing and Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP) Information" Justine Chew 2: So perhaps it should be "Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP)" instead of "dispute resolution providers" Rubens Kuhl: That's ICANN language in the 2012 round. Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Rubens - A Dispute Resolution Service Provider is to do with UDRP and URS - not I think with respect to Applicant's procedures Rubens Kuhl: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> Rubens Kuhl: @Anne, that's the language ICANN used in the 2012 round... I am not advocating for either one, but it will create confusion either way. Justine Chew 2: +1 Jeff, the question for Robin is to confirm what was meant by "dispute resolutions providers" in that part of the text. Anne Aikman-Scalese: This is because the Principle provided in the background relates to APPLICANT's freedom of expression. Greg Shatan: The procedure was an Objection, but the entities hired to resolve the objections were called “Dispute Resolution Service Providers” in the AGB. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Thank you. Anne Aikman-Scalese: I think we also need to mention Applicant's Freedom of Expression in relation to Request for Reconsideration and IRP. Anne Aikman-Scalese: I thought this was just about recommendations related to Applicant's Freedom of Expression Justine Chew 2: d. Last bullet either delete "the" or "a" in the second line. --- typographical error Greg Shatan: This section is entitled “Applicant Freedom of Expression”.... Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Greg - Applicant issues arise if Board denies the award of a TLD for whatever reason - e.g. GAC Advice - Applicant Freedom of Expression is involved. - Is the discussion on Request for Reconsideration and IRP suggested in chat more appropriately placed in section on Accountability Mechanisms? 1.3.4 Universal Acceptance - Relatively short section because these issues are also addressed elsewhere at ICANN. - Add citation to additional information on the UASG. From the chat: Alan Greenberg: Not on bridge: Question Given that UA has continued to be problematic, do you think that other efforts need to be undertaken. - Suggestion on the additional question: Other than the UASG, do you believe that additional efforts need to be undertaken by the community? Alan Greenberg: wording not optimal. Tried to get it in before you went onto the next section. Jim Prendergast: like question after it is massaged Alan Greenberg: I do think we need the given... Perhaps Ruben's workding challenging AOB - It is the intent of the leadership team to send out redline edits to the WG. The intent is to make sure that the report captures what was discussed. - Language for the additional sections (exec summary etc) will also be released. - Intent is to release the report prior to Panama and open the public comment period shortly after ICANN62. - To encourage all groups to submit comments, a longer public comment period is expected From the chat: Jim Prendergast: will the exec summary try to explain how this is more like an interim report than an intitial report and there may be further possible comment periods prior to final report? I dont think that language has been circulated back Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: Jeff, could you please repeat your first comment about the nature of the changes that will be made in redline? QUESTION - Additional sections that have not yet been shared will include information about the intent of the report and what the report is and is not. - An email was sent to list a few hours ago regarding the sessions that are being planned for ICANN62. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: HOW TO INCLUDE REMOTE PARTICIPANTS IN SMALL GROUP WORK? - The leadership team is working with ICANN Org to get more information about options for remote participation in small group work. - Focus of the discussion at ICANN62: on some of the more difficult issues, how can we get to a set of recommendations? - Third session for SubPro will kick off review of CCT-RT recommendations. The intent is to work on reviewing these recommendations while the public comments come in. From the chat: Alan Greenberg: Jeff, discussions on tools is fine, bt there will potentially be people there who d onot otherwise participate and therefore we do need a brief intro on the substance. - Regarding scheduling conflicts, SubPro leadership is speaking with Council leadership about how to avoid conflicts in future Policy meetings. Conflicts with SG/C meetings are particularly problematic. WG members are encouraged to speak with other members of the community and encourage everyone to attend. From the chat: Alan Greenberg: ALAC has cancelled its ouwn meetings for monday morning in favor of the PDP meetings. Alan Greenberg: But that is one of needs for a bit of intro. 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

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 03:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC 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, 12 June 2018 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-CgFBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-12jun18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p69sqp2iwt2/ 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