June 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

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