June 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

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

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 June 2018 at 03:00 UTC
by Steve Chan June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 12 June 2018 at 03:00 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. Continue and Complete Section 1.7 (Name Collisions) Begin Review of Section 1.3 (Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice; Global Public Interest; Applicant Freedom of Expression; Universal Acceptance) Time Permitting, Begin Review of Section 1.8 (Objections; Accountability Mechanisms) AOB For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.3: Foundational Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.8: Dispute Proceedings 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org) Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

5 7

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder of Meetings this Week / Panama Schedule
by Jamie Baxter June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Initial Report Excerpts - Section 1.8: Dispute Proceedings
by Steve Chan June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

Dear Jim, Thanks for the question. The versions on the Wiki are indeed still the same versions. Staff and the WG leadership team are working on integrating changes suggested on the email list and during the WG calls. Those changes are of course being made in redline and we are hoping to share them with the WG relatively shortly after the 14 June meeting, where there is a good chance that we have reviewed all sections. The expectations is that the sections will be subject to non-objection rather than being reviewed again during WG calls. From there, all sections will be compiled into a complete draft Initial Report, which will hopefully be shared before ICANN62 for WG consideration. This may be a good topic for the upcoming WG call on 12 June. If you would like to discuss further, perhaps you can suggest an addition to the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. Best, Steve On 6/7/18, 5:50 PM, "Jim Prendergast" <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM> wrote: As we have been reviewing these sections there have been edits suggested by members of the PDP. From what I can tell the versions on the wiki are the originals and have not been redlined or updated. What is the process by which those edits will be reflected back to the group to ensure they were accurately and fully captured? Will there be a proposed final interim report compiled and circulated prior to finalization and release to the community? Thanks > On Jun 7, 2018, at 7:55 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear WG Members, > > Attached, please find the Initial Report excerpt for section 1.8 on Dispute Proceedings. This section consists of: > > > 1. Objections > 2. Accountability Mechanisms & Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures. > > This section has been added to the Wiki here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…. > > 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<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<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… > > <Section 1.8 Dispute Proceedings_7June2018.pdf> > <Section 1.8 Dispute Proceedings_7June2018.docx> > <smime.p7s> > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

2 1

comments and apologies
by Vanda Scartezini June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

Dear friends Here my comments Section1.8 Recommendations 3 – though I am totally in favor to respect intellectual property, this is quite difficult to follow and enforcement since Trade Mark is territorial. International recognized brands have no problem to enter clearing houses, but it is not yet clear to me how local brands, trying to enter into the clearing house and found another brand similar to them from another country, as legitimate as its own, can really be protected… We had no case till now, since we had very few organization in the whole South Hemisphere entering into 2012 bid. But now, with more knowledge spread, this will change…. Just a comment. We cannot change WIPO’s rules. Recommendation 12 – I believe we need to define better Rules of Proceedings and not only the Process itself. Remembering that for 2012 was defined that “community interested strings” should collected worldwide letter of support from those communities the string will be set for. In the dispute time this had no real value (though had cost a lot of money) since the bid was set without ask the participants to prove they had make similar collection of support. If the Rules of Proceeding were not very clear and be followed, the dispute will not be fair. Section 1.3 – Besides the inclusion of topics from Final Report of Competition, Consumer Trust & Choice I have no other comment to add. Here my Apologies for not be able to attend the call this week. Best regards and successful meeting! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.

2 1

ICANN62: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Nathalie Peregrine June 6, 2018

June 6, 2018

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings’ team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN62 Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> Step 1 – Create a profile and your personalized ICANN62 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. 1. Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. 2. Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. * For Outlook calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/81449-moving-your-schedu…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> * For Google calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/1313-moving-your-schedul…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> and on the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ>) will provide audio streaming only Adobe Connect room microphones will not be enabled. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN62” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Panama to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://FB60497E-61D8-4FE9-BF9C-EB238191E416/gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0