July 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Recordings, attendance & AC chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 31 July 2018 at 03:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 31 Jul '18

31 Jul '18

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 31 July 2018 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/vINHBQ [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-31jul18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1txk8rt4d2/<https://participate.icann.org/p1txk8rt4d2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=bbc1721db0b76b09…> 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, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 31 July 2018
by Julie Hedlund 31 Jul '18

31 Jul '18

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 31 July 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/2018-07-31+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the attached referenced slides. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: 1. Agenda Review/SOIs: None. 2. Auctions: Private Auctions -- Slide 2: Auctions -- Private Auctions -- Slide 3: Auctions: Private Auctions, Cont. -- Slide 4: Private Auctions Discussion -- ICANN62 -- Slide 5: Private Auctions Discussion -- ICANN62, Cont. -- Slide 6: Private Auctions Discussion: -- Allowing other options for contention set resolutions -- such as joint ventures. -- An application fee might not resolve it. -- Surprised that there is so much money in this We should not increase the applications fee. -- Public auctions should be preferred to private auctions. -- Don't suggest going to the FTC. -- Didn't know there was a ban on joint ventures in the previous round. There was a ban because you were substituting the officers from the company. -- If there are auctions they should be used in a useful manner. -- If we come up with good reasons for a joint venture and redoing evaluations then it might be better than going to private auctions. -- It is settled law that there is no way to prevent or limit private auctions; but at ICANN62 we discussed the threat that if a name had been settled via private auction then the name could be taken away. -- There are ways to limit auctions, such has how auction houses do it. We probably need to do more research. -- If ultimately we as a WG decide that private auctions are not allowed then we would have to edit the AGB. Should we allow applicants to work it amoung themselves? -- Try to come up with a combination that will work. -- All of the applications were open in the 12 - month comment period. -- Need to separate community-based applications >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): yes, selling shares after that would help avoiding auctions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I referred to joint ventures Jeff Neuman: The discussion on joint ventures also relates to the topic from the last call on what changes to applications should be allowed, when should they be allowed, and how are they evaluated. Jim Prendergast: yes it does - lots of tie ins between these topics Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Indeed @Jeff, we do need to further discuss and perhaps consider recommendations relating to "changes to applications to be allowed" and for the record, I agree with the sentiment that any fees price elevation(s) would never be sufficient to damp down the profiteering from string auctions. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): ICANN is a legal body established in US, that is why FTC might be applicable (and amounts of USD in the process) Christopher Wilkinson: Thanks, Jeff. JVs: there will always be some changes in management structure of Registries and applicants. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what to do with travelhotelcarfood TLD? claiming to be contentious with travel and hotel and car and food Jim Prendergast: make it as part of the T&Cs and sever financial penalties or the take back as Jeff just said Justine Chew: Agree with Jeff and Jim. Ultimately can ICANN not withhold delegation related to gTLD which are subject to such private auctions? Jim Prendergast: There may be some prohibitions in the real estate market on private auctions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): the current language of AGB is a auction and "Applicants are encouraged to resolve string contention cases among themselves prior to the string contention resolution stage.". - so formally it does not sat that private auctions are forbidden Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it was page 1-13 Justine Chew: Yes, sure, but AGB can be altered. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): yes, I meant that without the change of the text it will be the same Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Indeed Justine very much our job to make any such recommendations to do so in fact :-) Justine Chew: ... to allow resolution by means that the group considers are desirable, of course. Steve Chan: i believe the context of encouraging applicants to work it out themselves was indeed, because the ICANN auctions were supposed to be last resort. 3. Role of Application Comment -- Slide 8: Role of Application Comment -- Slide 9: Role of Application Comment, Cont. -- Slide 10: Input from ICANN62: -- Could try to do something that might help the applicant to have more time to discard. -- Slide 11: Input from ICANN62 -- Slide 12: Role of Application Comment Discussion: -- Do we want to open it up so that the applicant has more time to respond? --- What are the rules around pubic? -- Provide more guidance in the application period. -- Don't believe there was a period for application comment to be submitted. -- Balance of equal application -- community applications were subject to comments to coming in much later than other applications, such as letters of opposition coming in a year and a half later. >From the chat: Steve Chan: Spot on Martin, less than 1% of the 12,691 resulted in Clarifying Questions Jeff Neuman: There was one other purpose (sort of)....which was that the Independent Objector was supposed to review the public comments and then he or she could only file an objection IF there were public comments against that application as well. In other words, if there were no public comments filed on an application, the IO could not file an objection on that string Jim Prendergast: i cant remember but did the Staff Issue report go into any detal about what was actually done with all these commnets? Steve Chan: @Jim, this topic was not specifically identified in the Final Issue Report actually. Jim Prendergast: and im guessing that this go around, we wont be seeing lawyers filing comments on 600+ applications since it's unclear what the impact of those were Jim Prendergast: should add - the same comment on 600 applications Jeff Neuman: So the question still remains....what do we believe should be the role of public comments? Steve Chan: @Jim again, the Program Implementation Review Report talks about the breakdown of comments, as well as how the comments were considered by each panel Michael Flemming: I think this question was raised in change request as well Justine Chew: Can someone please remind me if a flow+timeline chart for Application Comment been drawn up and circulated to WG prior to this? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): analogue of SOI for comments? Jeff Neuman: @Maxim - Yes in a way. WHen comments are made, in order to have an impact on the evaluation is is critical to know who is making the comment and whether they have an ulterior motive in making the comment Jeff Neuman: Some applicants believed that to respond to a comment publicly gave those comments more credibility than they should have had. Jeff Neuman: So in many cases, unless scoring would be affected, it was better to not respond Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff then some kind of "short certification" might be required (like are you affiliated with an applicant, e.t.c.) Jim Prendergast: i think the requirment was an email and a name and thats it. Martin Sutton: thanks Jim, good to know Jim Prendergast: how many applications actually failed evaluation? Jim Prendergast: we could be trying to solve for a non exitent problem. over 10,000 comments submitted and no impact? Jim Prendergast: Community apps excepted from that comment of course Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I wonder if asking firend to file a comment is a workaround to avoid conflict of interest in the self certification Christa Taylor 2: I can't recall the timeline between comments and CQ's. Was there sufficient time for them to go through the system and be consolidated into the CQs? Jim Prendergast: QCs took months to come ou Jeff Neuman: No, I just said we needed to separate community based applications from others, because public comments play a different role Steve Chan: @Christa, I am not certain, but I believe the application comment period closed at least two weeks prior to the initiation of initial evaluation. And as Jim mentioned, it took several months to beging releasing CQs. Justine Chew: Hence my request for a flowchart+timeline of process.... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Agreed @Martin we need absolute clarity on this ( is that exists ;-) Jeff Neuman: There were several types of public comment periods. There was technically a public comment period of 30 days after any change was made to an app. But here we are just talking about the initial period when applications first come int Jeff Neuman: in Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Yes @Jaustine, that seems worthy indeed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): sorry typo extrodinaire @Justine Steve Chan: @Martin, we want to try and leave about 15 minutes to cover the Work Plan and AOB. Let's try to wrap up this topic for today at 15 after the hour? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): if we need to attach qualifications to comments - then this bit needs to be extended "To be considered by evaluators, comments must be received in the designated comment forum within the stated time period." (page 1-6) Steve Chan: Perhaps I missed it, but did we skip 5? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): system might be opened with no ability to add comments Steve Chan: @Jamie, I believe there was still a cutoff, but of course, that cutoff came far later for CPE than for Initial Evaluation. Justine Chew: Answer to Q5 is "No". Support Jamie's point against an no-end comment period for Community applications by any means. Justine Chew: In other words, there should be a consistent application across the board. 4. Proposed Work Plan up to ICANN63 - Next call is 13 August --- registrar support for new registries. -- What happens if new registries can't find a registrar. -- How to determine consensus. -- Need to come out with a supplemental report on the 5 issues. -- Be ready to address the public comments in September (17 September). -- Work plan is out there. -- Late September break up into three sub groups. -- Get a supplemental report out before ICANN63. >From the chat: Jim Prendergast: How would the potential extension of the comment period you discussed for the GAC impact the work plan? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): We can be flexible, especially with planning and cooperation Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): GAC seems to be issuing bits of text only when they had some work done on those particular bits between ICANN meetings - Don't think it will. Try to coordinate with the ICANN staff assisting the GAC to try to understand what their points are. -- Anything we can do to get a heads up from the GAC will be helpful. -- Filed a request for a session at the ICANN63 meeting for a high-interest topic session. There are fewer high-interest topic sessions at this meeting. Not sure when we will know if we get it. -- Separate request for a work track 5 session. -- There will be face-to-face sessions. They will likely have conflicts. 5. AOB: None

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 31 July 2018 at 03:00 UTC
by Steve Chan 27 Jul '18

27 Jul '18

Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 31 July 2018 at 03:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review/SOIs Auctions: Private Auctions Role of Application Comment Proposed Work Plan up to ICANN63 AOB In relation to item 4, and in connection to an action item from the previous WG meeting, please find a proposed work plan that runs up until ICANN63, attached as PDF and available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1skIJTtVUlst1vkopc52_NYzZMRTs3muvXfcOjeU… 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  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 16 July 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 16 Jul '18

16 Jul '18

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 Monday, 16 July 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uoNHBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16jul18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7vkrxavtw5/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group -2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5c M&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=OiU-h 0Z-64UoNvH3LoeG_o396GU0v_p74rQIlQ2b1k8&s=Qgtj2RhJxG-FNLJaFth3Hsnwdxy6TX1m8E0 ILcSJ0vI&e=> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org] ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 July 2018
by Julie Hedlund 16 Jul '18

16 Jul '18

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 16 July 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/2018-07-16+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Please also see the attached referenced slides. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Share schedule of upcoming calls ACTION ITEM: Check on target date for Final Report from the CCT-RT Notes: 1. Agenda Review/SOIs: None 2. Brief recap from ICANN62 and status of Initial Report: -- At ICANN62, three sessions for WTs 1-4 and two for WT5 -- First 2 sessions (for 1-4), went over status, next steps, how to achieve consensus, certain issues that did not seem to have received extensive enough discussion. -- These newish issues will form the basis of discussions over the next couple of months, two of which are on today's agenda (auctions - mechanism of last resort and application change requests). -- Other three topics are: Use of private auctions, role of application comment, registrar support for new gTLDs -- Outcome from ICANN62 was that all 5 topics are good to continue to discuss. A supplemental report will likely be necessary. There may be additional topics that require deliberations. -- 3rd session was on Initial Report, to listen to input. Initial Report published for public comment on schedule, open until 5 September. Letters sent to ICANN Board and GDD to invite their comment. Their input will be helpful to improve the final report. 3. Proposed focus of work during Initial Report public comment period: -- Plan moving forward. -- Review the Final Report of the CCT-RT. Unavailable at this time, so continue on the 5 topics. -- ICANN staff will prepare public comment and analysis after period closes. -- Proposed plan is to divide into three sub groups to consider the public comment received and continue deliberations. -- Question: How will the WG appoint the members of the subgroups reviewing comments received? Answer: Similar to the Work Tracks -- those who are interested in that subject area will join those lists (self selection). 4. Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort Slide 7: Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort -- Work Track 3 discussed whether auctions of last resort continue to be an appropriate method of resolving contention going forward. -- Community Comment 2 responses generally supported the idea that existing contention resolution mechanisms are sufficient. -- While some Work Track members questioned whether auctions of last resort are in the public interest, no alternatives were proposed. Questions (breakout groups at ICANN62): --Do auctions continue to be an appropriate method for resolving contention? Why or why not? -- If you do support the use of auctions, are changes needed to the way in which they were conducted by ICANN? Why or Why Not? -- If you do not support the use of auctions, what alternatives do you propose and why? -- Are there additional contention resolution methods that could be introduced while still maintaining auctions as a last resort? Slides 8-9: Feedback Received at ICANN62: -- One participant agreed that these should be maintained; the auctions were fair and provided an equal-opportunity way to solve a contention set. -- Other members wanted to get rid of the auctions of last resort: not fair, focused on money rather than principles of community and diversity in the TLD ecosystem. Proposed in lieu of: criteria should be established to award the TLD based on diversity. Examples: applicants first TLD; or applicant was more community focused rather than commercial focused; or applicant was minority supported. -- Others were noncommittal on either yes or no: looking for more creative resolutions on a private basis rather than getting to a stage of last resort. Such as allowing two applicants to form a joint venture to operate the TLD together. -- Discussion of perhaps fees being paid and evaluations started there could be a disclosure of contention sets to work on resolution, so people aren't out a huge sum of money. -- Good feedback on ways that if we ultimately end up with an auction of last resort to mitigate the differences in the economic and social strata of applicants: RFP process with criteria with limits on pricing, rounds of bidding, etc. In general there could be mechanisms to mitigate these vast differences. Discussion: -- Don't repeat the discussions that have happened in the auctions proceeds WG. Note that this WG is not looking at auctions proceeds. -- If applicant change requests were allowed, two applicants might be able to work it out without going to an auction. -- Example: applications for .sas: if one had been allowed to change the applications it might have been resolved without going to auction. -- Looking at other ways to increase diversity and avoid auctions, such as an RFP. -- Relates to changes in applications, are there thoughts on whether members of a contention set should be allowed to negotiate to change their string istead of going to auction. -- Value to allowing changes to contention sets, but there probably needs to be some evaluation and may need to look back at the 2012 round to find out why it wasn't allowed. -- Question: Have we identified the origin of the use of auctions? Is there a possibility to minimize the use of auctions? -- Recognition that the community applicants go through a different route, so caution that if there is an opportunity for people to put a stake in the ground, how would that affect community applications. Standard applications will move more quickly than communication applications. If there are exceptions/changes to applications, there should be rules about how that happens. -- Don't think we'll be able to avoid auctions entirely. One other form of gaming that can be eliminated is to enter auctions to lose by applying for popular strings and getting paid to leave in a private auction. >From the chat: Jamie Baxter | dotgay: +1 to those views, suggestions, recommendations and focus of adding diversity into the gTLD eco-system in Group 1 discussions, instead of using an auction of last resort. -- How do we take into consideration the situation? Discuss Kurt Pritz: Before recommending that applicants can change the applied-for TLD to avoid contention, we should fully understand why that was not done in the round 6 years ago. Such a mechanism was carefully considered at that time. Dan Halloran or Karen Lentz could articulate it well. Jeff Neuman: Good point - Deviations must avoid similarity Christopher Wilkinson: Greg is saying very much what I had in mind to say. Auctions distort the market in favour of the most well funded. Karen Day: @Greg that was alos WT3, but I think if we apply the rules consistently the 2 processes could coincide - no plurals and allow app changes Vanda Scartezini: good point Kurt, if we could listen to their explanation Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: Making decisions based on criteria like diversity or community focus may not be within the scope of ICANN's mission and impinges on the Principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression. Re: "within the ICANN mission", suggest this question be posed to ICANN Legal COMMENT Vanda Scartezini: kavouss - a list of first one entering takes the name? no auction in this alternative... will work? Martin Sutton: Perhaps an option is to avoid auctions altogether and use a lottery mechanism. Christa Taylor: If two applicants are trademarked names, perhaps they should be able to change an application as it helps reduce the gaming concern Christopher Wilkinson: In 1997 the EU formally opposed a lotterary as initially proposed by th IAHC! Back to the future. NO. Gg Levine (NABP): The ability to change an application seems to make more sense than having someone have to decide which application is "better." Martin Sutton: It could encourage applicants to resolve issues/change applications if the "lottery" is last resort. Alexander Schubert: Lottery? So yo submit 10 applicatins for 1 string and can be quite sure to get it? Donna Austin, Neustar: What if you have 5 or 6 applications in contention? Alexander Schubert: Lottery is a no-go. Kavouss Arasteh: By definition, An auction is a process where potential buyers place competitive bids on assets or services..The question is that does acution violate balance and equiotable opportunity? Rubens Kuhl: One of the issues coming out of changing application to resolve contention is that if the string is changed, the whole string evaluation needs to be restarted almost from scratch. 5. Application Change Requests Slide 11: In the 2012 Round, ICANN used the following criteria when reviewing requests by applicants to make changes to a submitted application: -- Explanation – Is a reasonable explanation provided? -- Evidence that original submission was in error – Are there indicia to support an assertion that the change merely corrects an error? -- Other third parties affected – Does the change affect other third parties materially? -- Precedents – Is the change similar to others that have already been approved? Could the change lead others to request similar changes that could affect third parties or result in undesirable effects on the program? -- Fairness to applicants – Would allowing the change be construed as fair to the general community? Would disallowing the change be construed as unfair? -- Materiality – Would the change affect the evaluation score or require re-evaluation of some or all of the application? Would the change affect string contention or community priority consideration? -- Timing – Does the timing interfere with the evaluation process in some way? ICANN reserves the right to require a re-evaluation of the application in the event of a material change. This could involve additional fees or evaluation in a subsequent application round. (AGB §1.2.7.) Slides 13-14: Feedback from ICANN62 -- A lot of input but some went outside of change requests, more to overall changes. -- We can break the feedback into: timing, what we are changing, and why we are changing. -- Re: when you can make changes was not described. -- Suggestions to have a list of what changes you can make - related to what is a required change -- What role do public comments play?-- Revisit the issue of joint ventures.-- Need to talk about this more. Discussion: -- Are there certain types of changes that we think definitely not should be allowed? Example: If someone filed as a community should they not be allowed to change to a regular application? Are there changes we shouldn't allow? -- Need to be able to understand if the change is to fix something. -- Types of changes that were or were not allowed: correcting errors (.africa), changes in officers and boards of directors (but not ownership), changing the technical provider -- not sure if that was allowed. -- On changing officers and directors -- not sure that should be asked in public comment. What was really interesting is if someone made a change to a non-public portion of their application it was put out for comment but redacted. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: So are there changes we should not allow Christopher Wilkinson: Jeff: I gree. limit gaming. Kavouss Arasteh: We need to have a list of allowable changes Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: Maybe change to a Pre-approved Service (as per Work Track 4 recommendation) should be allowed? What is the relationship between this process and the existing ICANN change processes followed by registries today? COMMENT Rubens Kuhl: And .madrid got a 2 year penalty due to that. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Thx for joining Greg have a good meeting with the readout Rubens Kuhl: I think one application changed technical provider. Actually, the original technical provider would the applicant itself, but they later realized they would fail technical evaluation. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it was well described by CORE at Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 11 October 2017 at 17:00 UTC Alexander Schubert: How would changing RSPs or Directors of Board solve string contention? Steve Chan: All, you can find details about the change request process, including some statistics about those changes. in the New gTLD Program Implementation Review Report here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf. See page 35. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Trang, up to what point in the process was this allowed without requiring re-evaluation? Kavouss Arasteh: We really to agree on the list of items which do not results to acuction i.e allowed Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Michele, please add to Notes that me and Rubens refered to ALP process Trang Nguyen: @Donna, all the way up until contracting. All changes to RSPs required re-eval. Rubens Kuhl: Exactly, Michele/Julie. Donna Austin, Neustar: thanks Trang Kavouss Arasteh: by establishing the allowable changes the issue will be better managed Kurt Pritz: (1) We should take into account the fact that we know which changes were allowed but we don’t have access to the change requests that were rejected and that might affect our thinking; (2) since we cannot anticipate all the types of change requests that might be submitted, does it make sense that we use criteria (as ICANN did) rather than try to enumerate the different types of changes. Maybe we could evaluate and possibly amend the criteria Christopher Wilkinson: Christopher Wilkinson: Well, from a WT5 point of view, if a country changes its name during the application process (it has recently happened) then a change in the string should be allowd. CW Jeff Neuman: At the end of the day, I think it will have to be criteria, but having a good idea of the types of things we want and dont want to allow will help with the criteria Rubens Kuhl: Some rejected change requestes ended up in Request for Reconsideration and/or mentioned in IRPs, so we can find out about some, although not all, of them. Christa Taylor: Coming form the perspective of CQ questions may assist in what we might be allowable changes. Additionally, one change could be for when applicants submit an application for a subsidiary without realizing the need for financial statements. Allowing the applicant to change to the parent company might be worthy of consideration. Jeff Neuman: At the end of the day, I think it will have to be criteria, but having a good idea of the types of things we want and dont want to allow will help with the criteria Rubens Kuhl: Some rejected change requestes ended up in Request for Reconsideration and/or mentioned in IRPs, so we can find out about some, although not all, of them. Steve Chan: Here is the Program Implementation Review Report again: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 July 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Steve Chan 12 Jul '18

12 Jul '18

Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 16 July 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review/SOIs Brief recap from ICANN62 and status of Initial Report Proposed focus of work during Initial Report public comment period Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort Application Change Request AOB 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) Note, perhaps dependent upon progress made on the topics above, the WG is intending to discuss Auctions: Use of Private Auctions and the Role of Application Comments, two of the other newer topics brought up during the WG’s face-to-face at ICANN62, on the 30 July 2018 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/

1 0

Working Group Newsletter - July 2018
by Emily Barabas 12 Jul '18

12 Jul '18

Dear Working Group and Work Track 5 members, The July edition of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group newsletter is now available: http://go.icann.org/SubPro [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_SubPro&d=D…>. Please feel free to share this newsletter with individuals and groups who may be interested in the Working Group’s activities. An archive of previous editions of the newsletter is available on the WG wiki [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa…> and on the GNSO website [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_news…>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Initial Report published for public comment
by Emily Barabas 10 Jul '18

10 Jul '18

Dear Working Group members, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG’s Initial Report has been published for public comment. Please find the details here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-20…. Please help in spreading the word about this public comment opportunity and encourage your communities to respond. The public comment will remain open until 5 September. You can also find a link to the public comment forum and the Initial Report on the SubPro wiki workspace homepage: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 1