August 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

SAC090: SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace
by Steve Chan Aug. 30, 2018

Aug. 30, 2018

Dear WG Members, On 21 August 2018, the Cherine Chalaby, Chair of the ICANN Board, informed Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO, that the Board had passed a resolution on 23 June 2018 to accept SAC090, amongst other SSAC Advice Documents (see the letter here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-t…) accordingly, Heather informed Cheryl and Jeff of the letter. Accompanying the acceptance of SAC090 was a request from the Board that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG consider that advice in the course of its work. The letter references the Board’s scorecard, which includes rationale for the Board’s request (see here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/bm/briefing-materials-2-redacted-23ju…, with consideration of SAC090 starting on page 22). While the PDP WG has already considered SAC090 in its deliberations (e.g., in consideration of Reserved Names and Name Collisions), the Co-Chairs would like to put this item on the 10 September WG meeting agenda to ensure that the recommendations are thoroughly addressed. 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/

5 5

Follow up on Consensus Topic
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 30, 2018

Aug. 30, 2018

All, On the full Working Group call, one of the items we discussed was the difficult task that Cheryl and I, as Overall Working Group Co-Chairs, will have in ultimately determining the level of "Consensus" on each recommendation and for the overall final report (which I know is a number of months away). In preparation for our group evaluating the public comments to the Initial Report next month, we would like to request that by September 14th, each Constituency, Stakeholder Group, Advisory Committee, etc. designate one person (and an alternate) that is empowered to speak for that particular Constituency, Stakeholder Group, Advisory Committee, etc. This is not in any way an attempt to discourage individuals from participating, giving their opinions, helping to analyze comments, drafting, etc., but rather just an attempt for Cheryl and I to understand that when a position is being taken by someone, it is as an individual contributor, an organization or on behalf of a Stakeholder Group, Constituency, Advisory Committee, etc. As we have repeatedly stated, Consensus is measured qualitatively and not quantitively. Therefore, understanding the context in which position statements are made would be very helpful in moving forward. Once we receive all of this information, we will then include that in the list of members of the Working Group. Thanks in advance. Best regards, 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

9 23

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 27 August 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Aug. 28, 2018

Aug. 28, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 27 August 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/LAZpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-27aug18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p82b8h6kwvb/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw[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 - 27 August 2018
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 27, 2018

Aug. 27, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 27 August 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/2018-08-27+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the attached referenced documents. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actions: ACTION ITEM: Reach out to the private auction companies that we know about. Notes: 1. Agenda review/SOIs: Cheryl Langdon-Orr -- Retiring, but still active in a consulting capacity. 2. Supplemental Topic Review - Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort: -- Who is the winner or loser? Up to what level will the auction be used? Should there be communication with the CCWG-Auction Proceeds? -- Answer: The CCWG is only looking at money collected from the 2012 round. There is no presumption that more money be collected in the future. -- While auctions should not be encouraged, there does seem to be support for auctions as an absolute last resort. -- The discussion notes that auctions do seem to favor those with more money. -- Concern: If we came in with a recommendation that was in conflict with the guidelines that came out of auction proceeds, that would cause some logistical problems. -- Note that Section 1.2 is the Private Auction section and we will check to see if this was a typo or whether it is just in the wrong section. -- Should we have another category for public interest? At the end of the day there are still likely to be contention sets. -- COMMENT: We would likely need a PDP on what constitutes a TLD in the "Global Public Interest" and how the scoring would go on that evaluation. Evaluating the merits would involve criteria -just like CPE, I think. -- It could be that the CCWG-Auctions recommendations are so unpalatable to this WG that we might keep private auctions. -- It seems unlikely that ICANN would be able to distribute the proceeds from an auction to the participants. -- Maybe the WG could think about private auction not being the last resort method for resolving contention sets. Maybe we could look at options for reducing the number of applications that go to auctions of last resort. Applications reviewed by third parties, have graduated fees, etc. -- Talk about everything except for geonames. -- Do want to make sure we look at information from the last round but also the explanatory memo. Also see if there might be other ways to provide a disincentive. -- Are there additional questions we should be asking? Is the deliberation section accurate? -- See the explanatory note on comparing the different mechanisms: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/string-contention-22oct08-en.…. 3. Supplemental Topic Review - Auctions: Use of Private Auctions: -- Not sure that there is a mechanism short of prohibiting private auctions. -- On the implementation guidance, if the applicants want to resolve their contentions through private auction they should be permitted to do so. -- Not sure if we have enough information to make an informed decision. If we could understand if there were complaints about the use of private auctions that data could be helpful. -- Where did the idea come from that there were complaints? There isn't necessarily and information since these are private. -- If WG members know the names of any private auction companies we could contact them. -- By attempting to prohibit private auctions we might be abridging the parties to work things out as they deem fit. We would have to get into what else we are, or are not, prohibiting that private parties can do. -- Make sure we look at the questions that are drafted so far. -- Note Page 7, Question e, last bullet. ACTION ITEM: Reach out to the private auction companies that we know about. 4. Adjusted Work Plan: -- Starting with the meeting on 10 September the WG will be meeting every week. -- Extended the public comment period for the Initial Report to 26 September. -- Continue deliberations and work to release a supplemental initial report. -- Will we see a work plan that incorporates Work Track 5? Supplemental report will cover only 5 issues. -- How to address the need to have a representative for gauging consensus: Make it incumbent on the folks to clarify their answers to do that. -- Is this for determining consensus, or for clarifying questions? It is an attempt to understand whether a position being taken is from an individual or representing an organization. Trying to understand who is taking a position.

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 27 August 2018 at 20:00
by Steve Chan Aug. 24, 2018

Aug. 24, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 27 August 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Topic Review - Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort Supplemental Topic Review - Auctions: Use of Private Auctions Adjusted Work Plan ICANN63 session planning AOB For agenda items 2 and 3, please find a draft document intended to capture deliberations to date; the document also seeks to draw some preliminary conclusions, which will of course be subject to discussion and agreement. The format of this document follows that of the Initial Report, out for public comment now, so should be familiar to you all. For agenda item 4, please find the current work plan (here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1skIJTtVUlst1vkopc52_NYzZMRTs3muvXfcOjeU… and attached as PDF). Staff sent an email to this WG to inform you that the public comment period for the Initial Report has been extended to 26 September 2018. This work plan seeks to take that change into account. 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

Deadline Extended: Initial Report public comment period
by Emily Barabas Aug. 23, 2018

Aug. 23, 2018

Dear Working Group members, After receiving one SG/C request for an extension and in anticipation of additional requests, the WG leadership team has extended the length of the public comment period<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-20…> for the WG’s Initial Report. Public comments will now be accepted through 26 September 2018. Notification of the extension has been sent to the leadership of all SOs, ACs, SGs, and Cs. We encourage you to share information about the new deadline with any other relevant groups or individuals who might be interested in this information. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager 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 - 13 August 2018
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 19, 2018

Aug. 19, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 13 August 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/2018-08-13+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the attached referenced slides. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 1. Agenda review/SOIs: No updates. 2. Topic: Registrar support for new registries Slide 5: ICANN Channel model Slide 6: Foundational Questions Slide 7: Angles of the issue Slide 8: Possible solutions; not approved Slide 9: Possible solutions: to be considered (1/3) Slide 10: Possible solutions: to be considered (2/3) Slide 11: Self-allocation impact assessment Slide 12: Possible solutions: to be considered (3/3) Discussion: -- ICANN subsidizing the development of wholesale resellers -- because many registrants prefer to have a single registrar this there needs to be a wholesale process. ICANN could develop some kind of a commercial program. Don't like the idea of ICANN subsidizing the development. Shouldn't use resources from registries and registrars to develop markets for strings that were poorly funded. -- Don't think that each of these three different solutions would be the only solution. -- Relating to discussing market possibilities usually relates to a scenario -- so this could relate to a predictability framework. >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): QUESTION: how to avoid situation where that particular TLD is saying "the initial deposit is 1M USD, non refundable " and that wholesale registrar needs to be covered by ICANN Jim Prendergast: support for a TLD doesnt end with integration. There is also ongoing customer support functions that continue on as long as a TLD is supported. Would those costs also be covered by ICANN? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Question two - why not adding a suggestion to AGB something like "before venturing into TLD business it might be a good idea to have an interaction with ICANN accredited Registrars community to estimate technical integration issues/ market ideas e.t.c" or something like that Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and I think we need to avoid covering really wild solutions, like "to sign our RRA first you need to procure that particular software solution to ensure smooth work e.t.c." - and with requirement of procurement of high end software platform or hardware platform (so the vendor has both money and PR and ICANN pays it all) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): limit of 100 domain names is extremely low for GEO tlds due to obligations before the local governments (sometimes number of streets is higher than few hundreds), but it was better than nothing Katrin Ohlmer: +1 Maxim Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): comment: Brand TLDs follow marketing ideas of the company, and low number of domains does not mean lack of success of that particular TLD Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): around 1M USD might resolve issue with the starters pack :) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): which is a lot Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): or gold deposits Jeff Neuman: There is nothing stopping a registry from switching from pre-pay to post pay to encourage registrars to sell their TLD Jeff Neuman: Some things should be left to market forces Jeff Neuman: (In my personal opinion) Jeff Neuman: We should discuss all 3 [possible solutions] in an initial report Jeff Neuman: but the pros and cons should be laid out clearly Jeff Neuman: One thing I am not 100% clear on is if this can be solved with an easing of vertical integration restrictions Christa Taylor: Emerging markets where there are few ICANN registrars and registries have to rely on resellers is also an unexpected hurdle that ideally there would be some type of plan worth developing. Jim Prendergast: I think this deliberation would value greatly from a concerted outreach to registrars 3. Process to achieve consensus See the proposed work plan: proposed work plan is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1skIJTtVUlst1vkopc52_NYzZMRTs3muvXfcOjeU… Consensus Call Process (slides 14, 15, and 16) -- Review public comments to review draft recommendations where we think they may need to be changed, or to create new recommendations. -- Default position is generally understood to be the 2012 implementation. -- Even if we work out some parts in sub teams, the consensus call must be in the full WG. Discussion: -- Following this process does this mean that the 2012 implementation will become a policy recommendation of the PDP WG? Even in the sense that it has diverged from the 2007 policy? -- This is a very complex question (above): Do not believe that if we are unable to reach a consensus that what happened in 2012 will become policy. We will reflect in the final report we will indicate the level of consensus and say where there was no consensus to change it, but not that it would be policy. -- There will be some vote of the Board on the recommendations. -- As we are inviting GAC members to participate and get their feedback if there were areas where the GAC has provided their comments and we have attempted to deal with them, then we hope the Board will have enough information to have a stalmate with respect to possible conflicts between Board advice and GAC advice. -- Sent the initial report to the GAC and requested comments. The GAC is reviewing and developing comments. -- During the consensus call, Co-Chairs may ask if a WG member is stating a position as an individual, or as a representative of a group. -- Did ask ICANN Org and the Board to review the Initial Report and respond. A response from ICANN Org was sent on 08 August: Here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-langdon-orr… >From the chat: Robin Gross: Will the board of directors have any vote or approval of our group's recommendations (as happened in last round)? Rubens Kuhl: We have to sort out 2007 recommendations that were likely not a good idea, like first-come-first-serve while there is pent-up demand, and GNSO recommendations that were overturned to worse. Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: How will be avoid a "stalemate" at the Board level where our advice may conflict with GAC Advice on Sub Pro? historically this "stalemate" delays forward progress. QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese: what is the status of GAC outreach on the Initial Report? Taylor R.W. Bentley (Canada, GAC): GAC is in process of reviewing a draft comment on the report - as prepared by GAC secretariat Donna Austin, GNSO Liaison: I think this discussion illustrates why we should work hard to reach consensus where we can. If we don't, it will become an implementation issue and we'll see a rinse and repeat of what we had in 2012. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I would also expect work between the GNSO and GAC via their Liaisons will also assist this time around Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese: Thank you Taylor! Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Donna. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Indeed Donna! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what do we do then with the GAC consolidated (not sure) view? Taylor R.W. Bentley (Canada, GAC): ...it highlights elevant items that correspond to existing advice Anne Aikman-Scalese: Thanks Taylor - good to know! Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: Will the Board be commenting on the Initial Report? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): a Spokesperson (if needs be) Rubens Kuhl: Anne, different from CCWGs, Board does not usually comment on GNSO PDPs... so I would be surprised if that happens in this one. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): We have asked them to respond Anne Aikman-Scalese: Thanks Jeff - again this should help to expedite the process. Rubens Kuhl: What I would expect would be ICANN org GDD and OCTO comments. Jim Prendergast: bascially said its a lot to cover and will do their best but will aslo outline where they didnt have tme to respond Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: Can we extend the time deadline? Steve Chan: It was basically an acknowledgement of receipt and that GDD is working on comment. Jim Prendergast: but thats was for ICANN org - dont think it covers Board 4. ICANN63 session planning Slide 18: Tentative ICANN63 Session Timing: Day 1: Saturday, 20 Oct 2018: Full WG: 09:00-13:15 Day 3: Monday, 22 Oct 2018: Work Track 5: 09:00-12:00 Questions for the full WG session: -- Where do we envision we will be at this stage? What should the purpose/anticipated outcome be? -- We do have a draft Work Plan (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1skIJTtVUlst1vkopc52_NYzZMRTs3muvXfcOjeU…) Would be operating in Sub Teams for a month or so. -- Also the Supplemental Initial Report may be out for Public Comment. -- These will be a working session of the full WG. -- Schedule is tentative, so there is some flexibility -- such as switching with the WT5 slot or on Saturday. -- But, hard to know where there might be conflicts; if they can be identified that will help with planning. >From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): our Aspirations are in the plan :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I would thin initial reporting / seeking input on the 5 additional topics is a sure aim 5. AOB: None

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 13 August 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 13, 2018

Aug. 13, 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, 13 August 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/JgZpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-13aug18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p12myyebzz5/ 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

GNSO SOI / new gTLD Subpro Member Wiki updates
by Julie Bisland Aug. 13, 2018

Aug. 13, 2018

Dear all, In an effort to ensure accuracy, please take a moment to check your GNSO SOI and make any needed updates. In addition, would all members and observers kindly visit the WG Members wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ogp1Aw and verify your affiliation is correctly displayed. For any updates to the member wiki page or if assistance is needed with your GNSO SOI, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Much thanks to you all, GNSO SO/AC Support Julie Bisland Secretariat Operations Coordinator for the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_g…>

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 August 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan Aug. 10, 2018

Aug. 10, 2018

Dear WG Members, Per the draft work plan (here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1skIJTtVUlst1vkopc52_NYzZMRTs3muvXfcOjeU…) please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 13 August 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Topic: Registrar support for new registries Process to achieve consensus ICANN63 session planning 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) 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