September 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 2 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC
by Steve Chan Oct. 3, 2018

Oct. 3, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 2 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Draft of the additional Supplemental Report sections. Initial assessment of work required for Final CCT-RT Report AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest staff draft, which seeks to incorporate input received during past WG meetings. For item 2.a, please find an initial staff draft of the other sections intended to be included with the supplemental report. Staff has attempted to ensure that all required elements of an Initial Report are included, but done so in a streamlined fashion. For context, the documentation the WG has been reviewing the last few meetings (i.e., 1.1-1.5) will slot into section two (2) of this template. For Item 3, please find attached an initial staff draft that seeks to assess the level to which the PDP WG has already addressed CCT-RT recommendations and where additional work may be needed. This analysis is similar to that done for SAC090. 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/

7 13

Reminder: Action required to continue receiving the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG monthly newsletter
by Emily Barabas Sept. 27, 2018

Sept. 27, 2018

Dear all, As a reminder, if you would like to continue to receive the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG monthly newsletter in the future, you will need to click on the following link and sign up: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfp9C6imlr3cvCyuKg86ZQPfBGt_ze1LIr…. Please sign up before 1 October to ensure that you receive the October edition. Anyone can subscribe! Please share this information with your communities or individuals who may be interested in signing up to receive the newsletter. If you do not want to receive the newsletter in the future, no action is required. If you decide to sign up later, a link to the sign-up sheet is also available on the Working Group wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 01:05 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subscribe to GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Monthly Newsletter Don't miss the monthly newsletter in a new format [http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=887f3867-9d43-459d-85ec-fb5fadec1112&a=1122025…] [http://files.constantcontact.com/304b3fd3501/68834adc-df18-4fd7-aa31-484e82…] [https://files.constantcontact.com/304b3fd3501/fec1c4f8-7720-4274-be5b-701de…] Subscribe to SubPro Monthly Newsletter [http://files.constantcontact.com/304b3fd3501/84f8a7d6-8904-4f0f-bc15-014e6e…] Dear newsletter recipient: We are updating the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group monthly newsletter to a new email newsletter format. We want to ensure you are not receiving unwanted emails. If you would like to continue receiving this newsletter in the future, please click the link below to access the subscription form. If you previously received newsletters in your inbox, you will still need to complete the subscription form to continue receiving newsletters in the future. If you choose to subscribe, this will give ICANN org permission to send the monthly newsletter to your email address. It also provides ICANN org with an accurate list of subscribers. If you choose to subscribe, you agree to the following statement: "By submitting my personal data, I agree that my personal data will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>, and agree to abide by the website Terms of Service [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>." We please ask that you subscribe by 01 October 2018. If you do not wish to receive future monthly newsletters about this working group, no action from you is needed. Future newsletters will be archived here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. Click Here to Subscribe to SubPro Monthly Newsletter [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> If you cannot access the subscription form, contact emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> to request assistance. We are always exploring ways to improve and make it easier for our community to remain informed. Best Regards, ICANN Policy Staff Follow the GNSO on Twitter [Twitter]‌ [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org [visitor.constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__visitor.constantcontac…> Update Profile [visitor.constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__visitor.constantcontac…> | About our service provider [constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constantcontact.com…> Sent by emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> in collaboration with [Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today.][constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constantcontact.com…> Try it free today [constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constantcontact.com…>

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 24 September 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 25, 2018

Sept. 25, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 24 September 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/axhpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-24sep18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p972qso8cef/<https://participate.icann.org/p972qso8cef/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=6c8f16b5eb2d0b20…> 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 Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 24 September 2018
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 24, 2018

Sept. 24, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 24 September 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/2018-09-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Please also see the attached referenced documents. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items Actions: Call for volunteers for Initial Report public comment review: ACTION ITEMS: WG members should send an email to: gnso-secs(a)icann.org to volunteer as a participant or observer by 08 October. 2) Leadership and staff will send a proposed schedule of meetings. Review of Section 1.5: ACTION ITEM: Christopher Wilkinson comments/paper will go to section 2.10 of the Initial Report. ACTION ITEM: In paragraph 3 in section (f), page 22. Fix the typo (registries vs. registrars). 1.1 Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort: ACTION ITEM: Add text about the rationale for the drawing option to the deliberations section. 1.2 Auctions: Use of Private Auctions: ACTION ITEM: Include drawings as an option for private auctions and add text about the rationale for the drawing option to the deliberations section. ACTION ITEM: For the Co-Chairs to send a communication to the WG to request feedback on options to avoid auctions. ACTION ITEM: Add an option on limiting the number of auctions in which a company can participate; also in the deliberations that the "draw" method will enable bad actors to force good actors to "buy them out". Input on SAC090 matrix: ACTION ITEM: We will add to this document so that when we say that the work as completed or nothing identified at this time that mean that there is nothing that needs to be changed about the way we are approaching this issue -- such as reviewing the comments from the public forum and issuing a Final Report. Compile comments and clarifying questions prior to Barcelona by 28 Sept 2018, to get out to the SSAC by 01 October. AOB -- Comments on the Initial Report: ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs to send an informal note to the SSAC, RSSAC, and GAC to describe the roles that we are asking for representation; but not as a formal process. Notes: 1. Agenda review/SOIs -- Greg Shatan -- President and Chair of the New York Chapter of the Internet Society. 2. Supplemental Report: Review of section 1.5 continued/second reading (Start on Page 19, Section 1.5) -- Registrar Support for New gTLDs/Top-Level Domains -- Don't have any preliminary recommendations on this. Would expect there would be strong feelings in the registrar community. May not see this until we put this out for public comment. How will we get feedback and what will we do to formulate recommendations? -- Likely registries will have strong views too. -- Unless there are comments in the WG to support any of these options these will remain options and we will seek feedback on these options to see if any of them rise to the level of recommendations. -- These were topics that came up as a result of going through the AGB to see if there were areas we didn't cover. -- When we get liaisons from each of these groups it would be great to have those liaisons bringing those recommendations back to those groups to get feedback. -- The problems described are the direct result of the flawed decisions made in the past round -- anticompetitive aspects, for example. The main point on the one hand -- make sure this doesn't happen again, on the other hand it is extremely important to make sure there is not risk to new geographical registries. Within the present registry registration market what has happened is an inefficient...if anybody starts accumulating registries of geographic title that they aren't using geographic there will be a reaction internationally. -- A lot of these comments are related to the general topic of registry/registrar separation/structural integration -- so we may move these to comments on the Initial Report. -- This relates to whether there are things we can do within the current model that would allow registries to take certain types of action with or without the approval of registrars. There are complications around what types of actions are/are not allowed. -- Problem is the horizontality of the new registry and the existing registries. -- Re: Recommendation that registries must use only ICANN-accredited registrars. Has there been any discussion about the reverse of this? Whether registrars have an obligation to support registries given that there is a very diverse range of registries and how they conduct their operations? This we had that discussion in section 2.10 of the Initial Report. Whether or not registrars had to carry all TLDs was based on market forces. See: paragraph 3 in section (f), page 22. Fix the typo. ACTION ITEM: Christopher Wilkinson comments/paper will go to section 2.10 of the Initial Report. ACTION ITEM: In paragraph 3 in section (f), page 22. Fix the typo. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Actually, one of the ideas has already been informally discussed with registrars, and the numbers mentioned are actually based on their feedback. Rubens Kuhl: That mention above is about the phrase "Working Group members suggested a new limit of 5,000 or 10,000". Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Are we supposed to replace anti-monopoly agency? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Cristopher, could you clarify the reference to geo domains? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): without the support of the respective government - there will be no geo application approval. Greg Shatan: Vertical Integration was a policy(non)making morass the last time around.... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Indeed @Greg Rubens Kuhl: "Market Research" is my suggestion. Greg Shatan: It would be cleaner if some of the registrars were not also competing registries.... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Greg, is it a reference to some particular strategy? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I am not sure that following marketing strategies is limited Rubens Kuhl: A registrar that is not a registry could still apply to being a registry in a subsequent procedure... so even not asking VI-registrars, that doesn't prevent that from happening. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Yes Rubens it can become quite complex... Christopher Wilkinson: @Maxim: 1. ICANN IS the competition regulator for the DNS. Vanda Scartezini: + 1 Chris. we need to go further with these points... Christopher Wilkinson: 2. Suppose that non-geo use is permitted, then a large Regitrar Michael Casadevall: The question is how far must a registry and registar be seperated. It's possible for a parent organization to own both. Would that count as vertical intergration or the cases where companies merge and such. There's a lot of complexity here that would need defined and worked out. Rubens Kuhl: CW, as you can in RSEP procedures, ICANN is not a competition regulator... otherwise it wouldn't refer a new service to competition authorities, it would just make a call. Greg Shatan: Christopher, on number 1, not de Jure but de facto. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): the same for monopoly (ICANN is a "historical phenomena", and not one - formally) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): or for example - a Registry accepts only local currency, and Registrars do not think it is a good idea to get involved into having this kind of accounts with banks ... Greg Shatan: ICANN is more a market maker than a competition regulator, which in a sense is worse. A governmental competition regulator can allow or prohibit activity, levy fines, etc., without liability (though it is subject to review). ICANN is not privileged in that way.... Christopher Wilkinson: WE Rubens Kuhl: Donna, a "must-carry" obligation was discussed, but it was ruled out since that was seem as only having merit if there was a clear channel defect, backed by economic studies. Jim Prendergast: i have a similar recollection as Rubens Christopher Wilkinson: Well, not de jure but de facto. See my comments from 2010. Christopher Wilkinson: If must carry is necessary, it is because cross-ownership results in the Registrar having incentive to prioritise its 'own' registries. Not about the size of the entities. Rubens Kuhl: CW, the most mentioned registrar people would like having "must carry" is GoDaddy, which aside from .godaddy Brand TLD is not vertically-integrated. 3. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 continued Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort Auctions: Private Auctions -- primary change to add alternatives to auctions of last resort. -- Already have in there the other options from ICANN staff; added seeking feedback on a drawing that was raised on the last call. -- Suggestion for drawing was an umbrella statement, or as an overarching concept -- could affect private auctions too. -- Also include the rationale for the drawing in the deliberations section on the benefits. -- If we do include auctions as a mechanism of last resort we should also include the recommendation that the proceeds need to be address. -- Good if we can try to get some sort of concerted communication going to the full WG to get feedback. -- Potential issue that those companies with the most resources could outbid and push others out. Should we ask if there could be mechanisms to mitigate the possibility of monopolization of a particular strings of a sector/industry? -- Another reason we should consider to have some sort of barrier to entry. -- Seems like one option could be to limit the number of auctions someone can participate in. -- In the Initial Report there is a general agreement that there shouldn't be any limits in the overall round or on applicants. 1.1 Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort: ACTION ITEMS: Add text about the rationale for the drawing option to the deliberations section. 1.2 Auctions: Use of Private Auctions: ACTION ITEM: Include drawings as an option for private auctions and add text about the rationale for the drawing option to the deliberations section. ACTION ITEM: For the Co-Chairs to send a communication to the WG to request feedback on options to avoid auctions. ACTION ITEM: Add an option on limiting the number of auctions in which a company can participate; also in the deliberations that the "draw" method will enable bad actors to force good actors to "buy them out". >From the chat: Jim Prendergast: so propose the draw as a way to eliminate both types of auctions? Phil Buckingham: If we are to still have an ( ICANN ) auction of last resort we need clear recommendation of what to do with the proceeds Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): chain of P2P negotiations will used even if all auctions are forbidden (so I am not sure if it is wise to try ) Michael Casadevall: Is there a mechanism in place in case of multiple contested strings to prevent one company from essentially ending up in a de-facto monopoly on gTLDs strings (within a given sphere) Rubens Kuhl: <Still about registrars> Donuts wasn't vertically integrated until the Rightside acquistion brought Name.com with it. So the first years they were still a pure-play registry. Christopher Wilkinson: @Maxim: I know that certain ccTLDs who work with Registrars have lost confidence in the neutrality of Registrars that own competing Registries. Vanda Scartezini: Christopher.. last meeting I also commnet on the situation here in LAC region Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Cristopher, ccTLDs are quite diffrent, lots of local orientation instead of global with TLDs Rubens Kuhl: Strings of the same sector, perhaps ? Christa Taylor: That theory was kinda mentioned - auctions where an applicant was applying for TLDs to 'lose' in auction and receive a financial windfall and how that might vary from an applicant with numerous differernt application and related or different industryies Rubens Kuhl: .CAR, .AUTO, .AUTOMOBILE ... Christa Taylor: #industries Rubens Kuhl: BTW, those strings were individual registries, which then formed a consortium to operate them together. Steve Chan: @Michael, the issue you are talking about seems to be potentially present whether or not there is string contention? Phil Buckingham: @ Michael - there is nothing to stop a big pocketed company at the moment acquiring other TLD Registries within a specific sector . Do you think we should limit this ? Rubens Kuhl: "Be a dominant player" Greg Shatan: Agree with @Steve. Christa Taylor: Oligopoly Steve Chan: @all, I mention that only because it's being discussed that this topic/concept be included in section 1.1 or 1.2 and might be more applicable somewhere else Alexander.berlin backup: Another reason we need to keep the application fees HIGH! Greg Shatan: High fees favor the deep pockets, just in a different way. Michael Casadevall: I think string contention is the case here; if no one is contending a string, then either you grant it to the solo applicant or deny it Christa Taylor: Raising the application fees when you have the option of auction is very tough to justify as the fees would have to be significant - also to the detriment of legitimate applicants Phil Buckingham: Exactly Alexander . We need different application fee entry levels Greg Shatan: @Michael, on what basis would you deny it? Michael Casadevall: Greg: I won't; I'm just saying that would be the only alternative. Rubens Kuhl: High fees is also anti-competitive, since it favors incumbents. Christa Taylor: Neat idea... Alexander.berlin backup: The "draw" method will enable bad actors to force good actors to "buy them out". Christopher Wilkinson: @ Replies: The chat is scrolling so fast and the chat window is so small that it is not possible to reslpond in real time. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): will that prevent bunches of "5 TLD" applicants to be bought after the process is finished? Greg Shatan: @Alexander, only if you think bad actors have the “luck of the draw.” Alexander.berlin backup: No Greg: The good actors won't wait for the draw - they will pay to prevent the draw. Christopher Wilkinson: @Steve - that needs to be commented upon. If only to exclude WT5 . 1.3 Role of Application Comment 1.4 Change Requests -- Some minor changes. -- Supplemental report will go out on 12 October for comment before the ICANN meeting. May extend the time of the comment period due to the ICANN meeting. 4. Input on SAC090 matrix -- This is not a last call. It was meant as a last call on the matrix and not the content. -- In light of that we need to reflect the further work that the WG needs to do in these comments. We don't refer to our need for further work and the need to review public comments. ACTION ITEM: We will add to this document so that when we say that the work as completed or nothing identified at this time that mean that there is nothing that needs to be changed about the way we are approaching this issue -- such as reviewing the comments from the public forum and issuing a Final Report. 5. ICANN63 -- All scheduled for 20 October. -- WT5 in the morning; WT1-4 in the afternoon. WT5 is 09:00-13:15 and the full WG is 13:30-18:30 local time. -- The do conflict with the EPDP sessions, but that is unavoidable. -- First session will look at the supplemental initial report; another session to go over the rules of engagement and discussion on the sub groups. -- Will come out with the document with a high-level summary on how these groups will work. Should be similar to how the Work Tracks have conducted their work. -- Third topic will be to discuss not the work this WG will need to do to get to completion on the Final Report, but also what else needs to be done from a community standpoint to begin the thinking on implementation for the next round. 7. AOB -- Comments on the Initial Report -- We can do a more formal request to groups for comment, if comments are not forthcoming -- or the WG members from those groups could do so. Example would be the SSAC. ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs to send an informal note to the SSAC. RSSAC, and GAC to describe the roles that we are asking for representation; but not as a formal process.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [gnso-secs] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] ***REMINDER*** Meeting invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 24 September 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sept. 24, 2018

Sept. 24, 2018

That address is rejected. Can you send it? > El 24 de septiembre de 2018 a las 20:42 Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> escribió: > > > Dear Christopher, > > > > You have sent this to the ntfy list, please send in again to gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org . > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Nathalie > > > > From: Gnso-secs <gnso-secs-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson" <lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > Reply-To: "lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson" <lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > Date: Monday, September 24, 2018 at 8:40 PM > To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org>, "ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> > Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-secs] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] ***REMINDER*** Meeting invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 24 September 2018 at 20:00 UTC > > > > Good evening: Following Jeff's request last week, and in view of our meeting later this evening, please find attached my comments on Section 1.5 (Registrar Support) and Vertical Integration in the previous round (2010). > > Regards > > > > CW > > > > > > > > El 21 de septiembre de 2018 a las 20:27 Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org> escribió: > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > The details are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 24 September 2018 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. > > > > 13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 22:00 Paris CEST, (Tuesday) 01:00 Karachi PKT, (Tuesday) 05:00 Tokyo JST, (Tuesday) 06:00 Melbourne AEST > > > > For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/ydxwohps [tinyurl.com] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_ydxwohps&d… > > > > > > > > Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/axhpBQ > > > > > > > > Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldswg https://participate.icann.org/newgtldswg > > > > If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest [tinyurl.com] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest… > > > > Please allow yourself additional time before start of meeting to log into Adobe Connect and please log in with First and Last Name when joining the AC room. > > > > Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar. > > > > If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs(a)icann.org mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org > > > > > > > > > > > > **New join information - Conference Bridge: > > Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 > > > > Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=D… > > > > > > > > Enter passcode on telephone: 4927 > > > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Michelle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > > Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg > > > > >

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 24 September 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Steve Chan Sept. 24, 2018

Sept. 24, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 24 September 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of section 1.5 continued Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 contined Last call for input on SAC090 matrix ICANN63 Initial assessment of work required for Final CCT-RT Report AOB For agenda items 2 and 3, please find the latest staff draft, which seeks to incorporate input received during past WG meetings. For item 4, you will also find the latest staff draft, with proposed updates. 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/

3 3

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 21, 2018

Sept. 21, 2018

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 Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aRhpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17sep18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p421jaknouc/ 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

4 5

Sub Group - Call for Volunteers
by Steve Chan Sept. 20, 2018

Sept. 20, 2018

Dear Working Group Members, As you are likely aware, the public comment period for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG’s Initial Report will close on 26 September 2018 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-20…) The plan for reviewing those public comments includes establishing 3 Sub Groups, each responsible for approximately a third of the Initial Report. You can see the topics assigned to each of the Sub Groups here, respectively: Sub Group A: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Sub+Group+A Sub Group B: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Sub+Group+B Sub Group C: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Sub+Group+C Generally speaking, the remit of these sub groups is to consider the public comment received and to help organize and tabulate those comments; the Sub Groups are not expected to develop recommendations. If you are interested in joining any or all of these Sub Groups as a member or observer, please send a message indicating as such to gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Please aim to join the groups by 8 October 2018 at the latest. Leadership and staff know that a very important part of deciding which group to sign up for is the work schedule and the expected time commitment. We are currently working on that now and hope to share that with you all soon, and certainly well in advance of the deadline indicated above. Finally, if you have any questions, do let us know. 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/

3 3

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 18, 2018

Sept. 18, 2018

Sorry I was not able to attend - unavoidable last minute conflict. In relation to SAC 90, I am waiting to learn more about the edit Rubens proposed related to .MAIL and the rationale for the edit. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D44F53.61FB0E30] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 4:39 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC 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 Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aRhpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17sep18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p421jaknouc/ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 17 September 2018
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 17, 2018

Sept. 17, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 17 September 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/2018-09-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the attached referenced documents. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actions: ACTION ITEM: re: SAC090: Recommendation 2: Compile comments and clarifying questions prior to Barcelona by 28 Sept 2018, to get out to the SSAC by 01 October. Part 2 of the recommendations -- Ask if there are specific lists that should be considered or if the recommendation is more hypothetical in nature. ACTION ITEMS: re: 1) Call for volunteers for Initial Report public comment review: Staff will send an email about how to sign up -- WG members should send an email to: gnso-secs(a)icann.org to volunteer as a participant or observer. 2) Leadership and staff will send a proposed schedule of meetings. ACTION ITEM: re: Supplemental Report: First review of section 1.5: Registrar Support for New gTLDs -- WG members should send any comments. ACTION ITEM: re: 1.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort -- Add option of drawings in Section d and add a question in Section e, specific questions. ACTION ITEM: re: 1.3 Role of the Application Comment: Page 12 Section f Deliberations: Re: "One Working Group member raised..." don't want the deliberation suggest that only one member raised the topic. Change to, "Working Group members raised and discussed concerns..." Paragraph just before Section g. Notes: 1. Agenda review/SOIs: No updates. 2. Discussion of SAC090 - continued (see attached table) -- In the column "Does SubPro Currently Address?" this is one measure of what we have done; there may be future work or outreach that hasn't been completed. But the last column is "What Else Needs To Be Done?" -- While our PDP is forward-looking, we do refer in our charter to the 2012 round -- collisions in legacy TLDs. Rubens will send the rationale for edits to Part 3 of the recommendations (Recommendation 2). -- Re: Reserved Names: Two distinct meanings in this context. With geographical names -- in the event of a large geographical name there will be a request for large numbers of reserved names. -- Suggest, in column B, there are specific questions that the SSAC is posing to the Board that are trickling down to us. It would be good if we should take those questions one-by-one and develop specific responses to them -- such as in the Supplemental Initial Report. -- Also on Recommendation 2, how will we go about seeking additional clarify concerning overlap with the NCAP? We are waiting for the Board to approve the NCAP proposal. Could discuss in Barcelona and how to liaise with them. The timeline well exceeds the timeline for the SubPro PDP. ACTION: Could start compiling clarifying questions prior to Barcelona. -- WG acknowledged that our recommendations will be complete before the start of the next round, but that might mean that a process is in place, but the WG should agree on the definition of "completion". We should commit to completing this work and then decide what "complete" means. 3. Call for volunteers for Initial Report public comment review See: basic Wiki pages created for the three new Sub Groups being created. You can see them in the tree structure on the left here: https://community.icann.org/x/FT2AAw -- Three sub groups to look at the public comments and make recommendations to the full WG, trends, support for current recommendations, revisions to recommendations, or where the sub groups believe we have enough information to develop recommendations. -- The full WG will discuss the substance of the recommendations, but the sub groups will do a lot of the analysis to help with the discussion. Sub Group A: Overarching Issues, Foundational Issues, Pre-Launch Activities: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Sub+Group+A Sub Group B: Application Submission, Application Processing, Application Evaluation/Criteria: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Sub+Group+B Sub Group C: Dispute Proceedings, String Contention Resolution, Contracting, Pre-Delegation, Post-Delegation: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Sub+Group+C -- What are the working method and meeting frequency? Leadership is considering these questions. ACTION ITEMS: 1) Staff will send an email about how to sign up -- WG members should send an email to: gnso-secs(a)icann.org to volunteer as a participant or observer. If you are currently a participant, you can be either a participant or an observer. If you are currently an observer, you will need to be changed to a participant. 2) Leadership and staff will send a proposed schedule of meetings. 4. Supplemental Report: First review of section 1.5: Registrar Support for New gTLDs -- Bottom of page 1: Could ask for a footnote or paragraph explaining how structural separation has been audited and reported on. -- Middle of page 2: Re: Prepayment -- deposit accounts for "each TLD" -- does that mean 5,000 pre-payment deposits for those that have many TLDs. -- How registries choose to do it whether it is per TLD or per group of TLD, that isn't regulated currently. It would be good to get comments back from registries and the different models being suggested. 5. Supplemental Report: Second review (time-permitting) of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 1.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort -- Consider how to handle contention resolution across the board -- a deliberation draw could take a lot of the unresolved issues off the table. A draw would deter people from participating just to make money. Would avoid comparative evaluation (beauty contests). Some companies have expressed difficulties participating in the draw, but could overcome them. It could be simple, effective, and fair. Doesn't solve all of the issues but does solve many of them. Add option of drawings in Section d and add a question in Section e, specific questions. 1.2 Auctions: Use of Private Auctions: -- Leadership is reaching out to the private auction providers. If WG members participated or know of others please provide data to the full WG. 1.3 Role of the Application Comment: -- Page 12 Section f Deliverations: Re: "One Working Group member raised..." don't want the deliberation suggest that only one member raised the topic. Change to, "Working Group members raised and discussed concerns..." Paragraph just before Section g. 1.4 Change Requests: No further comments. 6. AOB: ICANN63 Schedule -- WG meeting on the first day -- WT5 in the morning, WT1-4 in the afternoon )3 sessions). Plan to spend one going over the comments from the Public Forum; another split into the 3 sub groups; another to look at an implementation-type discussion.

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan Sept. 14, 2018

Sept. 14, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Discussion of SAC090 - continued Call for volunteers for Initial Report public comment review Supplemental Report: First review of section 1.5 Supplemental Report: Second review (time-permitting) of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 AOB For agenda item 4, 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 5, please find the latest staff draft, which seeks to incorporate input received during the last two WG meetings. 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

Following up on Joint Ventures
by Michael Casadevall Sept. 12, 2018

Sept. 12, 2018

Sorry for the delay on sending this to the list. Following up from the previous meeting, I wanted to bring up the topic of joint ventures, and their formation as part of the gTLD process. Specifically, I'm referring to section 1.4 from the Additional Topics document: For example, if there is string contention and each of the applicants in a contention set agree, then applicants should be allowed to 1) create joint ventures [..] Implementation Guidance: ICANN org may determine that in the event of a joint venture, re-evaluation is needed to ensure that the new entity still meets the requirements of the program. The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delays. After sleeping on this, I have concerns here. First, what specifically triggers re-evaluation vs. simply continuing in the process. As written, this suggests that two applicants can simply form a JV and the process could proceed to delegation. Secondly, if a JV (or other entity) requires re-evaluation, what specifically happens? And finally, what happens if part of the JV disappears or dissolves? Given the time lengths in approving gTLDs, it's not unreasonable to assume this case could occur. Michael

2 1

Subscribe to GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Monthly Newsletter
by Emily Barabas Sept. 11, 2018

Sept. 11, 2018

Don't miss the monthly newsletter in a new format Subscribe to SubPro Monthly Newsletter Dear newsletter recipient: We are updating the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group monthly newsletter to a new email newsletter format. We want to ensure you are not receiving unwanted emails. If you would like to continue receiving this newsletter in the future, please click the link below to access the subscription form. If you previously received newsletters in your inbox, you will still need to complete the subscription form to continue receiving newsletters in the future. If you choose to subscribe, this will give ICANN org permission to send the monthly newsletter to your email address. It also provides ICANN org with an accurate list of subscribers. If you choose to subscribe, you agree to the following statement: "By submitting my personal data, I agree that my personal data will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy, and agree to abide by the website Terms of Service." We please ask that you subscribe by 01 October 2018. If you do not wish to receive future monthly newsletters about this working group, no action from you is needed. Future newsletters will be archived here. Click Here to Subscribe to SubPro Monthly Newsletter If you cannot access the subscription form, contact emily.barabas(a)icann.org to request assistance. We are always exploring ways to improve and make it easier for our community to remain informed. Best Regards, ICANN Policy Staff Follow the GNSO on Twitter ‌ ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by emily.barabas(a)icann.org in collaboration with Try it free today

1 0

Working Group Newsletter - September 2018 - ACTION REQUESTED
by Emily Barabas Sept. 11, 2018

Sept. 11, 2018

Dear Working Group and Work Track 5 members, The September 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…>. Please note that beginning next month, we will be using a new system to distribute newsletters about this Working Group. If you would like to continue to receive these newsletters in the future, you will need to sign up. You will receive an email shortly with instructions about how to sign up. If you have any questions, please contact me off list. 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

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Sept. 11, 2018

Sept. 11, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and theMP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 03:00 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-11sep18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p806o50ny4h/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 September 2018
by Steve Chan Sept. 11, 2018

Sept. 11, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 11 September 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/2018-09-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the attached referenced documents. Best, Steve ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actions: ACTION ITEM: Call for volunteers for sub-groups will be initiated next week. ACTION ITEM: Send Sub Group breakdown to WG [COMPLETE – attached and available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58000710/Public%20Comment%…] ACTION ITEM: Ensure comments/questions raised by Jamie Baxter (about the process and rules around letters of opposition) are considered/integrated into the matrix of public comments. ACTION ITEM: ICANN staff to prepare write-up of letters of opposition process. ACTION ITEM: ICANN staff to redistribute work plan. [COMPLETE – attached and available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001972] Notes: Notes/Action Items 1. Agenda review/SOIs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I was elected as one of GNSO Councils from RySG (to be seated from the end of AGM in October) 2. Role of liaisons -- Questions and some confusion about liaisons on behalf of SO/AC/SG/Cs ("groups"). Most were comfortable with the concept of a liaison, but not responsibility to speak on behalf of their "group" for consensus purposes. -- Confirmed, looking for liaisons and potentially alternates, to help with reviewing public comment responses and answering questions about those questions. -- Role is limited to understanding position(s) of the "group" and socializing new positions of groups. -- No role involved in the consensus determination process. -- Donna and Keith spoke with Jeff and Cheryl about this process. Believe it makes sense; thinking back to CC2, it helps to have a liaison to resolve questions and confusion. Same purpose for Initial Report comments seems to make sense. - Still lingering concerns how the consensus determination process will be run. Will the liaisons play a role? Suggestion to send note about future consensus determination process. - While it is primarily qualitative, there is some limited quantitative aspect. - Leadership to come back with additional detail about the consensus process. -- Liaison role is helpful to convey positions from regional organizations/groups (e.g., from the ccNSO). Anne Aikman-Scalese: Hi Jeff. Just looking for confirmation that this is not a change to new measure of "qualitative consensus". Answer: No intention to change the definition. The PDP Guidelines offer chairs a fair amount of flexibility to determine initial consensus levels. Initial levels will be put forward to the group (e.g., on list) for discussion and are subject to change as necessary. Iterative process, as discussed in PDP Guidelines. 3. SAC090 -- Reviewing section 3, Findings, from SAC090 available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-090-en.pdf -- Reviewing section 4, Recommendations -- Reviewing SAC090 review document, will be shared with WG immediately after call. Simply an introduction at this point and a preview about the work that has been done so far. Steve Chan: Columns 1-6 are pulled directly from an ICANN Board briefing paper: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/bm/briefing-materials-2-redacted-23ju… [icann.org] -- Emphasis is to review columns 7-9. Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION for consideration when received by email: If Board has formally adopted Recommendation 4 - no round should proceed until all name collision issues resolved - how do we, as Sub Pro have to treat the Board's adoption of this recommendation, which is not consistent with the preliminary recommendations in the Initial Report? QUESTION -- Board adoption may not necessarily require absolute adherence to SSAC Advice. Rubens Kuhl: Board acceptance of advice means different things to different people. Board has adopted GAC Advice that I would rather considered as being rejected rather than adopted... 4. Initial Report next steps -- Comment period was extended to 26 September. -- ICANN staff will work to collate comments, divide by topic by three groups. -- Idea is to divide into three groupings, related to the organization in the Initial Report. -- Intention is to discuss this topic in greater detail on 17 Sept call -- Purpose of groups is intended to be limited to reviewing the public comment received and to make recommendations to the full WG. -- Sub Groups will likely begin initial, introductory meeting at ICANN63 and begin in earnest after ICANN63. -- Structure-wise, which leaders will support the new sub groups? Intent is to use existing co-leads (from WTs 1-4). -- Proposed: Sub Group A: Jeff/Robin; Sub Group B: Rubens/Christa; Sub Group C: Cheryl/Michael Tom Dale: As the CCT Review Final report was deivered to the Board 2 days ago, how will it be handled by this PDP? ACTION ITEM: Call for volunteers for sub-groups will be initiated next week. Justine Chew: <Question>@jJeff, do you foresee if a group small "l" liaison being expected to participate in all 3 subgroups?</Question> Answer: No, more important to be available to be available to convey questions. Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: Will all WG members participate in Consensus Call even if they did not participate in the Sub Group: Should "groups" within ICANN designate a liaison for each Sub grouP. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the liasison could be effective in all SubGroups. Answer: Yes. The purpose of the sub groups are to review the comments and to make sure the full WG understands if there are patterns in the comments. Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: Suggest you ask for one liaison per SubGroup - otherwise extremely difficult for liaison to get meaningful understanding of public comment and pose question to the group Answer: Groups are welcome to do so, great idea. Understand if not possible. ACTION ITEM: Send Sub Group breakdown to WG 5. Supplemental Report (sections 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5) Section 1.3: Role of Application Comment -- Reviewing document. -- How are letters of opposition considered in the context of CPE? It seems like the period for submitting letters of opposition is potentially too long. -- Does this topic relate to CPE (in the Initial Report)? Are there any other instances where a letter of oppistion is used? -- Letters of opposition were not discussed during CPE and do not seem to fit perfectly here in Application Comment. Rubens Kuhl: Jamie, I believe this is something the process for prioritizing community applications, in its implementation guidance, should define. ACTION ITEM: Ensure comments/questions raised by Jamie Baxter (about the process and rules around letters of opposition) are considered/integrated into the matrix of public comments. -- Suggestion from Jamie to ask about fairness and what the justification is/was for having a longer period of time for CPE application comments. Justine Chew: Perhaps we should provide a brief description of what happened in 2012 round to lay context for questions on letters of opposition? Michael Casadevall: COMMENT: As a follow-up it should also be clear how letters of opposition are handled once received and influence decisions ACTION ITEM: ICANN staff to prepare write-up of letters of opposition process. Section 1.4: Change Requests -- Reviewing report Michael Casadevall: COMMENT: How do we handle if a joint venture unexpectedly terminates; can it/should it trigger a re-evaluation? -- Helpful to discuss on list. Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: By when is Leadership looking for input on these Supplemental Report sections and when would they be published for comment?QUESTION Answer: Suggested timeline in work plan. Intention is to go back over sections and revisions from comments (mailing list/calls). For sections 1.1 and 1.2, comment needed soon to be integrated into document. ACTION ITEM: ICANN staff to redistribute work plan. Work plan available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/90768940/SubPro%20Work%20P… Justine Chew: <Comment>: In the eg of SAS, if competing applications are allowed to amend their string selection, should that original string selected still be available for application in the next round or subsequently?</comment> Section 1.5: Registrar Support for New gTLDs -- Will be discussed on the next call. 6. AOB 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

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 September 2018 at 3:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Sept. 7, 2018

Sept. 7, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 11 September 2018 at 3:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Role of liaisons 3. SAC090 4. Initial Report next steps 5. Supplemental Report (sections 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5) 6. AOB For agenda item 5, 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. Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Kind regards, Emily

1 0

Resend -RE: Update on Seeking SO/AC/C "liaisons"
by Jeff Neuman Sept. 5, 2018

Sept. 5, 2018

Sorry, this note got sent too soon by accident. Please see added paragraph at the end in red. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ All, Thank you for the great discussion over the past week or so on our previous note seeking representatives from each Supporting Organization, Advisory Committee, Constituency, Stakeholder Group, etc. For ease of reference I will use the term "Group" so I do not have to list our all of those different organizations throughout this e-mail. Last week, we had a meeting with the Leadership team of the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, including both of our GNSO Council Liaisons. The bulk of the call was devoted to this issue and we had a healthy exchange on all of the benefits and drawbacks of the initial proposal. Here is where I believe we came out: 1. The Leadership team would like to continue to request that each Group provide one person and an alternate (if desired) to serve as a "liaison" between that Group and our Working Group. 2. The role of the "liaison" will be to serve as an empowered point person that the Working Group could turn to for the following: * To help explain the Group's position on comments submitted during the applicable comment period(s); * To respond to questions from the Working Group on the comments submitted; * To be responsible for seeking the Group's position on comments from other Groups or individuals when requested, new recommendations/new proposals, etc.; and * To be responsible to the Working Group for seeking input from the group on any recommendations that the Working Group may come up with in the future. At this point, we are not seeking to have these liaisons to serve in any other official capacity including for the purposes of helping Cheryl and I determine Consensus. We are merely using this as a tool to help us effectively solicit input from the Groups. Please stay tuned for additional information, but if you culd please still let us know by September 26th (the data Public Comments are due) who will serve in these liaison type roles. Thank you for all of your feedback and input on this issues. We are listening to you and we hope this helps clarify our thinking process. 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

3 3

Update on Seeking SO/AC/C "liaisons"
by Jeff Neuman Sept. 5, 2018

Sept. 5, 2018

All, Thank you for the great discussion over the past week or so on our previous note seeking representatives from each Supporting Organization, Advisory Committee, Constituency, Stakeholder Group, etc. For ease of reference I will use the term "Group" so I do not have to list our all of those different organizations throughout this e-mail. Last week, we had a meeting with the Leadership team of the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, including both of our GNSO Council Liaisons. The bulk of the call was devoted to this issue and we had a healthy exchange on all of the benefits and drawbacks of the initial proposal. Here is where I believe we came out: 1. The Leadership team would like to continue to request that each Group provide one person and an alternate (if desired) to serve as a "liaison" between that Group and our Working Group. 2. The role of the "liaison" will be to serve as an empowered point person that the Working Group could turn to for the following: * To help explain the Group's position on comments submitted during the applicable comment period(s); * To respond to questions from the Working Group on the comments submitted; * To be responsible for seeking the Group's position on comments from other Groups or individuals when requested, new recommendations/new proposals, etc.; * To be responsible to the Working Group for seeking input from the group on any recommendations that the Working Group may come up with in the future. 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

1 0