September 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

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