January 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Jamie Baxter 04 Jun '19

04 Jun '19

3 2

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday 04 February 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 01 Feb '19

01 Feb '19

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday 04 February 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Being Review of Supplemental Initial Report Public Comments – see the document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBC… -- General Comments -- 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 22 Jan '19

22 Jan '19

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 Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/t4IWBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-22jan19-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5i5ee1cd3f/ 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 - 22 January 2019
by Julie Hedlund 22 Jan '19

22 Jan '19

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 22 January 2019. 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/2019-01-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sl4V7OkGldX-RlGZZO108ln5sUG-H-VOhz3Od2g…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Working Group Updates (e.g., Sub Groups, Work Track 5): Sub Group A: -- Making good progress. -- Don't think we will need more than a couple of additional meetings. Sub Group B: -- Call later today, 20:00 UTC. Sub Group C: -- Next meeting is 31 January -- moving to last two topics.: TLD rollout questions. -- Making good progress. Nothing controversial so far. -- May finish in one more meeting. Work Track 5: -- Supplemental Initial Report public comment closing today, 22 January: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-names-wt5-initial-2018-12-05-en. -- Full WT5 WG will begin to review the comments. -- Meeting on 13 February. 3. Auctions (discussion with Monte Cahn, President of Right of the Dot): -- Different types of auctions, but primary are: 1) English/ascending clock auction; 2) Vickrey auction/first place sealed bid auction or second place sealed bid auction. Protected from overbidding since the market is considered the second higher bid price. -- Technical difficulties in public and private auctions last year. Need to learn a lot of strategy for an English/ascending clock auction. -- Are no Internet issues with the Vickrey auction -- don't need to be online, no technical training needed, no bidding experience needed. Don't need to stay until the auction is over so less participation time. Risk sharing is more equal/fair. Less overpaying. Can be submitted in a specific time frame. -- Are there people gaming the system by losing? In a sealed bid environment there is less tendency for gaming. Discussion: -- Two options for a sealed bid: 1) at the outset at submission; 2) after all applications evaluated and objections considered. In the second option you would know who is the competition. -- There is a risk in taking bids at application since if an applications is not approved then the bid is void. A lot of the applicants in the last round got their financing based on becoming approved. -- You would know who the participants are in the second scenario but you don't know what they have bid. -- Question: With the Vickrey model you have only one opportunity to place your bid? Answer: That is correct. You are bidding based on what you think is the true value of the asset. -- Question: The value of TLDs is to some extent subjective, so it's the value of whatever the applicant puts on it? Answer: It is really hard for an applicant to determine the value other than the value they place on it. -- The sealed bid auction is still the most fair option, but not sure how you would level the playing field for less-funded applicants. -- Put in dollars and cents to make it less likely that there would be exact bids. If there are, then they would submit against the two or three people who tied. So, do another round with just the two or three who tied. -- Question: What is your recommendation for a situation of an applicant that might have applied for 5 TLDs and rate them differently -- pay more for preferred option. Then if they have lost their first 4 auction, so the 5th is much more valuable. How one deals with changing business ties over the course of a round? Answer: Everyone bids at the same time for all contension set, so it doesn't happen over time. If the process is staggered then you might have changing values. -- Question re: submitting all the bids at the same time -- the risk profile is discouraging to small applicants: who is capable of having 20 bids out there for large amounts of money? Answer: That is a valuable concern -- so you can decide to stagger rounds or have everything at once. Another process is to do it by domain category. Also could have a staggered auction resolution process between different entities/market segments. -- Question: Have you ever been part of an auction where there’s a multiplier given to certain category of bidder to help them compete more effectively in the auction ? For example if there is an applicant support program for applicants from the global south for as an example… there has been some discussion about providing them with a multiplier to help them compete – any experience or thoughts there? Answer: No. You would have to determine how you qualify and how to determine if the multiplier is fair. -- Question: There is the suggestion that the bids should be submitted at the time of applicantion, others suggest only after the contention set is known -- Any thoughts on which would be fairer? Answer: In the last round people got funded based on being approved; if you submit a bid at the point that you apply you could have problems with funding if approval takes a year. If you wait until the end then people can pull out. The closest to the actual date of resolution is better. >From the Chat: lexander.berlin backup: Sealed bid could be submitted online as well; for those who have used a browser before..... Jeff Neuman (Overall Co-chair): @Alexander - I think Monte was referring to the fact that with ascending auctions, you have to be continually online as opposed to submitting a sealed bid on one occassions Jeff Neuman (Overall Co-chair): occassion (sorry) Alexander.berlin backup: I know :D But I do not like "paper" - and sending something via snail mail half around the world seems a bit insecure I would rather like to do it online (and obviuosly had AMPLE time). And the bidders could chose which method they like. Phil Buckingham: 3rd option - after the contention set list of applicants has been issued , but before evaluation start . Option to withdrawn - because you know your competition is say Google ( with lots more money ) Collin Kurre: What if community applicants or otherwise under-represented groups were given some sort of augmentation from the beginning to allow them to be competitive in these scenarios? Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: What happens if two or three highest bids are the same in the silent bid? QUESTION Alexander.berlin backup: Anne: Nobody bids 500,00 - your bid 500,199 or 501,000 etc. Otherwise I assume: Lottery! Alexander.berlin backup: Anne: Nobody bids 500,000 - your bid 500,199 or 501,000 etc. Otherwise I assume: Lottery! Alexander.berlin backup: Refund is a good point: We should SCRAP "refunds". No refund anymore. Collin Kurre: Interesting idea, the Katrin Ohlmer: In terms of a balanced debate about solving contention - have the co-chairs planned to have another debate about other contention resolution means in future calls? Alexander.berlin backup: + Katrin Vanda scartezini: tia Monte for these ideias Collin Kurre: "apples to apples" auction set. For non-profits, though, a funder (like google, US gov, etc) could theoretically swoop in for support. Could end up replicating the same power differential, as those funders will donate to orgs representing their values or interests. Alexander.berlin backup: 1:100 Phil Buckingham: Yes Jeff , one aspect of it . ie when/ if you withdraw to get a refund . 2. Q Under Vickrey sorry I am confused - are you submiiting your sealed bid before or after you know who your competition is . If you do it after knowing then the likelyhood the bids will be much lower( because you cant compete with very weathly ) . Christopher Wilkinson: No hance of that big bang with phased rounds. sarah l (verisign): Phil monte is suggesting all bids are submitted at point of application and if there is a contention set only then is the sealed bid opened Kristine F Dorrain: @Monte, I won't raise my hand again, but in an art auction, if I lose the bidding on three pieces, I can decide that the fourth piece is worth more to me than originally. Tha's why I'm saying this is different and can be disadventagous in some situations. Katrin Ohlmer: Thanks for the clarification, Jeff! Jim Prendergast: On Kristines concerns - flip the scenario - what if an entity applies for only 1? Are they treated differently than as those applying for 5 or ten or 200. Should not be preferrential treatment for those with the $$ to apply for multiples Vanda scartezini: agre forte about third world no that sarah l (verisign): Please can someone ask Monte as I have lost audio- Have you ever been part of an auction where there’s a multiplier given to certain category of bidder to help them compete more effectively in the auction ? For example if there is an applicant support program for applicants from the global south for as an example… there has been some discussion about providing them with a multiplier to help them compete – any experience or thoughts there? 4. Supplemental Initial Report – Next Steps: -- Staff is putting comments into the public comment tool. -- WG will start to analyzing the comments on the next call. -- Sub Group summaries will be provided to the full WG in February. 5. AOB: Update on revised timeline: Will provide by the next full WG meeting.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Tuesday 22 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan 21 Jan '19

21 Jan '19

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Tuesday 22 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Working Group Updates (e.g., Sub Groups, Work Track 5) Auctions (discussion with Monte Cahn, President of Right of the Dot) Supplemental Initial Report – Next Steps Continued Review of Items Referred from the Sub Groups to the Full Working Group (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sl4V7OkGldX-RlGZZO108ln5sUG-H-VOhz3Od2g… [docs.google.com] AOB If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email 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/

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 07 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 08 Jan '19

08 Jan '19

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, 07 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rYIWBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-07jan19-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2a8kmw6zkj/?proto=true 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 - 07 January 2019
by Julie Hedlund 07 Jan '19

07 Jan '19

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 07 January 2019. 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/2019-01-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sl4V7OkGldX-RlGZZO108ln5sUG-H-VOhz3Od2g…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM 1: Create a timeline of the review/analysis of the various report comments and how they will be incorporated. ACTION ITEM 2: Re: SSAC overarching comment -- ask the SSAC and the Board where they believe that the NCAP is and possiblity dependencies. ACTION ITEM 3: Consider via email the question of how to define round closure. ACTION ITEM 4: Request from ICANN staff a list of unresolved 2012 applications, current status, and reason for lack of resolution. Circulate to the WG. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): -- No Updates were provided. 2. Work Group Updates (e.g., Sub Groups, Work Track 5, Supplemental Initial Report) Work Track 5: -- Supplemental Initial Report published 05 December for public comment. Comments are due 22 January. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-names-wt5-initial-2018-12-05-en. [icann.org] -- Webinar will be held Wednesday, 09 January at 20:00 UTC to see if there are questions, but not meant to be a substantive discussion. -- Encourage your communities to send in their comments. -- Possible LAC Webinar, but not currently scheduled, nor is it an official meeting as none are planned for other languages. -- Comment period closed for Supplemental Initial Report; staff in process of putting comments into a analysis tool. The full WG will review the comments: Sub Groups Analyzing Comments on Initial Report: -- Role is to organize the comments to see if there are patterns and convergence on recommendations to the full WG. -- Substance will be discussed with the full WG. -- Meeting weekly. Sub Group A: Overarching issues, pre-application topics (rounds, communications prior to round(s)). See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15zDdzlBwLCz5m2sNXui6N6pporbUq-lDFEw…. [docs.google.com] Sub Group B: Application period, evaluations. See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133WbhWYB4M4kT6DqSfiCR2-ij7jxNkLj5EW…. [docs.google.com] Sub Group C: Almost completed accountability mechanisms, will be completing other comments, and moving on to community applications. See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MQmo1B6zBqGXYFRF2pKZXPhGmz0JfZhIaMx…. [docs.google.com] -- Question: Could there be a timeline for all of the parallel efforts? 3. Continued Review of Items Referred from the Sub Groups to the Full Working Group Top of Page 7: SSAC comment -- Concerns about SubPro not properly taking into account dependent activities, and therefore moving too quickly. - Not sure where the name collision analysis project (NCAP) stands? Could ask SSAC re: dependencies. Their comments suggest that they would leave it to the community as to possible dependencies. The WG is making progress on possible recommendations on many of the dependencies. - To define what we are asking the Board we should go back to the chart of the Board resolution from 2017 to ask what the Board is asking. >From the chat: Jim Prendergast: it might be best to ask the SSAC that question too. Jeff Neuman: @Jim - I agree we should ask Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): Anne as far as I undertand the Name Collision Program is very much in its 'formative' phase and even when begun is a multiyear planned project Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): But Yes we need to Ask for an update Avri Doria: NCAP is not budgeted yet. Donna Austin, Neustar: Is there any way that we can get the Board's view on whether there is a dependancy, because that may be more important to understand than the SSAC's view. Jim Prendergast: it would be good to clarify as well if NCAP is a dependency in the mind of SSAC as well as the Board. Thats a pretty major issue we have to deal with if it is. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): Good point @Donna Donna Austin, Neustar: But while we're getting that information it should not toll our work. Donna Austin, Neustar: I think the NCAP is the result of a Board request. Avri Doria: yes NCAP came about becasue of the Nov 17 resolution. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes Donna - last I heard the budget was being revised and the structure has been reworked but the Board did tell us that they adopted advice they received from the SSAC and we have a communication from the Board about the advice they adopted as to the "dependency". I think the SAC report does not say this depends on NCAP per se but rather that no next round should go forward til name collision issues are resolved. Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Jeff - I am talking about the Board resolution related to a prior SAC report advising the Board. We have a chart that Steve prepared related to the Board's letter to Sub Pro. Christopher Wilkinson: So... NCAP is about Name collissions - correct? Jim Prendergast: yes Steve Chan: I believe Anne is referring to this Board resolution: https://features.icann.org/consideration-ssac-recommendations-sac047-sac058… [features.icann.org] Steve Chan: The resolution refers to a scorecard, which can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/bm/briefing-materials-2-redacted-23ju… [icann.org] Steve Chan: The Board actually adopted the scoredcard, although within the scoredcard, it states: "The Board accepts this advice and will ask the GNSO Subsequent Procedures PDP to include this recommendation in its work." This is in respect to SAC090, which is an, "SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace" Steve Chan: And this WG's worksheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PrXjzhhdwU2O9k8oF6RG8pohqwBVz_UdYr4… [docs.google.com] Anne Aikman-Scalese: re name collisions - Yes - Steve - very precisely stated. It's SAC 90 that creates the potential "dependency" since the Board adopted that and it states that various risk assessments should be done prior to "adding new names" to the TLD space. Page 7, Defining Round Closure, Board comment: - Sub Group A discussed what it means to close a round, because Sub Group A is examining the comments on whether the future introduction of gTLDs will be in the form of rounds, and if it is, how do you determine when one round ends and a new one begins. - There have been a number of comments in favor of doing rounds with some type of predictable time table in between. At some point you need to be able to say that a round is closed. - Confusing to continue to speak of "rounds" - could talk about various groupings of applications. However, most of the comments do reference "rounds". Whatever we call it there is an application window (phased, batched, etc.) that opens and later closes. Prior to opening up the next application window there is a concept of when is it appropriate, from a cost-recovery perspective, to say that the window is closed to determine if we have a surplus and if so what to do with it. - Comment in Sub Group A seem unanimous that there should be at least one application window in the form of a round. -- ACTION ITEM: Take this up on email. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: Speaking of a "round being closed", do we have a list yet of the applications still pending from 2012 and their current status? QUESTION Vanda Scartezini: I know that at least one string is pending for decision but would be good to know the whole list Steve Chan: @Anne, the New gTLD micro site should help provide that list. If you go to this site: https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/viewstatus [gtldresult.icann.org] Steve Chan: You should be able to filter down. For instance, filtering Application Status to Active provides a list of 22 applications. Vanda Scartezini: thanks Steve. Phil Buckingham: @ Vanda , Anne, I can send you the list . At least 10 contention sets out 234 STILL remain unresolved 7 years since Jan 2012. .Music . gay .hotel . kid(s) come to mind . This obviously excludes the highly contentious outstanding cases re . Amazon & .Web Vanda Scartezini: thanks Phil , is amazing we still have unsolved strings under discussion... Anne Aikman-Scalese: @STeve - thanks Steve - however, I have requested that we receive a formal list from staff because there are policy issues related to defining rounds and we need to consider these issues from the standpoint of the full Working Group. Jeff indicated we woudl receive this list and that it would be circulated to the full WG. Steve Chan: @Anne, Jeff said that after I commented in chat here :) You'll see an action item is now captured. Page 7, What if Consensus Cannot Be Reached, Comment from the Board: - Default position: If there is no consensus to change a policy then the policy remains as it was for the 2012 round, at least in cases where the default is still feasible. - There may be issues where we can't reach consensus right now, but we don't want to forgo the opportunity to keep reviewing these types of issues for subsequent application windows without stopping the process completely. - Will indicate in the Final Report for each recommendation the level of support received, including divergent views. - The GNSO Council would adopt and forward recommendations that reach the level of consensus or full consensus. Could forward in theory recommendations that don't reach that level, but that's not typical. >From the chat: Anne AikmanScalese: COMMENT: The protocol for Working Group guidelines is that there are Consensus levels specifiee and if applicable, Minority views. The GNSO then has to make its recommendation to the Board regarding those items. Anne Aikman-Scalese: JEff - I think the GNSO Council has to decide what it is formally recommending to the Board. Steve Chan:Yes Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd 2:Yes Anne Aikman-Scalese:Donna makes a good point. I think GNSO Council has "oversight", even if they do not have a habit of taking up an issue with a PDP recommendation. They also have to deal with the fact that communications from the Board ultimately have to be handled at the GNSO Council level because if these are not reflected in policy recommendations, the Board will come to the Council to ask why. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Donna .. would that include addressing issues raised by minority interests in the ICANN community that are left unaddressed or create further dissadvantage simply because existing policy (or status quo) plays to the benefit of the majority? Christopher Wilkinson: In view of the changes that have taken place since 2012, i suggest that the GNSO Council should co-opt for these purposes additional members from the other SO/ACs most directly concerned. Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Christohper - interesting observation - for example, ALAC does not have a vote on Council. I think the structure contemplates that ALAC, GAC, and others provided direct advice to the Board. The Board ends up having to "mediate" this advice, which of course slows things down. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jamie, I understand and appreciate you concern, but my sense is that the Council is reluctant to debate issues that were discussed by a PDP WG and recommendations made. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Where it gets really interesting is that when the GNSO advises the Board, it takes a 2/3 vote to override it. When the GAC advises the Board, it takes 60% vote to override it. So when GNSO and GAC advice conflict, the Board tends to come back to tell us all to "work it out".This of course slows things down if we have not worked it out before the recommendations go to the Board. Maybe that is why the Board wants us to clarify that existing policy from 2012 applies unless there is a clear recommendation otherwise and/or we have Board resolutions that modify that policy. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Donna .. the concern here is for some subgroups of the new gTLD program will never get a fair shake because the louder & larger voices in the community maintain control over the smalller voices in the community. For example, will the community TLD program ever get to serve at its best if some are trying to keep it from getting in the way of their interests. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jamie, sadly that's a challenge of the MS model.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday 7 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan 03 Jan '19

03 Jan '19

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday 7 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Work Group Updates (e.g., Sub Groups, Work Track 5, Supplemental Initial Report) Continued Review of Items Referred from the Sub Groups to the Full Working Group (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sl4V7OkGldX-RlGZZO108ln5sUG-H-VOhz3Od2g… [docs.google.com] Topics/sections to be covered on the call are currently highlighted in yellow. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email 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/

2 1

REMINDER: Announcement: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group’s Work Track 5 on geographic names at the top level webinar
by Terri Agnew 02 Jan '19

02 Jan '19

Dear all, The Co-Leaders of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group’s Work Track 5 on geographic names at the top level will be holding a community information webinar on Wednesday 9 January 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. The purpose of the webinar is to provide an overview of Work Track 5’s Supplemental Initial Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…>, for which a public comment period [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> is currently open. The public comment period is scheduled to close on 22 January 2019. The goal of this webinar is not to debate substantive issues contained in the report but rather to ensure that there is an understanding of the structure and content of the document and answer questions. All are welcome to attend the webinar. If you would like to participate, please fill out this form: https://goo.gl/forms/cGZVV86qjaqJt56v2 You will receive call details by email. The webinar will be recorded for those who are unable to attend. We look forward to your participation. Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

2 1