October 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 03 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 3, 2019

Oct. 3, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 03 October 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/2019-10-03+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Accountability Mechanisms: What are the types of actions or inactions that should be subject to this new limited appeals process? ACTION ITEM 1: Jeff will send a chart that begins to list some examples, such as if a panelist gets the facts wrong, misapplies the facts, takes an action in consistent with the AGB (or fails to take an action). Not looking at whether someone violated the Bylaws. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Review of summary documents: a. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 17 What are the types of actions or inactions that should be subject to this new limited appeals process? -- Trying to distinguish between substance and procedure is not very helpful. Could be defined differently. More helpful to come up with examples that would be subject matter jurisdiction of an appeal. Noting elements in Jamie Baxter’s comments, ALAC, and most comments. -- Question: A list of examples would not be nonexclusive and illustrative only? Goal is to just have illustrative examples, we can’t promise that someone wouldn’t file something under the Bylaws that they shouldn’t be filing under the appeals. ACTION: Jeff will send a chart that begins to list some examples, such as if a panelist gets the facts wrong, misapplies the facts, takes an action in consistent with the AGB (or fails to take an action). Not looking at whether someone violated the Bylaws. -- If different panels come up with different answers on different occurrences is that grounds for appeal? -- What is out of scope for appeal? Probably easier to come up with a list of what is in scope. Could point to the Bylaws for what is out of scope. -- What about appeals that involved ICANN Org? In the AGB there is a void on how reconsideration requests (accountability mechanisms) are addressed when successful. If against staff or the Board that would fall under accountability mechanisms re: the Bylaws. But we can’t say that in cases where some of the activities are taken on by ICANN staff. -- Do think it makes sense that anything that could be objected to under the Bylaws should be objected to under the Bylaws, so we don’t get objections in two places. -- The standard for objections under the Bylaws is that Board or staff violated the Bylaws. -- If the just got it wrong, then it probably doesn’t fall under the Bylaws accountability mechanisms. -- We need the interlocutory appeals process so that actual relief can be granted before it is too late and not just have ICANN point back at the provider. -- We don't want to build an appeals process that erodes the accountability mechanisms. -- If we have a permanent new gTLD process, ICANN Org is considering bringing in house some of the tasks previously handled by third parties. -- Agree that only third party decisions should be subject to the appeals process. Otherwise there will be two actions filed, not one. ICANN would be nuts to in-house Objection proceedings. Lawyers will plead both the Accountability mechanisms and the appeal mechanisms. There will always be grey areas and ability to plead both mechanisms apply and it is wasteful. -- Doesn't it seem that ICANN doing Objections in-house would be subject to a further policy process. -- If we are talking about appeals we need to know what can be appealed. Bringing things in house and allowing them to go under accountability mechanisms under the Bylaws locks the appellee is locked out of it. Important to know when you can go to ICANN and when you can’t. Set some foundational principles. -- Very speculative to say we have to make policy based on what ICANN is discussing. There are good reasons for ICANN to keep Objections outside of the organization - namely independence of determinations. If ICANN is selecting panelists in Objection proceedings, those panelists, paid by ICANN, are subject to too much ICANN org influence.  -- ICANN should maintain distance from substantive decisions, even string confusion. These are too close to regulation of content and it's outside ICANN's mission. -- Bylaw accountability mechanisms deals mostly with process - whether process was violated, it doesn't deal with the subject matter because it does not have expertise. Which is the problem in many cases.  Who should have standing to file an appeal? Does this depend on the particular action or inaction? -- Example of parties: a) Applicant b) objection loser - Does this include Independent Objector? c) Someone in a contention set? d) ICANN Org? e) SOAC? f) public at-large? -- To clarify, on the last call when we talked about objections by ALAC being paid for, what we are talking about here is whether ICANN would pay for an appeal by the ALAC. -- On the standing issue, it sounds like everyone wants there to be a direct connection between the decision and a bad effect on the appealing party. In other words, no standing for anyone who just wants to harass an applicant.  -- Shouldn’t losing applicants for the same string in a CPE have standing to appeal? Should the other applicants have standing that the decision by the CPE evaluator was wrong. -- Having the ability to appeal certainly doesn’t guarantee a decision will be reversed, especially if frivolous appeals are filtered out  --  Logically, that makes sense, but if at all, they should ideally be joined in the same appeal to be heard by the same panel. What measures can be employed to ensure that frivolous appeals are not filed? What would be considered a frivolous appeal? -- General agreement at least for a quick look process to make sure the appeals aren’t frivolous. If there is an appeals process, how can we ensure that we do not have a system which allows multiple appeals? -- Can someone not happy about the appeal file an appeal of the appeal? -- Only exception might be where there is an erroneous conflict of interest decision. -- Outcome of appeal is always going to end up being subject to Accountability mechanisms since ICANN will act on the decision in the appeal.  There should be interlocutory appeal of conflict of interest determination. -- What about limiting to one appeal and one request for reconsideration? -- Time is of the essence. The sooner we get to an answer the better, rather than drawing it out with multiple appeals. Who should bear the costs of an appeal? -- A lot of the commenters said the loser should pay. But if you failed an evaluation and you appeal, and the appeal says you shouldn’t have failed, who pays? -- Everyone should be held accountable. If it’s proven that the third party made a mistake then they should pay. -- Disagree; these are adjudicators and as long as it is within reasonable standards of right or wrong they shouldn’t have to pay. If there was gross negligence or misconduct then maybe the third party should pay. -- Impact of who would hear the appeal if the deciding body is stuck with the cost -- they shouldn’t hear the appeal if they are stuck with the cost if the appeal finds them to be in error. You wouldn’t find someone who was willing to take this on. If they get too many wrong ICANN can terminate them. What are the possible remedies for a successful appellant? -- Many commenters said that it depends on the nature of the appeal. -- Agreement that the remedy will be dependent upon what is being appealed. Usually some sort of reversal of the appealed decision.

1 0

EBERO / SLAM Data Status and next steps
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

All, On 23 August 2019, high-level statistics were shared from ICANN org's SLA Monitoring program (attached). These statistics provided the monthly number of 1) DNS failures 2) RDDS failures and 3) DNS and RDDS failures that reached the EBERO threshold. On 26 August 2019, Donna Austin shared a RySG document which included data previously shared by ICANN org at the Madrid DNS Symposium / GDD Summit (attached). This data provided more detail on group 3 above in particular, including elements like: * The cause for why the EBERO threshold was reached (i.e., DNS/DNSSEC or RDDS) * A further, more specific breakdown within each of the two categories that indicate why the EBERO threshold was reached (e.g., IPv6 transport error, broken chain of trust in DNSSEC, etc.) Within our Working Group there has been some discussion about what impact this data may have. For example, we discussed whether past failures should have any impact on future application evaluations or RSP pre-approval for future rounds? The Working Group, however, is trending towards agreeing that evaluation and thus RSP pre-approval (which is likely to leverage the same or substantially the same evaluation criteria) should be forward looking and not be impacted by past performance. The Working Group is also trending towards requiring the pre-approval prior to each evaluation round and that the approval will be good for the duration of the then-current round. A second area in which this data could have an impact is whether or not existing Registry Service Providers should be grandfathered into any future pre-approval processes? Based on the Working Group's deliberations and public comment received, the answer appears to be no. Most of the comments seem to point to requiring all RSPs (whether new or existing) to go through the same processes in future rounds. Therefore, based on where the Working Group is heading, the Co-Chairs do no believe that we are in need of additional historical data for purposes of finalizing its work on the RSP Pre-approval program. We recognize that registry service provider performance has been a topic of discussion for matters other than the pre-approval program. We understand that there has been discussion about whether the relatively high number of registry services failures indicates that RSP might need to improve how they operate to ensure the security and stability of the DNS. While this WG is forward looking and not intending to impose new commitments for existing RSPs, lessons may be learned to improve the evaluation process for future applicants/RSPs. Based on the above, the WG believes it does need more context from GDD to understand the data it has been provided, since not all SLA failures are equally harmful. Therefore in looking at the failures, for example, the WG needs clarity on whether they refer to service availability or Round Trip Time (RTT). The WG also wants to try and examine if there was any harm caused by the downtime, which is benefitted in part by understanding the timing of the failure (e.g., prior to Sunrise, during Sunrise, before General Availability, after GA). * For the failures that did NOT reach the EBERO threshold, the WG would like summary data of which of the SLRs was missed. * For the failures that DID reach the EBERO threshold, a detailed breakdown (e.g., similar specificity that was shared at the Madrid DNS Symposium / GDD Summit), which includes the timing of the failure. * This information may help identify weaknesses in the evaluation criteria, registry system testing, and/or contractual requirements captured in the Registry Agreement. The leadership intends to send the request for additional context next week, but we would like to know if there are any comments from the Working Group. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Best regards, Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr SubPro PDP Co-Chairs ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: 1. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 17 2. Community Applications – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, page 2 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Resolving Objection Proceedings with Mandatory PICs
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

Regarding the last call and the possible high level agreement on resolving Objection proceedings with mandatory PICs, it's important to note that there is no private right of action to enforce a PIC. The current PIC Dispute Resolution procedure - PICDRP (see attached) provides for various steps to be taken in resolving the PIC complaint and if unresolved, ICANN at its SOLE discrestion, can invoke a a Staning Panel or undertake a compliance investigation. So the points I am raising here are: (1) Proceeding on the report of a PIC violation rests in the sole discretion of ICANN (2) The expense of the Compliance investigation and/or Standing Panel is an expense of ICANN. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to consider adopting a private right of action (rather than forcing the expense on ICANN) in connection with the enforcement of mandatory PICs adopted for purposes of resolving an Objection proceeding. In fact, the PICDRP originally contained a provision allowing the enforcement issue to be taken to a third party provider. However, that draft did not survive. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image006.png@01D5747C.E1E07CD0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image007.jpg@01D5747C.E1E07CD0] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ 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.

10 16

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 01 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 1, 2019

Oct. 1, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 01 October 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/2019-10-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: String Confusion Objections: Do you support the proposal that there should be grounds for a String Confusion Objection if an applied-for string is an exact translation of existing string that is in a highly regulated sector, and the applied-for string would not employ the same safeguards as the existing string? ACTION ITEM 1: Re: NABP comments -- New TLDs that mimic existing verified TLDs in highly regulated sectors but that lack the same safeguards stand to create confusion and place consumers at risk of fraud and abuse. The WG should consider whether there was a high-level agreement relating to this proposal and the CCT-RT recommendation concerning incentives: “Create incentives and/or eliminate current disincentives that encourage gTLD registries to meet user expectations regarding...restrictions as to who can register a domain name in certain gTLDs based upon implied messages of trust conveyed by the name of its gTLDs (particularly in sensitive or regulated industries). Legal Rights Objections: Should the standard for the Legal Rights Objection remain the same as in the 2012 round? Re: INTA: Amend the standard of proof to: whether the potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the applicant takes (or will once used) unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark; or creates (or will once used) actual confusion with the objector's mark or a high likelihood of such confusion. Develop additional factors that would guide applicants and LRO panels on concepts of bad faith including, but not limited to the history of the applicant and the individuals behind the applicant, and whether underlying trademark rights acquired by the applicant were filed solely with respect to supporting the business of the application. ACTION ITEM 2: Set up a small drafting team to rewrite the section along the lines suggested by INTA. Re: IPC Comment -- The standard should be relaxed and holders of registered marks which also constitute "generic" names should be able to prevent awards to third party applicants if those third party applicants intend to use the TLD in similar goods/services as the Objector. ACTION ITEM 3: Could this be another factor under current section 3.5.2 of the AGB? Paul, Greg, Anne to work on draft language to consider how bad faith can be integrated, as well as the other aspect of INTA's comment. Accountability Mechanisms: New substantive appeal mechanism specific to the New gTLD Program -- Preliminary recommendation to establish such a mechanism: -- Re: ICANN.Org comment -- ICANN Org: Concerns - ICANN org would like to understand how this proposed “New Appeals Mechanism” differs from the ICANN Reconsideration Request process. WG may want to clearly articulate the difference in the appeals mechanism and reconsideration request: Reconsideration is: “Requestor may submit a request for reconsideration or review of an ICANN action or inaction ("Reconsideration Request") to the extent that the Requestor has been adversely affected by: (i) One or more Board or Staff actions or inactions that contradict ICANN's Mission, Commitments, Core Values and/or established ICANN policy(ies)....” ACTION ITEM 4: Co-Chairs/Staff to review the Bylaws to determine if a Reconsideration Request only applies to Board or staff actions. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): Elaine Pruis updated her SOI. 2. Review of summary documents: a. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K… String Confusion Objections: Do you support the proposal that there should be grounds for a String Confusion Objection if an applied-for string is an exact translation of existing string that is in a highly regulated sector, and the applied-for string would not employ the same safeguards as the existing string? ACTION ITEM: Re: NABP comments -- New TLDs that mimic existing verified TLDs in highly regulated sectors but that lack the same safeguards stand to create confusion and place consumers at risk of fraud and abuse. WG should consider whether there is a high-level agreement coming out of the NABP comments relating to the CCT-RT recommendation on incentives. -- Seems like a good idea in the wrong place (shouldn’t be in string Confusion Objections). -- Might be complicated. -- Good if we could have some examples. -- Look at in the context of the CCT-RT recommendation: CCT-RT Recommendation 12. Create incentives and/or eliminate current disincentives that encourage gTLD registries to meet user expectations regarding: (1) the relationship of content of a gTLD to its name; (2) restrictions as to who can register a domain name in certain gTLDs based upon implied messages of trust conveyed by the name of its gTLDs (particularly in sensitive or regulated industries) and (3) the safety and security of users’ personal and sensitive information (including health and financial information). These incentives could relate to applicants who choose to make public interest commitments in their applications that relate to these expectations. Ensure that applicants for any subsequent rounds are aware of these public expectations by inserting information about the results of the ICANN surveys in the Applicant Guide Books -- Would the NABP proposal be considered an incentive? -- WG should consider whether there is a high-level agreement coming out of the NABP comments relating to the CCT-RT recommendation on incentives. Re: The Thai Network Information Center Foundation: New Idea - Homonyms should be explicitly included in the similarity to existing top-level domain consideration of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook to prevent future confusions and costly disputes. -- Add note that this came up in the string similarity discussions (DONE). Legal Rights Objections: Should the standard for the Legal Rights Objection remain the same as in the 2012 round? -- Existing Standard: whether the applicant’s potential use of the applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe (described below) the objector’s existing trademark, or IGO name or acronym. -- Original standard used by the dispute resolution providers was the likelihood of confusion standard, which is the worldwide standard for trademark issues. -- Could have additional reasons for opposing on legal rights objections, but without abandoning the likelihood of confusion standard. -- Also need to look at a bad faith standard. -- AGB says likely to infringe which is very different than likelihood of confusion. -- Section 3.5.2 of the AGB is helpful, but the problem is with GNSO Recommendation 3, which isn’t clear. We need to fix the GNSO recommendation. ACTION ITEM: Re: INTA: Amend the standard of proof to: whether the potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the applicant takes (or will once used) unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark; or creates (or will once used) actual confusion with the objector's mark or a high likelihood of such confusion. Develop additional factors that would guide applicants and LRO panels on concepts of bad faith including, but not limited to the history of the applicant and the individuals behind the applicant, and whether underlying trademark rights acquired by the applicant were filed solely with respect to supporting the business of the application. -- Set up a small drafting team to rewrite the section of the AGB along the lines suggested by INTA. Re: IPC Comment -- The standard should be relaxed and holders of registered marks which also constitute "generic" names should be able to prevent awards to third party applicants if those third party applicants intend to use the TLD in similar goods/services as the Objector. -- The bad faith standard is certainly not a loosening of the existing standard unlikelihood of confusion. It would be an additional standard, or a factor in the likelihood of confusion analysis. -- Need to decide if gets its own grounds for a legal rights objection - stands independently. ACTION ITEM: Could this be another factor under current section 3.5.2 of the AGB? Paul, Greg, Anne to work on draft language to consider how bad faith can be integrated, as well as the other aspect of INTA's comment. b. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 15 New substantive appeal mechanism specific to the New gTLD Program -- Preliminary recommendation to establish such a mechanism: -- ALAC, BRG, INTA, IPC, Council of Europe, CCT-RT Recommendations: Agreement. -- Helpful language in the RySG comment: Support the introduction of a limited substantive appeals process for certain types of disputes that arise from a failure to adhere to criteria in the Applicant Guidebook, for example but not limited to, where: An evaluator misapplies the Guidebook or omits Guidebook criteria; or A panel relies on incorrect information or standard to decide an objection. -- Re: ICANN.Org comment -- ICANN Org: Concerns - ICANN org would like to understand how this proposed “New Appeals Mechanism” differs from the ICANN Reconsideration Request process. WG may want to clearly articulate the difference in the appeals mechanism and reconsideration request: Reconsideration is: “Requestor may submit a request for reconsideration or review of an ICANN action or inaction ("Reconsideration Request") to the extent that the Requestor has been adversely affected by: (i) One or more Board or Staff actions or inactions that contradict ICANN's Mission, Commitments, Core Values and/or established ICANN policy(ies)....” -- We don't have a really clear dividing line between you know what what WHERE DOES APPEAL apply and where does Request for Reconsideration apply. -- Appeal should be to a third-party decision, not to a Board or staff action. ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs/Staff to review the Bylaws to determine if a Reconsideration Request only applies to Board or staff actions. What are the types of actions or inactions that should be subject to this new limited appeals process? -- What about review of conflicts? That's not technically considered a substantive decision, but that certainly is something that should be reviewable on an appeal. -- The accountability mechanism should be only for a narrow set of circumstances.

1 0

Please remember to register for ICANN66 prep week webinars
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 1, 2019

Oct. 1, 2019

Dear all, Please remember to register for ICANN66 prep week webinars! Announcement can be found here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-09-16-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> To attend any of the below webinars, please register here [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_prepweeksi…> by 11 October to receive joining instructions. You may also submit questions during the registration process. All registered attendees will receive participation details days before the webinar dates. ICANN66 Prep Week Webinars Schedule Monday, 14 October 2019 16:00 UTC | Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Update: What to Expect at ICANN66 Tuesday, 15 October 2019 16:00 UTC | ICANN66 Plenary Session: DNS Abuse 23:00 UTC | Pre-ICANN66 Contractual Compliance Update Wednesday, 16 October 2019 16:00 UTC | ICANN66 Plenary Session: Evolution of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model 23:00 UTC | Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Update Thursday, 17 October 2019 12:00 UTC | Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Update 16:00 UTC | Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update All webinars be in English. Materials from the Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update will also be available in French. Recordings and materials will be posted here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/montreal66-prep-week>. Prep Week was established to help streamline the pre-meeting experience, as well as increase awareness of plenary topics, foster deeper conversations and enhance briefings and readout sessions. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar [features.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_cal…>

1 0

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Tuesday 01 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 1, 2019

Oct. 1, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 01 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/kooCBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0