March 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 June 4, 2019

June 4, 2019

3 2

Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team
by Jeff Neuman March 29, 2019

March 29, 2019

During the Call this week, some questions arose regarding our role vis a vis an eventual PDP Implementation Review Team (IRT) that may be established once our work is completed and approved by the GNSO Council. This issue has been discussed with and reviewed by Elsa and Flip (our GNSO Council Liaisons). The role of the IRT is as laid out in the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (https://www.icann.org/uploads/ckeditor/CPIF_v2.0_2019CLEAN.pdf) (CPIF). A PDP IRT is intended to support ICANN's Global Domains Division (GDD) in implementation without revisiting policy discussions. More specifically, an IRT, if convened by the GNSO Council, "serve[s] as a resource to implementation staff on policy and technical questions that arise." This is also described in Annex L of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Final Recommendations Report ( https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/policy-implementation/piwg-final-recommend…) The CPIF makes it clear that GDD manages the implementation. An IRT, if constituted, will review the work of GDD it in the spirit of how the PDP intended the recommendations to be. Our role as the PDP WG is to develop detailed policy recommendations. In addition to policy recommendations, we have the ability to recommend "implementation guidance" as the PDP Working Group. Implementation Guidance, as discussed on our call, are those areas where we want to create a strong presumption that GDD should implement our recommendation unless there is a compelling reason that they are unable to do so. It is certainly stronger than a directive that GDD should "try" to implement our recommendations, but also leaves flexibility to an IRT and GDD staff to go in a different direction if necessary. The specific question raised on the call involved a PDP IRT's role in drafting the actual language to be included in the Applicant Guidebook. The short answer is that the Working Group Chairs, ICANN Policy Staff, and our GNSO Council Liaisons are if the opinion that this question is beyond the scope of our Working Group. More precisely this will be an issue discussed by the GNSO Council and GDD if and when an IRT is established. Our focus should be to create detailed policy recommendations (that ICANN/GDD MUST implement) and where appropriate, Implementation Guidance, that ICANN SHOULD implement in consultation with an IRT (if applicable). ***Please note that this relates to a PDP IRT and not to a potential Standing IRT discussed in our draft Predictability Model which, if adopted, would serve as a standing panel constituted after launch of the next round to assist with issues that arise after the launch.*** We hop this helps. Huge thanks to Elsa and Flip for following up on this issue. Best regards, Jeff Neuman & Cheryl Langdon Orr SubPro PDP Co-Chairs

6 11

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 01 April 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 28, 2019

March 28, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday, 01 April 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review of comments - Supplemental Initial Report: see the document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBC…: a. 2.4 Change Requests – start at line 16 b. 2.5 Registrar Support for New gTLDs 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<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 25 March 2019 at 15:00 UT
by Michelle DeSmyter March 26, 2019

March 26, 2019

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 25 March 2019 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/VIs2Bg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-25mar19-en.mp3 [audio.icann.org]<https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-25mar19-en.mp3%20%5ba…> Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p26oytwziub/ 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

On copy-pasting applications
by Rubens Kuhl March 25, 2019

March 25, 2019

Hi folks. On the theme whether there should be an ability for applicants to replicate responses among application, I believe we are mixing two different things: 1) If the application should or must have this feature 2) If applications should have dissimilarities among them from a policy perspective On (1), I believe the relevant WT, comments and SG analysis should base the WG discussion, notably the alert by ICANN Org that more features equal more time and cost. But we shouldn't conflate that discussion with whether copy-pasting, even if done by the applicant on its own, should be discouraged or disallowed. On (2), I believe the relevant WG, comments and SGs already established that when the point of non-scored questions was analysed, and the full WG should consider that. But one thing that could help those reviewing the applications would be a comparative analysis. And regardless whether policy forbids such or not, that would be a useful aid for groups reviewing large number of applications. I only discourage making that a requirement, but expressing the usefulness of such a tool in the final report would at least allow someone at Org to argue for it to be contracted/created. Rubens

4 6

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 25 March 2019
by Jamie Baxter March 25, 2019

March 25, 2019

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 25 March 2019
by Jamie Baxter March 25, 2019

March 25, 2019

2 1

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 25 March 2019
by Julie Hedlund March 25, 2019

March 25, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 25 March 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/2019-03-25+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBC…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: 2.4 Change Requests: ACTION ITEM 1: Line 5 BC comments -- Seek clarification re: New Idea. ACTION ITEM 2: Consider how to address role of the IRT in our recommendations. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Brief Review of ICANN64 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Activity -- Update on comments on the list: -- How do we take the comments that we've gotten and work towards getting to final recommendations? -- Should some of this go out for public comment? Update from ICANN64 and Subsequent Comments on the List: -- At ICANN64 covered recommendations where there seemed to be broad agreement. -- No intent to have different meaning from what has already been discussed and commented on. -- Try to avoid drafting exact wording but focus on agreeing on the content. -- Avoid focusing on labels (i.e., "New Idea"). There may be additional meaning in "New Idea" than what was intended. Not that this is a New Idea that no one has thought of, but it is new in that it was not mentioned in the Supplemental Initial Report. Label shouldn't be used for anything else. -- If an idea gets acceptance from the WG that will shape the recommendations and be used to measure consensus. -- Board Resolution: approved the latest plan for NCAP Study 1. Need to address that the study is ongoing. Number of different scenarios. -- In discussion of comments, be as specific as possible (and seek clarfication) and also be constructive in suggesting solutions. Discussion: -- Question arose re: autofill in applications -- that both comments could be labeled as "New Idea". Sometimes something that could be characterized as a "New Idea" is actually dissent from the recommendation, so a lack of consent. So not accurate to be listed as a "New Idea". -- There was no intent at ICANN64 to characterize something that was dissent as a "New Idea". But a "New Idea" may not mean that it couldn't become the new WG consensus. -- A New Idea is something that we didn't do originally; also, will we adopt new ideas without putting them out for public comment. -- "New Idea" meant something that wasn't part of the WG recommendations; but unlikely to be something that was done in 2012 -- although theoretically possible. -- WG role is to identify what we can live with and if we have a recommendation that is different from previously then that goes out for public comment. -- Question: Re: the Board's referral to the SubPro WG via resolution re: CCT-RT recommendations: How will we be treating that? Do we say we've considered them? Answer: SubPro took the items referred to us from the CCT-RT and we included those in the Initial Report and addressed in the comments analysis. From the Chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese - screen 2: COMMENT: Re Work Plan - June 17 listed as date we determine whether additional public comment is needed - for limited topics. It seems quite clear that it will be needed - for example, the discussion of "when a round closes" raised a lot of questions which should be put out for public comment. In addition, the Neustar proposal re "windows" also would need to go out for public comment.COMMENT Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Thanks Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I agree with Donna - the topics will be limited. The WG has the responsibility to make determinations on existing work. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): thus our frequent refrain of 'everything going back to the plenary/full WG in the Sub Team reviews of the PC's received Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: At this point, CCT-RT is not a "discussion", there are actual Resolutions by the Board. We should take a look at the references to Sub Pro. COMMENT 3. Review of comments - Supplemental Initial Report: see the document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBC… [docs.google.com] 2.3: Role of Application Comment (start at line 37, 2.3.e.2); 2.4 Change Requests 2.3 Role of Application Comment 2.3.e.2: Line 38,-40 BRG, IPC, RrSG -- Agreement (supports the recommendation) Line 41, RySG -- Agreement (but with verification) Line 42, NCSG -- Agreement (but public must be allowed to respond to commenters responses) Line 43, dotgay LLC -- Divergence (disagrees with the premise of the question) -- It is incorrect to say that everyone had a change to respond to clarifying questions -- the assumption is incorrect. It isn't including community priority evaluations as part of evaulations. CPE needs to be part of that consideration (to the regular public comment period or any public comment period). Agree that applicants should have an opportunity to respond, in regular public comment period and in the CPE public comment period. -- Any letter of opposition needs to be considered a public comment -- if not then it doesn't fall into this category. -- Keep as divergence from the notion that letters of opposition where given the opportunity for public comment, but new idea that all public comment periods adopt this proposal, include CPE. Line 44, ALAC - Divergence (disagrees that this is an issue to be addressed) -- ALAC doesn't oppose the opportunity to respond to public comments, but we don't think this is an issue so long as the opportunity is available. Discussion: -- How do the evaluators take into account responses received in public comment? Also, the responses from applicants after the end of the public comment period? There should be guidance. -- If the public comment arrives days before you start CPE or entered CPE there has to be a mechanism for the applicant to be able to respond; otherwise it can result in gaming (sending in a comment as late as possible to prevent a response). -- Implementation Team may need to look at the timing. -- Agreement that applicants should have the ability to respond. -- NCSG: Not only should applicants be allowed to respond, but the commenter should be allowed to respond. From the Chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese - screen 2: QUESTION: How will CPE evaluation proceed with further exchanges of public comment? (which is a good idea) QUESTION Justine Chew: +1 Jamie. IMO what Jamie has raised is a good example of a "New Idea". Maxim Alzoba: what to do if the particular comment is not relevant to the appliaction? Justine Chew: @jeff, I'm not sure I got what you said entirely. ALAC supported the additional time period, I think we suggested 7 days, for applicants to respond to late comments/CQs. Maxim Alzoba: not necessary last minute comments are done on purpose (sometimes it is a nature of the processes , when everybody does not have time), but having a lot of work in last minute does not work Justine Chew: @Maxim, I agree with you, but still should be afforded time to respond to by applicant. Donna Austin, Neustar: Applicants should have adequate opportunity to respond to comments. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Maxim - in our case, there was over 2 years to comment, including the ICANN public comment period and the objection process, so it's highy unlikely it was by chance. Donna Austin, Neustar: Put a clock on the complete comment process. Susan Payne: then you have to go back to the applicant again - where does it end:) 2.3.e.3: Lines 46-53, dotgay LLC. BRG, ALAC, ALAC, IPC, RySG, NCSG, RrSG -- Agreement (Support for the recommendation) 2.4 Change Requests General Comments: Line 4, ALAC -- Agreement (supports 2.4.c.1, 2.4.d.1, 2.4.e.1.1, 2.4.e.2) Line 5, BC -- Agreement (2.4.c.1: guidance for changes, public comment needed in certain cases) New Idea (changes to strings allowed only if not applied for, application should be treated as new, cost borne by applicant) -- ACTION ITEM: Seek clarification from the BC re: New Idea. -- -- Also add NCSG comments as dissention (but included below). -- Question: If there are these other types, is it something that the NCSG would approve? Answer: Yes. Just not changes to the string. Line 6, RySG -- Agreement (2.4.d.1) New Idea -- Need to discuss this New Idea with the WG. Discussion: -- Do we have a view of whether IRTs have input into changes to the AGB? See guidance from the Council? For recent IRTs (thick WHOIS, IGO/INGO) where policy is drafted with IRT the language is published for public comment. So, proposed changes to the AGB would go out for public comment. Get clarification on whether exact language goes out for public comment. Depends on whether it is policy or implementation guidance. IRTs should not be able to change policy (though not in scope for this WG). Anne Aikman-Scalese - screen 2: COMMENT: I would assume that IRT will have input on the final draft of the AGB. That was my question. Naturally, the AGB will go out for public comment either way. COMMENT Steve Chan: @Anne, recent IRTs have a role in developing and agreeing to proposed policy language so one could assume that the IRT would provide input to the AGB? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): @Donna correct me if I am wrong here but we did in the development of IRT Guidelines make specific points on when an IRT is expected to 'go back' to a PDP process/ out for more public inut did we not??? Martin Sutton: NCSG comments are included in the specific questions further on Martin Sutton: can we cover when we reach each comment? Susan Payne: to be fair if we in SubPro make a rule that allows for this string change then this wouldn't be a "breach of the rules" as the NCSG states Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kathy, what's the basis of your claim of 20,000 applications? I don't dispute that there is deman, but I'd be interested to know what you're basing the 20,000 number on. Kristine Dorrain: @Susan, yes, we're discussing changing the rules. Kathy Kleiman: @Donna - gut sense. Also that we expected 500 in the first round and received 4 times that. I'm hearing 5000 projected by many people for the next round and, based on the past, I would predict 5000*4. What's your expectation? Maxim Alzoba: I am not sure we need to use it as a fact based input Jean Guillon - Jovenet Consulting: @Donna: Law firms talk a lot here in France. Most have no knowledge about new gTLDs but the number that I received twice was 200 (all kinf of TLDs included). Steve Chan: The beginning of Question 2.4.d.1 reads: One of the types of changes that some members of the Working Group believe should be allowed are certain application changes intended to resolve string contention. 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 or 2) have a limited ability to select a different string, which must be closely related to the original string. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): flow charts Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): even Jamie Baxter | dotgay: I would hope that the IRT will also have ovesight to ensure language of final the AGB is implement as stated - for example from 2012 round - prevent ICANN from keeping the public comment period open as long as they did despite the language containted in the AGB that clearly indicated it had an end date. Donna Austin, Neustar: I believe so Cheryl, the challenge is with interpretation and staff manage the IRT not the community. So things can get tricky. Maxim Alzoba: implementation is what ICANN staff does the way they see fit Steve Chan: FWIW, the standing IRT proposed by this Working Group would only be in effect AFTER program launch. There was no overlap envisioned with the standard IRT. Anne Aikman-Scalese - screen 2: COMMENT: IRT should be involved in Implementation Guidance all the way. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese - screen 2: COMMENT: The key to this is having broad recommendation on the IRT as specifiied in the GNSO Operating Procedures, including appropriate technical expertise. COMMENT 2.4.c.1: Lines 8-13, BRG, ALAC, IPC, RySG, ALAC, NCSG -- Agreement Line 14, GAC -- Agreement New Idea Line 15, BC -- Agreement New Idea (changes to strings allowed only if not applied for, application should be treated as new, cost borne by applicant) -- Go back to the role of the IRT -- don't agree that if it is implementation guidance it's up to ICANN Org to implement it. -- Policy recomendations are "you must do this" and implementation guidance is "you should do this). ACTION ITEM: How to address role of the IRT in our recommendations. -- Start on line 16, 2.4.d.1 for 01 April 2019.

1 0

REMINDER - Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 25 March 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 25, 2019

March 25, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call TODAY Monday, 25 March 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 3. Next steps for Sub Group comment analysis 4. Brief Review of ICANN64 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Activity 5. Review of comments - Supplemental Initial Report: see the document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBC…: 2.3: Role of Application Comment (start at line 37, 2.3.e.4); 2.4 Change Requests 6. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 March 2019
by Julie Hedlund March 20, 2019

March 20, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meetings at ICANN64 in Kobe on 13 March 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/2019-03-13+ICANN64+Kobe+-+New+gTL…. Please also see the attached referenced slides. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Session 3 of 3: Topics that Might Warrant Closure: -- Show how we have assembled the topic review. -- How to bring this to closure. -- Next steps. -- Still are some potential open topics that might need to go to the Implementation Review Team or do more work. See the Public Comment Tool: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15zDdzlBwLCz5m2sNXui6N6pporbUq-lDFEw… 1. Applicant Guidebook – Slide 20: -- Information on the slide is conceptual, not recommendation language. 2. Systems – Slides 21-22: -- Question: Which of the recommendations are implementation guidance and which are policy? The first bullet (adequate time) would be more specific than policy; second bullet suggests implementation guidance. Also, change to “real-time technical support” (delete “better”). -- Both bullet points seem to be implementation guidance. -- Prioritization would be key (such as identifying field requiring non-ASCII characters). Christopher Wilkinson: <COMMENT>Ihave a general reservation abiout language which woud facilitate multiople applications from a single applicant. Particularly with regard to Geographical Names<COMMENT> Christopher Wilkinson: <COMMENT> permitting portfolio applications will result in further concentration, more warehousing and speculation and threaten the interests of international communities <COMMENT> -- Creating multiple identical applications doesn’t seem to serve the Applicant Guidebook Process. Comment from Business Constituency was to be able to respond to multiple applications with the same question. That this answer applies to multiple applications. -- Sections in some applications may be pretty much the same, so the ability to copy text over would be beneficial. -- Should encourage clarity of what is expected in the answers. Would be helpful to know in advance what is expected of applicants. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Answers to Question 18 should not be rote fill-in identical answers. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: +1 to Justine 's request and to Kathy's observation re Question 18. We don't want to encourage super general language that is made more vague so that it can be applied automatically in numerous applications. COMMENT -- Should allow copy and pasting the same answer to purpose and mission, but how can we prevent that? Could do so by setting expectations. -- The discussion was around efficiency and ease of use for applicants. We didn’t consider what to allow for which questions. Christopher Wilkinson: <COMMENT> boilerplate replies from multiople applications will facilitate gaming to avoid substantive comments from other stakeholders and interested parties<COMMENT> Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Re public comment on applications, cookie cutter answers are contrary to the principle of transparency. Applicants might easily construct such answers for the purpose of avoiding public comment. Justine's request is important. COMMENT -- The more complex we make the system the more costly it will be and difficult to use. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: It's demeaning to the comments to say they are "in the weeds" and they are not "high level". it just means you oppose them. COMMENT -- To address the issue you’d have to have a policy recommendation that you can’t submit the exact same information across applications or within applications. -- What is the problem we are trying to solve, at a high level? If you can cut and paste you will do it, but don’t know if that will avoid the issues being raised. -- Seems that the problem is the pace the submission outpacing the ability of the community to review the volume of applications received. -- New Idea: Maybe prohibit duplicative language if you are a portfolio applicant. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: It is not about solving a problem, it is about creating a new problem by making this recommendation. Jeff's suggestion to use languge that excepts the practice in relation to questions that go to Mission and Purpose. That is not a policy change. COMMENT Christopher Wilkinson: <COMMENT> one of the objectives of having several specialised rounds or batches is precisely to limit the volumes of applications to the capacity of the evaluation resources, over time <COMMENT> 3. Communications – Slides 23-24: -- Bullet 1: Minimum of 4 months – shouldn’t be summarized; there was a variety of comments. -- Bullet 2: Know what is in the GSE toolbox. -- For the two bullets – not a lot of mention of studying of objectives and holes for applications; what are we looking to achieve by communications and outreach. Would be good to measure. -- When we were talking about applicant support there were comments on how to measure success in future. -- Communications is different from applicant support, but we need to look at both. -- Open topics: The WG could do it, give it to an IRT, or recommend that ICANN Org do it. Christopher Wilkinson: <COMMENT> communications periods will be critical for geographical names because very few of local stakeholders world wide have been participating in Wt5 etc. <COMMENT> Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION Was there something in the public comments related to making real-time chat available for applicants? QUESTION 4. Universal Acceptance – Slide 25: -- UASG has been successful in promoting UA – getting several major email providers to be UA ready. The question is whether the Registries/Registrars are using those email services. -- Might be too much to ask to expect Registries/Registrars to do what the major email providers do. -- This sounds like more of an issue with all TLDs – why would we just put it in as a condition of a new TLD if it isn’t a condition for legacy TLDs? -- ALAC – suggesting UA if the Registry/Registrar are owned by the same entity. 5. Application Submission Periods – Slides 26-27: Start on the next WG call. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Re Topic 5, how do we take into account the Neustar proposal re windows within an application period? That should be captured. COMMENT

5 9