April 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 15 April 2019
by Julie Hedlund April 15, 2019

April 15, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 15 April 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/2019-04-15+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSrLyWvfAiwDP-pe-QhAokRVoY1rpnDhfTqViwo…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSrLyWvfAiwDP-pe-QhAokRVoY1rpnDhfTqViwo…> Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Work Track 5: ACTION ITEM: Leadership and Staff will review the schedule and reconfigure as necessary based on the current work plan/pace. Review of Summary Documents -- Communications: ACTION ITEM 1: WG homework -- review the policy goals/what the WG is seeking to accomplish with respect to the following questions: Do these make sense? Do they seem complete? Do the concepts make sense? ACTION ITEM 2: 2.4.2.c.1 -- Captured Valideus and ALAC as New Ideas, but where there is a theme have placed them in themes. Need to be clear that they also are New Ideas. Added a reference back to New Ideas. ACTION ITEM 3: 2.4.2.c.7: ICANN Org comment re: online chat support -- cost and complexity. Question: Are we asking ICANN to offer substantive support to prospective applicants? Or technical support for those who are applying? ACTION ITEM: Capture in document (DONE). ACTION ITEM 4: 2.4.2.c.8: Add to New Ideas: May need to differentiate between substantive support versus technical support. (DONE) ACTION ITEM 5: 2.4.2.e.1: Add response rates consideration to ALAC comment. And “Conversion rates from inquiring applicants to applicants who submit applications.” to ICANN Org comment. (DONE). Brief Notes 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): a. Greg Shatan -- Treasurer of chapter of the Internet Society b. Christa Taylor -- Chief Marketing Officer of Minds & Machines 2. Update on Work Track 5: -- Review of public comments -- questions for community input: Found that there need to be some clarifications concerning what was meant in some of the comments. -- Move to proposals next. ACTION ITEM: Look at the schedule and reconfigure as necessary. 3. Review of Summary Documents a. Communications: ACTION ITEM: WG homework -- review the policy goals/what the WG is seeking to accomplish with respect to the following questions: Do these make sense? Do they seem complete? Do the concepts make sense? Public Comments: 2.4.2.c.1: ACTION ITEM: Captured Valideus and ALAC as New Ideas, but where there is a theme have placed them in themes. Need to be clear that they also are New Ideas. Add a reference back to New Ideas. 2.4.2.c.2.1: Communication Period: Note that there is some support for the communications period being longer than 6 months -- Need to take into account the concept of time required for various application types (such as community applications). 2.4.2.c.7: ICANN Org comment re: online chat support -- cost and complexity. Question: Are we asking ICANN to offer substantive support to prospective applicants? Or technical support for those who are applying? Concern about providing coaching. ACTION ITEM: Capture in document. (DONE) 2.4.2.c.8: Add to New Ideas: May need to differentiate between substantive support versus technical support. (DONE) 2.4.2.e.1: Add response rates consideration to ALAC comment. And “Conversion rates from inquiring applicants to applicants who submit applications.” to ICANN Org comment. (DONE).

1 0

PLEASE READ: Transitioning to Zoom
by Nathalie Peregrine April 12, 2019

April 12, 2019

Dear all, As you may already know<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/transitioning-icann-s-remote-participation-…>, ICANN is replacing the Adobe Connect tool with Zoom. As with all transitions, there will be a learning curve for community members as well as for staff but through the tools, information and proposed next steps outlined below, we hope we can make this transition is as smooth as possible. The complete roll out is expected to be finalized by ICANN65, Marrakech, however many groups will be noticing their calls scheduled on Zoom as of next week. Please see below a few pointers which we hope will help get everyone ready. How is staff preparing for the transition? Staff has received training, has viewed training videos and has had the opportunity to go through practice runs in Zoom rooms. This should facilitate our assistance in getting you all up to speed and work with the different groups on transitioning existing practices to the zoom environment. What is available to the community to prepare for the transition? Staff is reaching out to Stakeholder Group and Constituency, as well as PDP Working Group, leadership teams to introduce them to Zoom and ensure they will be comfortable running their first sessions with this new tool. Staff will also present Zoom to community members at the beginning of each conference call to ensure all understand the different functions and how to use them. The attached Welcome to Zoom! document will be presented at the same time. SOAC Support staff will be present during each call to assist. What stays the same? (please open the Welcome to Zoom! document for a visual) Zoom rooms still show participant and chat pods. The public chat pods will be archived and circulated as per usual, the private chat content remains inaccessible to ICANN Org staff). Documents can still be viewed in the Zoom room but please note that this sharing is a screen share which means it is no longer possible to scroll through documents unless the person who is sharing their screen does so. It is possible to join the audio via audio bridge (telephone) or via the computer. Zoom VoIP quality is excellent. It will still be possible to get a dial out for those unable to connect to the Zoom room. What changes? (please open the Welcome to Zoom! And the FAQ documents) Participants need to click on the participant list and the chat to activate them. This just takes two seconds. The content of the chat only appears from participant connection time. This means if you joins 4 mins late, you will not be able to access the first 4 mins of the chat. Zoom is notified of this and is looking into resolving the issue. The entire content of the chat transcript will however be available immediately after the end of the call once it gets posted / circulated by the host. Several documents can be viewed at the same time if several staff members are screensharing, this will allow you to navigate (as applicable) to Notes, Agenda and Documents in your own time during the call. Documents will be able to be shared via the chat to allow all to download materials to their computers during the call. The mobile app does not require you to remain in the app in order to hear the zoom room audio. Please open the attached FAQ document for any additional queries you may have. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please let us know – our objective is to make sure this transition is as smooth as possible. Kind regards, The GNSO Team 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 taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

2 3

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 15 April 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 11, 2019

April 11, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday, 15 April 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Zoom Introduction 3. Update on Work Track 5 4. Review of Summary Documents – Continuation of Discussion from ICANN64 to Reach Closure on Select Topics (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSrLyWvfAiwDP-pe-QhAokRVoY1rpnDhfTqViwo…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSrLyWvfAiwDP-pe-QhAokRVoY1rpnDhfTqViwo…>) a. Communications b. Systems (time permitting) 5. AOB Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a sort of catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). 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>. Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 09 April 2019
by Julie Hedlund April 9, 2019

April 9, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 09 April 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/2019-04-09+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSrLyWvfAiwDP-pe-QhAokRVoY1rpnDhfTqViwo… Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Review of Summary Documents – Continuation of Discussion from ICANN64 to Reach Closure on Select Topics (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSrLyWvfAiwDP-pe-QhAokRVoY1rpnDhfTqViwo…) Overview: -- Goal is to get to generally agreed principles. -- May be some things labeled as a new idea, but we will discuss all new ideas. -- Jeff Neuman added some notes to the document to stimulate discussion. -- First cite background information, then policy goals, summary of the public comments, then themes and new concepts. 2.4.1 Applicant Guidebook: Policy Goals -- Suggested edits: * An Some form of the Applicant Guidebook should be utilized for future new gTLD procedures. * However, Usability, clarity, and practicality should must be priorities when drafting future versions. 2.4.1.c.1: Work Track 1 generally agreed that an Applicant Guidebook (AGB) of some form should continue to be utilized in future waves of applications. The Work Track generally agreed, however, that the Applicant Guidebook should be made more user friendly. Themes/trends: * Support from all commenters New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations * BC: New Idea - make the document less English-dependent, since language plus the complexity of the subject matter can make understanding challenging. * What about recommending that legalese should be avoided? * How about recommending a Companion Guide (eg., Applications for Dummies) that would not be controlling, but provide for assistance? * To the extent possible, use Plain Language Text: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/about/definitions/ * But legal and accounting terms may be important for clarity and accuracy. Discussion: -- Avoid being too prescriptive with respect to language since some legal terms may be necessary. -- We are leaning towards implementation guidance (“should” versus “must”). -- Trying to boil the BC comment down to actual language/practical implementation. -- What does BC mean by “less English-dependent”? That is a BC comment. -- Example: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/about/definitions/ 2.4.1.c.2: In order to enhance accessibility for ease of understanding, especially for non-native English speakers and those that are less familiar with the ICANN environment, the Work Track believes that the AGB should: * Translations of AGB should be released soon after English version. Themes/trends: * Support from all commenters New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations * See aboveNone Discussion: -- Don’t think the ALAC comment disagrees – AGB can be free from historical context, but it could be included in a companion guide. -- Question: Will the AGB be available in other languages? We will get to that concept a little later. 2012 was published in the UN languages, so unless we recommend something different that would be the status quo. -- Justine Chew (in the Google Doc): Sure. I can't see why something like a Companion Guide won't work. Subject to my first comment on the need to notify that terms and conditions in AGB are not displaced. 2.4.1.c.2.1: Be less focused on historical context and to the extent it is included, concentrate this content in appendices if possible. Themes/trends: * Support from all commenters New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations * ALAC: Concerns - The historical context is important and needs to be readily available. * Note from Jeff: I think both can be achieved (namely, having an Applicant Guidebook that is free of historical context, but having in the Companion Guide (or elsewhere) the historical context. 2.4.1.c.2.2: Be less about policy, with a stronger focus on the application process. Themes/trends: * Support from all commenters New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations * ALAC: Concerns - The link between application process and policy is important to maintain. * Note from Jeff: Historical Context/Policy Dependency could all go in a separate companion guide. Discussion: -- Could have the AGB and a companion guide that has the historical context/policy. -- Translations should be released at the same time as the English version. 2.4.1.c.2.3: Be focused on serving as a practical user guide that applicants can utilize in applying for a TLD. For instance, step-by-step instructions, possibly by type of application with a ‘choose your own adventure’ methodology. Themes/trends: * Support from all commenters New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations * BC/INTA: New Idea - Suggestion to create an interactive process to help potential applicants understand which typepath of application to choose before applying, especially .Brands and Communities. * Note from Jeff: Not sure we will have different “paths” for applications, but we may have different categories (eg., geographic, brand, community, etc.). Is this implementation guidance (eg., nice to have)? Does next recommendation address this? 2.4.1.c.2.4: Have an improved Table of Contents, include an index and the online version should contain links to appropriate sections, definitions, etc. Themes/trends: * Support from all commenters New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations * None 2.4.1.c.2.5: The online version could have sections that apply specifically to the type of application being applied for with the ability to only print those related sections. Themes/trends: * Support from all commenters New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations * None * Note from Jeff: See above 2.4.1.c.2.6: In conjunction with the above, the online version should allow for advanced indexing of an omnibus text. A core set of standard provisions may be applicable to everyone, but additional provisions may only be applicable to some. If the text is tagged and searchable, users could more easily locate the parts of the text that are relevant to them. Themes/trends: * Support from all commenters New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations * None * Note from Jeff: How is this different from the recommendations above? Is this essential? Discussion: -- Haven’t captured the INTA new idea – type of application and include .Brands and Communities. Closely related to the BC comment. -- This question about different application paths could be about priorities and cost. -- This could be something for the companion guide. -- Maybe the next recommendation on an improved table of contents goes part of the way to addressing the BC/INTA comments. -- May make sense to have a checklist for each category. -- Whether to create different guides for each application may not be necessary. -- Might be easier to go with the recommendations at 2.4.1.c.2.4 and 2.4.1.c.2.5. -- BC and INTA comments reference “type of application” not “path”. Staff notes that these are summarize and WG members should reference the complete comment. The WG does not have to use this a policy language. -- Not sure the BC/INTA comment is a new idea and not sure what is an “interactive process”. 2.4.1.c.2.7: Any Agreements/Terms of Use for systems access (including those required to be “clicked-through”) should be finalized in advance and included in the Applicant Guidebook with the goal of minimizing obstacles and/or legal burdens on applicants (see section 2.4.3 on Systems). Themes/trends: * Support from all commenters New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations * INTA: Concerns/New Idea - Concern that click-through agreements are non-negotiable and suggestion that applicants should be able to indicate if they wish to negotiate. * Note from Jeff: We should be specific on which Agreements we are talking about? Registry Agreement? Applicant Terms of Use? Portal/Application System Terms of Use? * RA - yes * Applicants TOU - * Systems TOU - no * Note: How do we really feel about negotiating? Should the Terms of Use and Portal/Application System really be treated like the Registry Agreement? * “...Finalized and published WITH the AGB, though the AGB should reference the existence of agreements/TOU” Discussion: -- Re: the question about INTA comment about applicants being able to negotiate – not everything has to be negotiable. -- What agreements do we mean? RA, Applicant TOU, Systems TOU? -- The WG needs to take the INTA comments and discuss what we think as a WG as to what agreements this applies – subject to negotiation or not. -- In 2012 you could ask to negotiate the RA, but no others. This comment is referencing the RA and which others? Or if not the RA, which agreements? Or, how do we feel about the systems TOU being non-negotiable? Or should these agreements be open to negotiation after the community has had a chance to vet them? -- Jeff will try to write out the questions more clearly. Suggested next steps * Potentially useful to prioritize the implementation elements. * Ensure implementation improvements are properly differentiated from actual 2012 practice. When seeking improvements from 2012, be specific about what should be different. Discussion: -- Need to talk about how to prioritize these recommendations. ICANN Org has asked the WG to be very clear in our recommendations. -- In the goals for this section, we haven’t mentioned increasing access for those who don’t understand the system (new applicants). Seems like a policy goal for the AGB should be to increase accessibility for new applicants and underserved regions. -- Consider adding goal about targeting new applicants Suggested edits: Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to Accomplish * An Some form of the Applicant Guidebook should be utilized for future new gTLD procedures. * However, Usability, clarity, and practicality should must be priorities when drafting future versions. * Consider adding goal about targeting new applicants

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 09 April 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter April 9, 2019

April 9, 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 Tuesday, 09 April 2019 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aRVIBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-09apr19-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7rof23reld/ 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

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Tuesday, 09 April 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Steve Chan April 5, 2019

April 5, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Tuesday, 09 April 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review of Summary Documents – Continuation of Discussion from ICANN64 to Reach Closure on Select Topics (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSrLyWvfAiwDP-pe-QhAokRVoY1rpnDhfTqViwo…) a. Applicant Guidebook b. Communications c. Systems 3. AOB Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a sort of catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). 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/

1 0

**REMINDER: UPDATED EOI DEADLINE 8 APRIL 2019** Expressions of Interest Sought for Chair of GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data – Phase 2
by Julie Bisland April 5, 2019

April 5, 2019

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> LOS ANGELES –1 March 2019 – The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is looking for expressions of interest to chair Phase 2 of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. The EPDP Team recently completed its Phase 1 work and is expected to commence planning for Phase 2 at ICANN64 meeting in Kobe, Japan. During Phase 2, the EPDP Team will work on a system for standardized access to non-public registration data, topics identified in the annex to the Temporary Specification, as well as a number of carry over items from Phase 1. The GNSO Council is looking to appoint a neutral Chair to the EPDP Team. With such an important issue under consideration, significant responsibility comes with the role to ensure the success of deliberations. The EPDP Team is expected to have regular calls, although it may be necessary to hold calls more frequently if need arises. Additionally, the EPDP Team may have face-to-face meetings in order to meet the required milestones of the EPDP. The EPDP Team is expected to start developing the work plan for Phase 2 at ICANN64 in Kobe for which the GNSO Council may provide further guidance. There will be no compensation associated with the role of the EPDP Team Chair; however, travel associated with any face-to-face meetings may be supported by ICANN org. To express interest in this role, please submit an Expression of Interest to EOI-EPDPTeam-Chair(a)icann.org<mailto:EOI-EPDPTeam-Chair@icann.org> by 22 March 2019 at 14:00 UTC. Please answer the following questions: · What is your interest in this position? · What particular skills and attributes do you have that will assist you in chairing the EPDP? · What is your knowledge of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, EPDP Team's Phase 1 work and associated challenges and requirements particularly as it relates to the EPDP? · What is your experience in and knowledge of the GNSO Policy Development Process, ICANN's consensus policies, ICANN's registry agreements and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement related to gTLD registration data? · Are you able to commit the time required and necessary work needed to chair the EPDP, noting that this to a certain extend will be dependent on the EPDP Team's work plan for phase 2 which is under development? · Conflict of Interest Statement – do you have any affiliation with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial or non-financial interest in the subject matter of this EPDP? · Please also include: · A link to an up-to-date Statement of Interest (SOI) - https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs · A statement confirming your commitment and ability to act neutrally. Application materials will be reviewed by the Council leadership and will not be shared publicly. Names of applicants, including the recommended candidate, will be shared with the GNSO Council for its consideration. The Council leadership is expected to provide its recommendation to the GNSO Council in time for the GNSO Council meeting on 18 April 2019. Additional questions and inquiries can be sent to EOI-EPDPTeam-Chair(a)icann.org<mailto:EOI-EPDPTeam-Chair@icann.org>. More Information · Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> · Additional information about the EPDP is located in Annex-A1 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> [PDF, 345 KB]. · EPDP Charter<https://community.icann.org/x/0opHBQ> · EPDP wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ> · EPDP Phase 1 Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> [PDF, 2.7 MB] About EPDP On 17 May 2018, the ICANN Board approved the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. The Board took this action to establish temporary requirements for how ICANN and its contracted parties would continue to comply with existing ICANN contractual requirements and community-developed policies related to WHOIS, while also complying with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Temporary Specification has been adopted under the procedure for Temporary Policies outlined in the Registry Agreement (RA) and Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Following adoption of the Temporary Specification, the Board "shall immediately implement the Consensus Policy development process set forth in ICANN's Bylaws." This Consensus Policy development process on the Temporary Specification would need to be carried out within a one-year period. Additionally, the scope includes discussion of a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data. However, the discussion of a Standardized Access System will occur only after the EPDP Team has comprehensively answered a series of "gating questions" and non-objection by the GNSO Council. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world. ANNEX A – CHAIR RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS As outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working group (WG) deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the WG to the Chartering Organization. These tasks require a dedicated time commitment as each call has to be prepared, the agenda concretized, and relevant material has to be reviewed. The Chair shall be neutral. While the Chair may be a member of any group which also has representation on the EPDP Team, the Chair shall not act in a manner which favors such group. The Chair shall not be a member of the PDP Team for purposes of consensus calls. In addition, it is required – that interested candidates have considerable experience in Chairing working groups, and direct experience with at least one GNSO Policy Development Process throughout its lifecycle would be an advantage. Familiarity with the functioning of a Working Group is important to understand the various leadership skills that are necessary to employ during a WG's lifecycle. For example, a chair has to ensure that debates are conducted in an open and transparent matter and that all interests are equally represented within the WG's discussions. During the later stages of a WG when recommendations are drafted, a Chair will benefit from understanding the viewpoints of various members to ensure that an acceptable and effective outcome – ideally in form of consensus – can be achieved. In short, the EPDP Team Chair is expected to: 1. Attend all EPDP Team meetings to ensure continuity and familiarity with the subject matter and the on-going discussions; 2. Prepare meetings by reading all circulated materials; 3. Be familiar with the subject matter, including but not limited to GDPR and data protection laws, and actively encourage participation during the calls 4. Be active on the EPDP Team mailing list and invite EPDP Team participants to share their viewpoints; 5. Drive forward the EPDP Team and assure that discussions remain on point; 6. Work actively towards achieving policy recommendations that ideally receive full consensus; 7. Ensure that particular outreach efforts are made when community reviews are done of the EPDP Team's output; 8. Underscore the importance of achieving overall representational balance on any sub-teams that are formed; 9. Encourage and, where necessary, enforce the ICANN Standards of Behavior and resolve any conflicts in a timely manner. 10. Co-ordinate with ICANN staff and ensure that the EPDP Team is supported as effectively as possible 11. Conduct consistent timely reporting to the GNSO Council on the progress of the EPDP. Finally, as also pointed out the in GNSO Working Group Guidelines, 'appointing a co-chair(s) or vice-chair(s) may facilitate the work of the Chair by ensuring continuity in case of absence, sharing of workload, and allowing the Chair to become engaged in a particular debate.' As a result, similar tasks and skills are expected from vice chairs, although the overall workload may be reduced as a result of being able to share this with the Chair. 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 taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Monday, 01 April 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland April 2, 2019

April 2, 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, 01 April 2019 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZxVIBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-01apr19-en.mp3 [audio.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3j97rtsfmu/<https://participate.icann.org/p3j97rtsfmu/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=443e7d5ed25b8353…> 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, Julie

1 0

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

April 1, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 01 April 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/2019-04-01+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: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Review of comments - Supplemental Initial Report: see the document at:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8…: a. 2.4 Change Requests – start at line 16 General NCSG comment: Opposition to any kind of string change request. Question: -- On change requests: Is it the WG's understanding that this affects community applications going forward since they weren't able to make such changes under the current rules? Answer: The language seems to apply across the board. This should be made abundantly clear. 2.4.d.1: Lines 17-20, BRG, ALAC, IPC, ALAC -- Agreement Line 21, RrSG -- Agreement New Idea Line 22, RySG -- Divergence (opposes allowing applicant to change its string) -- Question: In some cases RySG says, "some members" but not in this case. Is this correct? Donna Austin will check. -- Is the WG recommendation designed to be very narrow or broad? Answer: WG deliberations: 2) have a limited ability to select a different string, which must be closely related to the original string. • 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. • Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re- evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). Another Working Group member noted that in allowing for a string change, the new string would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. -- Not meant to be a broad right, but very limited. 2.4.e.1: Line 24, RySG -- Divergence (oppose applicants changing string post-application) 2.4.e.1.1: Line 26-29, BRG, ALAC, IPC, ALAC -- Agreement Line 30, RySG -- Divergence (opposes allowing applicant to change its string with rationale) Line 31, NCSG -- Divergence (opposes allowing string changes to the gTLD once a string is chosen) Line 32, NCSG -- Divergence (opposes allowing string changes to the gTLD once a string is chosen) 2.4.3.1.2: Lines 34-36, BRG, ALAC, IPC -- Agreement Line 37, RySG -- Divergence (opposes jumping from one contention set to another) Line 38, NCSG -- Divergence (opposes ability to change strings with rationale) 2.4.e.1.3: Line 40-44, dotgay LLC, BRG, ALAC, IPC, RySG -- Agreement (but with limitations) Line 45, NCSG -- Divergence (opposes string modification) 2.4.e.2: Lines 47-48, BRG and ALAC -- Agreement (support role for public comment) Line 49, IPC -- Agreement (support for limited role for public comment) Line 50, RySG -- Agreement (support role for public comment -- same "changed" and "new" strings) Line 51, NCSG -- Agreement (support role for public comment with same rules as for original application) Line 52, ALAC -- Agreement (supports 2.4.c.1, 2.4.d.1, 2.4.e.1.1, 2.4.e.2) Line 53, NCSG -- Agreement Concerns (lack of specificity in suggested changes) 2.4.e.3: Line 55, ALAC -- Agreement (with minor changes) -- Updated the ALAC comment under 2.4.e.3 to blue. Line 56, IPC -- Agreement (with additional criteria) -- How will we be noting the additional criteria? IPC is saying there should be changes -- additional question, etc. Changed to "New Idea" (blue text) Line 57, RySG -- Agreement (no specific changes) Line 58, NCSG -- Agreement (support using same rules as original application) b. 2.5 Registrar Support for New gTLDs: General Comments: Line 4, ALAC -- Declines to comment. Line 5, BC -- Agreement (supports a more market-oriented solution with examples) Line 6, RrSG -- Divergence (opposes requirements for registrars to specific and/or all TLDs) 2.5.d.1: Line 8, RySG -- No comment. 2.5.d.1.1: Line 10, RySG -- Agreement (some support/some support one-time subsidy) Divergence (some oppose) Line 11, IPC -- New Idea Divergence 2.5.d.1.2: Line 13, José Alberto Barrueto Rodríguez -- Agreement (some support with examples) Divergence (opposes with examples) Line 14, RySg -- Agreement (some support option) Divergence (some oppose option) Line 15, RrSG -- Divergence (opposes requirements for registrars to carry specific and/or all TLDs) 2.5.d.1.3: Line 17, José Alberto Barrueto Rodríguez -- Agreement (with example) Line 18, RySG -- Agreement (strongly supports option) 2.5.d.1.4: Line 20, RySG -- Agreement Line 21, RrSG -- New Idea, Divergence (opposes suggestion) 2.5.d.1.5: Line 23, RySG -- Agreement (supports option) New Idea (suggests option) Line 24, RrSG -- Divergence (opposes bundling) 2.5.e.1: Line 26, RySG -- See previous comments. 2.5.e.2: Line 28, RySG -- Comments (new additional proposals but recommends a balance between innovation and attractiveness for sales) 2.5.e.3: Line 30, RySG -- Agreement (support for assisting registries) Divergence (oppose assisting registries) 2.5.e.4: Line 32, RySG -- Agreement (in scope but no suggestions) Divergence (out of scope) 2.5.e.5: LIne 34, RySG -- Agreement (in scope but not mandatory) Divergence (out of scope) Line 35, RySG -- Divergence (opposes requirements for registrars to specific and/or all TLDs) 3. AOB: On Name Collisions and NCAP: Discussions on the list about whether to go to the Board on timing? WG leadership is reaching out to the SSAC leadership to see how we can coordinate. 4. Next Steps: -- Next call is Tuesday, 09 April 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. -- Start with summaries of issues.

1 0

Question/Response About Public Interest Commitment (PIC) Enforcement
by Steve Chan April 1, 2019

April 1, 2019

Dear WG Members, In support of an action item from a Sub Group A call: “Ask ICANN Org: Does Compliance audit PICs or only when there is a complaint? Are mandatory and voluntary PICs treated differently?” …staff reached out to our Contractual Compliance colleagues about PIC enforcement. You can see the questions we asked and the response given below. While this action item was derived from Sub Group A’s review of public comments, the information may be useful to the WG during its deliberations on the subject. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information on this topic, especially from Contractual Compliance. Best, Steve Dear Compliance, In support of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, we have a couple of questions about how Public Interest Commitments (PICs) are enforced. We assume that because both mandatory and voluntary PICs are in the Registry Agreement, they are therefore enforceable. Our understanding of the process is as follows: We are aware that there is PIC complaint form, which results in an investigation by ICANN (presumably Contractual Compliance?). If the complaint has merit, the Registry Operator gets an opportunity to resolve the issue. Depending on a number of factors, the standing panel can be invoked if the complaint is not successfully resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction. The panel has only been invoked twice. Assuming that high-level understanding is correct, can you please clarify if: PIC enforcement is only complaint-driven or if there is also some level of proactive enforcement by Contractual Compliance. If there is any difference in the enforcement of mandatory and voluntary PICs. Response: “Your understanding is correct at a high level, for cases where the PICDRP is used. PIC enforcement - for either mandatory or voluntary PICs - can be addressed through the standard ICANN Contractual Compliance Approach and Process (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approach-processes-2012-02-25-en [icann.org] ) or the PICDRP, and may occur through processing of third party complaints and proactively through audits. Compliance also may initiate a proactive review of PICs based on concerns raised by the community or media (e.g., blogs). The WG can read about a proactive effort that was conducted in 2014 in the report at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/annual-2014-13feb15-en.pdf [icann.org].” 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 [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]

1 0