June 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG and WT5 - 24-25 June 2019
by Julie Hedlund 26 Jun '19

26 Jun '19

Dear Working Group and Work Track 5 members, Please see attached and below the actions from the Work Track 5 and Full WG meetings at ICANN65, 24-25 June 2019. Notes also are attached. The high-level notes are designed to help WG and WT5 members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat. The notes and slides are posted at: 24 June 2019: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-06-24+ICANN65+Marrakech+-+Ne… 25 June 2019: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-06-25+ICANN65+Marrakech+-+Ne… Action Items: Work Track 5: Open Topic #1: GAC members could assist applicants in identifying which governments and/or public authorities would be applicable in cases where an applicant must obtain a letter of government support or non-objection. ACTION ITEM 1: Check with the GAC at ICANN65 to see if they would be amenable to do this. Full WG: Application Queuing: New proposal: Recognize that different applicants might have different goals that should be taken into consideration for those who win the draw. ACTION ITEM 2: Rubens Kuhl will write up the proposal and put it out to the full WG list for consideration. New Proposal: Consider how to prioritize types of applications by giving them more tickets – so not absolute, but weighted. ACTION ITEM 3: Edmon Chung to write up the proposal and send it to the list for consideration. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

**Updated** ICANN65: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland 21 Jun '19

21 Jun '19

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN Meetings’ Team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN65 Meeting Schedule [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/sYiGBg> Step 1 - Create a profile and your personalized ICANN65 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. · Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. · Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. Step 3 All sessions allowing remote participation will use Zoom rooms, which you can find on the ICANN65 Meeting Schedule [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> and on the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/sYiGBg>. There are three options to connect your audio: 1) Via VoIP, choose Computer Audio 2) Getting a dial out from Zoom to your phone, choose Call Me 3) Phoning into the audio bridge (access numbers and Meeting ID are provided for that option), choose Telephone Audio If you cannot log into the Zoom room, but wish to connect via telephone only, refer to the GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/sYiGBg> for access numbers and individual Meeting IDs. (Updated) To listen only, find your meeting on the schedule<https://65.schedule.icann.org/> and select the audio streaming option. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN65” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Marrakech to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 19 June 2019
by Emily Barabas 19 Jun '19

19 Jun '19

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 19 June 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/x/d4qjBg Kind regards, Emily Action Item: To discuss later (“parking lot”) - WT5 to discuss how to resolve, under different scenarios, if there are multiple applications for the same string proposing different uses. Should there be prioritization or weighting of certain applications? For example, if the group determines that there should be rules with respect to non-AGB terms, prioritization of different types of applications in a contention set should be considered. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOI): No updates. 2. Summary Document Review: * Co-leaders briefly went over documents that explain the task at hand for the group and summarize current status of deliberations. a. Geographic Terms That Require Letters of Support/Non-Objection Dependent Upon Intended Usage (Recommendation 11) – continued from last meeting * Co-leaders briefly went over relevant preliminary recommendation * Co-leaders briefly went over comments suggesting modification to existing preliminary recommendation (discussed more extensively on the last call) * Review of comments not yet discussed, beginning on page 16 -- comments from those that believe that a letter of support/non-objection should not be required if the applicant has trademark rights and is using the TLD in association with a brand. * One WT member asked for clarification regarding how the INTA proposal should work if there is another applicant that wants to use the name in association with a city name (middle of page 16). See comment in Google Document. * Raises question of whether one use or another takes precedence if there are multiple applications for the same string. Is a special process put in place or do the existing mechanisms described in the AGB to resolve contention remain (auctions of last resort, etc)? * In the 2012 round, if there were two applications in the contention set for geographic names, standard contention resolution would not go forward. * In the 2012 round, if one application proposed geographic use and one proposed generic use, this contention set could proceed to auction. * Reminder that auctions of last resort as the method of resolving contention are under discussion in the full Working Group. Action Item: To discuss later (“parking lot”) - WT5 to discuss how to resolve, under different scenarios, if there are multiple applications for the same string proposing different uses. Should there be prioritization or weighting of certain applications? For example, if the group determines that there should be rules with respect to non-AGB terms, prioritization of different types of applications in a contention set should be considered. * Review of comments related to relying on curative mechanisms (page 16) * One WT member expressed concern on standing to file objections if curative mechanisms are the focus of protections * Review of comments on the possibility of requiring a letter of support/non-objection regardless of intended use (page 17) * Review of responses to proposals 23 and 24 (page 17) b. Languages – continued from last meeting and discussions on the list * Leadership recap - based on discussion during the last call there seemed to be some support for refining the recommendations with respect to translations of country and territory names. * Leadership had put forward a proposal on the last call. Modifications were proposed on the mailing list. In particular, there was a suggestion to include transliterations in the proposal. * One member reiterated the concern that there is no single standard for transliteration. * One perspective -- “UN and official languages” should be expanded to “UN and official and relevant languages.” * Request for clarification - how do you determine whether a language is relevant? From one perspective this concept seems imprecise. * A member recalled previous discussion on the topic of languages and the different perspectives raised. What problem are we trying to solve from the 2012 round? What issues were caused by current provisions including reservation of translations “in any language” of country and territory names? From this perspective, if we are to find compromise, we need to find a solution that is acceptable to all, including those not participating in WT5. * Concern raised that many countries do not have official languages. * From one perspective, minority or regional languages not recognized by central governments should be considered. This is a political issue. From this perspective “UN and official and relevant languages” respects all language communities, including those not officially recognized. * Suggestion that this is policy issue, but will require implementation from ICANN Org. From this perspective ICANN Org should make a list of relevant languages in each country based on facts and statistics. This is not a task for the WT to complete. * From one perspective, the problem we are trying to solve may not have been seen in practice, but could come up at any time if the rules remain in place as they were in 2012. No one knows if an application went through that was in violation of the rules, because there is no finite list to use as reference. From this perspective, this uncertainty is a problem and a more practical solution is needed. Is it the role of ICANN to adopt standards that are stricter than the national governments that are not protecting/recognizing minority languages discussed previously? * From one perspective, language is a sensitive issue and an important way in which groups of people identify themselves. * Leadership comment - is there another place in the technology space where there have been rules around language that we can leverage for our work? How do we apply these lessons in a practical way? * Suggestion that the geo names panel could assist with identifying whether a proposed string corresponds to the translation of a country or territory name. This role for the panel could create more certainty for applicants. * One WT member raised concern about standing to file objections with respect to this topic. * From one perspective, the languages issue should not be left to the authority of the advisory panel. * Staff note - there is a Wikipedia page that lists official languages of countries, as well as regional and minority languages. This indicates that may be possible to create a finite list using a set of rules to define what is included and excluded. Staff is not suggesting to use the list on Wikipedia, but it suggests referencing the page to show that it is possible to compile a list. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_country_and_ter… * Question repeated - what is the problem we are trying to solve from the 2012 round? Suggestion from one member that there could be evidence from the Geo Names Panel of any possible problems from the 2012 round. * Leadership recap - where do we stand with the tracking document at the close of the call? - review of closed and open items. No additional comments received. Tracking document will be posted on the wiki with archived older versions of the document. c. Refining Processes * Not covered on this call. AOB - ICANN65 * Sessions will take place in the morning of Monday 24 June from 9:00 to 12:00 local time. * First session will be on validating the outcomes so far for WT5 and taking temperature on preliminary recommendations, as well as identifying outstanding issues. * Additional time will be devoted to discussing the outstanding issues. The goal is to focus on three topics (to be identified in the first session).

1 1

FW: ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs
by Jeff Neuman 17 Jun '19

17 Jun '19

All, Please find material from ICANN for the Subsequent Procedures PDP Session #3 (13:30 – 15:00 local time) as discussed on the call earlier today. I have not yet gone through this document, but wanted to forward it on as soon as I got it, Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive , Suite 600 Mclean , VA 22102 UNITED STATES T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS: Please note that we always confirm receipt of orders. To assist us in identifying orders, please use the word ORDER in the subject line of your email. If you have sent us an order and have not received confirmation on the same working day (PST) it is possible that your order has not been received or has been trapped by our spam filter. In this case, please contact your client manager or admin(a)comlaude.com for confirmation that the order has been received and is being processed. Thank you. From: Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:33 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org>; David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Subject: ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs Dear Cheryl and Jeff; We understand that the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group expects to publish its final report with its recommendations by December 2019. As you likely know, these recommendations may lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, which ICANN org must implement and manage. In the course of our preparatory work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization. I have shared these assumptions with the ICANN Board, and am now sharing them with all ICANN constituencies in the briefing document attached. If the PDP Working Group members are interested in further engagement and providing feedback and perspective on these assumptions please let me know and we will be happy to arrange a mutually convenient time for a discussion. Ideally, we could leverage the time in Marrakech for a face-to-face meeting. For your information, this information will also be included in the ICANN Community Digest which is planned to be issued later this week. Sincerely, Cyrus Namazi Senior Vice President | Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 801 17th St NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 USA Office +1 202 249 7543 | Mobile +1 408 421 6894 Skype : cnamazi www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> ________________________________ 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>

3 2

Recordings, attendance & chat / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG call on Monday, 17 June 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 17 Jun '19

17 Jun '19

Dear all, Please find the attendance attached to this email, and links to the audio recording, zoom recording (audio, visual, rough transcript) and chat below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG call held on Monday, 17 June 2019 at 15:00 UTC. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZYqjBg 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. Audio Recording: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/audio/audio-new-gtld… Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab): https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/xXJWkpHdOOfxvrg04JyF6VUguD-en5x2e4fSLz… Chat: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/download/j2s_tfSFb2wIGTgocd3Q7iX30CUHt7qrYk… 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: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 17 June 2019
by Julie Hedlund 17 Jun '19

17 Jun '19

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 17 June 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/2019-06-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM 1: On voluntary or mandatory PICs - any relating to RPMs should be referred to the RPMs PDP WG. ACTION ITEM 2: Add NCSG’s divergence to voluntary PICs in the summary document. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Review of Summary Documents (see Foundational Issues - https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yz… a. 2.3.2 Global Public Interest -- Tried to come up with a definition, but ended up talking in general or in relation to other issues/in context. The context is key. Policy Goals: * Develop policy consistent with ICANN’s Core Values under Article 1 Section 1.2 (b)(ii). * To the extent that mandatory and/or voluntary PICs are carried forward into subsequent procedures, they should be codified in policy. Public Comment Summary: * Support from most commenters to codify the current implementation of mandatory PICs as policy recommendations. Most commenters believe that no additional mandatory PICs are needed. High-Level Agreements: Discussion: -- On the Public Interest Commitments -- we will discuss the high-level notion and whether to put them into our policy. Mandatory and voluntary PICs mentioned in registry agreements, but also agreements related to regulated or sensitive strings. -- Incorporation of the registries concerned it crucial. -- Concerning the policy recommendations -- is there going to be a distinction that this applies to community applications (making changes to applications). Can add that this applies to all applications regardless of the type of application. -- There may be special warnings that go out to the applicant -- everybody should be able to equally adjust their applicants to address warnings, etc., so that community applicants aren’t restricted in their ability to move forward. -- Need to codify the policies to make it clear what we are doing in the future. Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence Mandatory PICs: Codify existing mandatory PICs: Discussion: -- This relates to categories of PICs -- trying to make the criteria as specific as we can so the organization knows what will fall into Category 1. -- NCSG: Divergence - It encompasses intellectual property policing of Internet content which is beyond the scope and mission of ICANN. Added comment -- Very concerned -- doesn’t think it should be in the AGB. Voluntary PICs adding a global block. -- Question: If we don’t have PICs how do we address the concerns that are raised by the community? What would be an alternative? -- The idea is that concerns should be brought into the PDP process and worked out there. We should not be bypassing the PDP process and hoping to make policy via lobbying the board. -- Board is looking at developing a definition of Global Public Interest. -- Question: Should this PDP WG be looking at how to categorize something as mandatory or voluntary -- to recommend on a verified TLD that certain PICs could be mandatory that could be described in a general way? Answer: the issue is putting PICs on sensitive strings to make sure they are validated. -- If we don’t have voluntary PICs to address issues that are raised and everything has to be addressed as a PDP then that could be a burden on the GNSO community and Council. -- Voluntary PICs make sense but should go out for public comment. -- For verified TLDs, there should mandatory PICs related to eligibility. -- Could add boundaries to voluntary PICs -- such as those that regulate content or that goes against consensus policy. -- Need to make sure that we aren’t preventing a registry to do a voluntary PIC as part of its business model to differentiate itself. -- Consider identifying the things that should be “banned”. -- If voluntary PICs are being used, when does this matter? Can you add a voluntary PIC at the time of negotiating your contract with ICANN? It depends on what time in the process this applies. Pick up Verified TLDs for the next meeting 3. ICANN65 Sessions -- Four sessions of SubPro. -- Afternoon session on Monday and morning on Tuesday are reserved for the full SubPro WG (other sessions are WT5). -- For the session on Monday afternoon ICANN Org can share assumptions for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures implementation. Goal is to surface any potential areas of mis-alignment. Any assumptions that may need to be adjusted. -- Not that ICANN will need to start planning even if there isn’t agreement on some aspects in the WG. -- Second session the Co-Leads will pick topics that will be engaging -- and will send the list of topics ahead of the meeting. 4. AOB – Post-ICANN65 Work Plan -- Co-Leads discussed concerns about going to two calls a week, but decided we needed to go ahead in order to keep up with the timeline/work plan.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 17 June 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 14 Jun '19

14 Jun '19

Hi Anne, Here is the link to the other summary document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…. Let us know if that is not what you were requesting. Best, Julie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:07 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 17 June 2019 at 15:00 UTC Hi Julie, Can you please forward a link to the summary doc for all issues previously reviewed by the full WG as revised by Leadership subsequent to the calls? Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 2:03 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 17 June 2019 at 15:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday, 17 June 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review of Summary Documents (see Foundational Issues - https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yz… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>) * 2.3.2 Global Public Interest * 2.3.3 Freedom of Expression 3. ICANN65 Sessions 4. AOB – Post-ICANN65 Work Plan 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 catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). This document also is attached as a PDF. 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, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icann…> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=Dw…> Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 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…> ________________________________ 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.

3 2

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 17 June 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 14 Jun '19

14 Jun '19

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday, 17 June 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review of Summary Documents (see Foundational Issues - https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yz…) * 2.3.2 Global Public Interest * 2.3.3 Freedom of Expression 3. ICANN65 Sessions 4. AOB – Post-ICANN65 Work Plan 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 catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). This document also is attached as a PDF. 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, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 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<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 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…>

2 1

Small group to discuss RSP Pre-Approval
by Austin, Donna 13 Jun '19

13 Jun '19

Hi All The idea of a small group was discussed on our last call, but it's not clear to me whether we had to self-organise or otherwise. I'm volunteering to be part of this group. Thanks Donna Donna Austin Neustar, Inc. / Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions Mobile: +1 310 890 9655 donna.austin(a)team.neustar<mailto:donna.austin@team.neustar> / Website: home.neustar<http://www.home.neustar/> Follow Neustar: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> / Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 June 2019
by Emily Barabas 11 Jun '19

11 Jun '19

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 11 June 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/2019-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Kind regards, Emily Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Work plan/schedule post-ICANN65 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9pIXkiu_d5zPVqTM09Z5BiJ1Y3-mhnwaZLPfDD…) 3. Review of Summary Documents * (continued) 2.2.6 Accreditation Programs (e.g., RSP Pre-Approval) - (see Overarching Issues - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…) * 2.3.2 Global Public Interest – (see Foundational Issues - https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yz…) 1. AOB Action Items: None Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Work plan/schedule post-ICANN65 * One call next week. This will be the final meeting prior to ICANN65. * After ICANN65, the group will move to twice weekly calls on Monday and Thursday (see work plan for details). This will help ensure that we don’t have to extend the group’s work further. * Topics are included in the draft work plan. * The goal is to avoid repeating conversations. * Concern raised by one member that twice weekly meetings require a large time commitment from members and may result in burnout. Request to continue the conversation about the new schedule on the next call when more people can weigh in. * Concern raised by one member that this change will disproportionately impact those representing non-commercial interests. Suggestion to refer this issue to Council. * Concerns also raised that level of participation will decrease with a more intensive meeting schedule. * Conversation will continue over the email list. 3. Review of Summary Documents a. (continued) 2.2.6 Accreditation Programs (e.g., RSP Pre-Approval) - (see Overarching Issues - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…) * Draft principle for discussion regarding timing of the program: “Results of an RSP pre-approval program should be available to be used by potential applicants with an adequate amount of time to determine if they wish to apply for a gTLD (and which RSP to use).” * Suggest to let implementation team determine the exact time frame, since there is not agreement in the comments about the time period (draft recommendation suggested 3 months). * Revisiting discussion from last week -- question raised by a WG member -- where did we leave off on the issue of taking an RSP off the list * Leadership response - It didn’t seem to make sense to take someone off the list because in the 2012 round, a backend RSP was approved and that was it. If an RSP or registry operator were in breach or terminated, there was no way to withdraw the approval received in testing, so this approach to the new program would be consistent with the 2012 round. Instead, reapproval would meet the goals and reduce bureaucracy. * Concern from one member that we need to be more proactive. There should be a program to help applicants who need to find an RSP in their jurisdiction. Otherwise power will be too concentrated in certain regions. * Revisiting recent discussion on the mailing list - suggestion was made that registry operators should be informed when there is a problem with their chosen RSP. * Process question - leaders are encouraging members to take discussion to the list. How will conversation on the list be taken into account and weighed vs. contributions on the call and through other channels? Should members restate positions and arguments on the mailing list following a call? * Comment: email conversation was a bit hard to follow, the group may need more structure to have discussion productively on the email list. * One perspective - it is not always clear what we have agreed to as a group. * Leadership response - working documents are regularly being updated to reflect ongoing conversations. All comments, those on the current calls and those previously made, need to be taken into account. * Leadership note - certain topics may require a sub-mailing list. This might not be required for all topics. * Proposed high level agreement - “The Working Group confirms that only difference between a pre-approved RSP and one that is approved during application evaluation is the timing of when the approval takes place; Therefore, all criteria for evaluation and testing (if applicable) should the same.” -- staff noted that if there is agreement of this high level principle, this may provide context for some of the concerns raised in the group. * If the only difference is a function of timing, leadership suggestion to group conversations about evaluation criteria into 2.7.7. Applicant Reviews and 2.11.1 Registry System Testing. Suggestion to create a small group to focus on these topics. * One perspective - it is not a function of timing, it is a function of marketing, so there is a consumer issue involved. Another perspective, the marketing angle should not be the focus of the conversation. * Concern raised - the conversation started as one for creating efficiencies for the applicant, reducing costs, and improving predictability, but the conversation has evolved into how to protect RSPs. Conversation should be refocused on the applicant, as was the original intent. * Under the proposed approach, there would be no ongoing contract between the RSP and ICANN, just as the case today. * Concern reiterated that if an RSP has failed, it should no longer be on the list. * Point reiterated that in 2012, if you were approved in the evaluation, and you later violated your SLAs, this was handled at the contractual level for the individual TLD. The proposed approach would be the same. * Regarding voluntary nature of the program, all comments but one support making the program voluntary. BC expressed divergence - supported mandatory program. * Leadership has started a list of pros and cons of a voluntary program. This can be fleshed out further if it is helpful. * Funding and program costs - leadership recommendation - “We declare policy of Cost-Recovery that the program is self-funding and direct implementation review team / ICANN Staff to determine costs” * Factoring in the number of TLDs an RSP intends to support - if a small group discussion is initiated on this topic, this would be an item for the small group. Leadership recommendation - “Implementation Review Team / ICANN Org should determine a mechanism to measure a potential RSPs ability to Scale to handle self declared number of TLDs, Domain Names, DNS Queries, RDAP Queries, etc. and provide responses as to how each RSP would increase scale to meet unexpected increases in volumes for the TLDs they support.” * Concern reiterated about the proposed agreement that the only difference between a pre-approved RSP and non-pre-approved RSP is timing. * NCSG comment does not agree with the high-level principle. Leadership recommends verifying with the NCSG if this is still the view given common understanding of how the program would work. * Reassessment of RSPs - leadership recommendation - . . . “On balance, it seems more logical to reassess prior to each round. If we ever do go to a first-come, first-served model, then we would need to revisit this.” * Clarification - there would only be a reassessment for the round before the round. It would not be periodic apart from the application cycle. * Suggestion to adjust the wording to ensure that it is clear that ICANN is not assessing the RSP over time. This makes it sound like an accreditation program. * Question for further discussion, does the RSP need to go through the full evaluation process before each round? Or might there be an abridged process in this case. * If timing is really the only difference between a pre-approved and other RSP, it would make sense to reassess before each round. This would give applicants the confidence in the RSPs they select. * Proposed principle - “The RSP Pre-Approval Program should treat incumbent RSPs and prospective RSPs in an equitable manner.” Comments in general did not support grandfathering for incumbent RSPs. * Request from one member to find out from ICANN org what ICANN does after an EBERO triggering event. This might help inform the discussion on reassessment. * Referrals section of the document -- proposes referring a number of comments to other sections, especially if you apply the principle that there is no difference between an RSP that is pre-approved vs. one that is approved during the application process. * Suggestion for an additional principle: “Pre-approval should be required for future rounds.” This can be discussed further by the group. * Leadership recommendation on scalability: “Implementation Review Team / ICANN Org should determine a mechanism to measure a potential RSPs ability to Scale to handle self declared number of TLDs, Domain Names, DNS Queries, RDAP Queries, etc. and provide responses as to how each RSP would increase scale to meet unexpected increases in volumes for the TLDs they support.” b. 2.3.2 Global Public Interest – (see Foundational Issues - https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yz…) * Will be discussed next week. 4. AOB * None

2 2