July 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 29 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 30, 2019

July 30, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 29 July 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/2019-07-29+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: From 15 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Include a link to the USAG work. From 18 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. From 25 July 2019: Application Submission Period: ACTION ITEM 1: New Ideas: BC Comment -- Clarify what they mean by “Consider providing “a way to keep non-contentious applications open if they need more time to complete.”” ACTION ITEM 2: Application Submission Period, possible new High-Level Agreement -- An application submission period or communication period should not be considered separately, but taken together. There should be a formal communication period of at least 6 months, but there is nothing to prevent efforts to provide awareness outside of that period. ACTION ITEM 3: New High-Level Agreements: -- All subsequent windows should be the same length as the initial application window. -- The communications period should commence at least 6 months prior to opening the application submission period. ACTION ITEM 4: If someone applies for a string that is unresolved from a prior round would there be a refund? Refunds haven’t been discussed, but need to be at a meeting and on the list. Applicant Support: ACTION ITEM AND NOTE: Consider adding to high-level agreement: Applicants that don’t meet the requirements should have the option to withdraw their application or pay the remaining application fee. NOTE: Need to consider the timing of the application being accepted, particularly if the applicant is receiving other types of assistance. Also, need to consider concerns about gaming (see ICANN Org’s comment). From 29 July 2019: For Discussion: There seems to be support for an applicant support program that fails to meet the criteria for applicant support, that they are able to switch their string to a mainstream application process. Variations on implementation and concerns that need to be discussed. For Discussion: There Seems to be support that there should not be prioritization just because you are an applicant support application. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… Application Submission Period, page 18 Policy goals: * New Idea: ICANN Org - To ensure that the program is designed, implemented, and operated to meet its intended purpose, PDP should define the goals and key success factors for the program. Ability to transfer to standard application if application does not meet ASP criteria (see also related topic: Prevention of “gaming the system”): * New Idea: ALAC/RySG - If transfer is permitted, applicant must be given a reasonable amount of time to pay the additional fee. Prevention of “gaming the system”: * Concern/New Idea: ICANN Org - 2012 rules preventing transfer from an ASP to standard application were put in place after extensive community discussion in order to prevent gaming. If there are no penalties or other mechanisms to prevent gaming and no geographic location criteria, there will likely be many ASP applications. The WG should consider the impact on costs to process applications and to fund applicants who do qualify, as well as the impact on program timelines. Discussion: -- Opportunity for an applicant to move from the Applicant Support program to the regular program, but to allow reasonable time. -- So, ICANN's Org point over gaming is noted but the potential incidence of gaming should be handled differently and not be the main cause of dampening the number of potential applicants for ASP. -- Correct, ICANN org’s comment is not an objection against allowing applicants to pay the remaining fees to continue in the program, but rather was meant to raise a potential issue for the PDP WG to discuss. -- Need to think about what we mean by “reasonable amount of time”. Might depend on whether the string is in contention, so whether you are holding up other applicants. -- Question: Does the WG believe the potential for gaming is to be accepted, or should alternative mitigations be explored? -- Question: If the applicant can transfer into the mainstream process, does the string stay the same? Answer: Would think that with any transfer the string must stay the same. -- There is also gaming that would happen if an applicant is denied support and then moves into the mainstream then you could come into competition. -- Another form of gaming in moving to the mainstream application process if there is an ability to change the string. -- In terms of mitigations, for instance, there could some form of a quick look mechanism, akin to that in objections. -- There are a couple of dependencies, such as with approval of a geographic name. -- Reiterate that the timing of the evaluation of applicant support vs timing of the application process is important here. -- Discussion in the work track about a possible penalty for switching programs. -- the tangible benefit from 2012 version of Applicant Support was limited to a reduced fee amount. It had no bearing on the type of application or string type.  -- For Discussion: Seems to be support for an applicant support program that fails to meet the criteria for applicant support, that they are able to switch their string to a mainstream application process. Variations on implementation and concerns that need to be discussed. -- Applicants claiming support would be notified BEFORE the "big reveal" that they don't qualify for support - and would have to commit to pay the full amount - and the applicants for THAT string (if there are several) will only be revealed after ALL applicants have paid their full fees. Then the "gamer" has no information "gain" - and gaming makes no sense anymore. Additional Text from the ALAC: * Applicants (including their representatives) whose application(s) are determined by SARP to be subject of willful gaming should be disallowed from participating in any application for Applicant Support for a specified period. SARP’s evaluation methodology should include a component for determining incidences of willful gaming. -- Some of this depends on the support being provided through the program, but I agree with the principle that willful gaming should be discouraged. Eligibility: -- Applicant support doesn’t mean applicant priority. -- If we hang this on “underserved region” we need to think what that would mean. -- Need to define what is “underserved” and “middle applicant”. Are these defined by the UN? -- I can't remember exactly what was said but there was discussion on the regions that the UN designated as underserved and how applicable/up to do the list is/what it is updated. -- ICANN Org is starting to look at what “underserved” and “under-represented” might mean. Moving away from the term “Global South”. There are various definitions out their including in the UN about “underserved”. They tend to be very specific to medical or health issues. Doesn’t seem to be a single definition. It might be helpful to have a consistent usage across the Org and the community. -- Consistent between ICANN Org and community definitions -- also from an evaluation perspective, for a more objective evaluation then it will be helpful to have a very narrow definition. ICANN Org used UN lists for 2012. -- ICANN Org is not trying to dictate the outcomes of the PDP discussions. -- Could we please have an action item to ask ICANN Org to share their thinking on "underserved/under-developed communities/regions" 'in moving away from Global South'? For Discussion: There should not be prioritization just because you are an applicant support application.

2 1

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Thursday, 01 August at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 29, 2019

July 29, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Thursday, 01 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued) * Applicant Support, page 19, Eligibility (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… * Terms and Conditions, page 24 – See above. 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 catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference. 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

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group / Monday, 29 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 29, 2019

July 29, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 29 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/nqijBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 29 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 26, 2019

July 26, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday, 29 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… * Applicant Support, page 18 * Terms and Conditions, page 24 (time permitting) 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 catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference. 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

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group / Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter July 25, 2019

July 25, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page (<https://community.icann.org/x/lqijBg>attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

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

July 25, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 25 July 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/2019-07-25+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: From 15 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Include a link to the USAG work. From 18 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. From 25 July 2019: Application Submission Period: ACTION ITEM 1: New Ideas: BC Comment -- Clarify what they mean by “Consider providing “a way to keep non-contentious applications open if they need more time to complete.”” ACTION ITEM 2: Application Submission Period, possible new High-Level Agreement -- An application submission period or communication period should not be considered separately, but taken together. There should be a formal communication period of at least 6 months, but there is nothing to prevent efforts to provide awareness outside of that period. ACTION ITEM 3: New High-Level Agreements: -- All subsequent windows should be the same length as the initial application window. -- The communications period should commence at least 6 months prior to opening the application submission period. ACTION ITEM 4: If someone applies for a string that is unresolved from a prior round would there be a refund? Refunds haven’t been discussed, but need to be at a meeting and on the list. Applicant Support: ACTION ITEM AND NOTE: Consider adding to high-level agreement: Applicants that don’t meet the requirements should have the option to withdraw their application or pay the remaining application fee. NOTE: Need to consider the timing of the application being accepted, particularly if the applicant is receiving other types of assistance. Also, need to consider concerns about gaming (see ICANN Org’s comment). Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… Overarching process comment: Call out when decisions on whether or not to accept/support new ideas will be taken well ahead of the meeting where decisions will be made. a. Application Submission Period, page 14 Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence: ACTION ITEM: BC Comment -- Clarify what they mean by “Consider providing “a way to keep non-contentious applications open if they need more time to complete.” Proposed initial application submission period of at least three months: -- Question: Confirm that translations occur outside of the 3- or 6-month application period. Does the window start with English or with all languages? Answer: In 2012 it may have been that applications could only be submitted in English and the WG has not discussed alternatives. -- Important to know that the time periods are not interdependent -- to understand when the preparation and communications period takes place, and then how long submission is, for a total. -- Possible High-Level Agreement [include a rationale]: An application submission period or communication period should not be considered separately, but taken together. Is it enough to have a 9-month communication period with a 3-month application period enough? Have a formal communication period of at least 6 month, but there is nothing to prevent efforts to provide awareness outside of that period. -- Need a clear window for budgetary purposes of applicants. -- More a function of how efficient/effective we are in the communications period. -- If awareness of and about pertinent aspects of the new round is "sufficient" then practically speaking the communications period can be limited to 6 months. -- There is nothing preventing ICANN from having awareness activities before the final AGB is out. Proposed overlap between Communications Period and application submission period: -- New High-Level Agreement: All application submission periods should be equal. -- Agreement that the application submission period should be no longer or shorter than 90 days. -- New High-Level Agreement: Application period could overlap with the application submission period. We are saying that the communications period should commence at least 6 months prior to opening the application submission period, but the communications period can overlap with the application submission period. Rounds following the next round: application processing/delegation occuring in parallel with new window: Concerns: INTA - windows must be clearly identified with controls are in place to ensure that a later application for a TLD (or one confusingly similar thereto) is not given priority to an earlier one. ACTION: Refer to the appropriate section. Refunds: -- ACTION ITEM: If someone applies for a string that is unresolved from a prior round would there be a refund? Refunds haven’t been discussed, but need to be at a meeting and on the list. b. Applicant Support, page 17 Policy Goals: Increase the [number of total applicants for the applicant support program?] [number of successful applicants to the applicant support program who are ultimately granted assistance through the program?] [potential applicants to the applicant support program who expressed interest in applying?] that meet all standard program requirements and [serve specific populations?] [applicant/application has specific characteristics?] by [x amount?][x percentage?][other goal?] -- Don’t get caught up in the language of the goal above -- it is just a possible template for questions to consider. -- Proposal for policy goal: Enable potential applicants to make an informed decision whether to apply for a TLD based on the applicant support program. Eligibility: -- Question: Does the Applicant Support applicant get priority in string contention resolution? If the applicant doesn’t get support that could affect the timing. ALAC comment suggests a new idea that the applicant should get priority. -- ACTION ITEM AND NOTE: Consider adding to high-level agreement: Applicants that don’t meet the requirements should have the option to withdraw their application or pay the remaining application fee. NOTE: Need to consider the timing of the application being accepted, particularly if the applicant is receiving other types of assistance. Also note ICANN Org’s concerns about gaming. -- Start with this topic at the next meeting on Monday, 29 July at 20:00 UTC.

1 0

Reminder: Applicant Support discussion on July 25th WG Call
by Jeff Neuman July 25, 2019

July 25, 2019

All, I just wanted to draw everyone’s attention to the fact that we will likely be starting our next discussion on Applicant Support on the July 25th Working Group call at 15:00 UTC. The reason we are specifically calling this out is because this has been one of the topics that has generated the most amount of interest from the community and the most amount of dissatisfaction from the community on how it was handled in the 2012 round. Although we have a few recommendations from the initial report and some back up for those, we really want to encourage discussion on developing more specific recommendations. Yes, we all know that there is wide dissatisfaction on the way it was handled before, but without concrete recommendations from the community, we will not be able to do better this next time around. Thanks! Reminder: Materials for tomorrow’s call can be found at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq…. Applicant Support starts at page 17. 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: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 2:13 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… * Application Submission Period, page 14 * Applicant Support, page 17 * Terms and Conditions, page 24 (time permitting) 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 catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference. 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 ________________________________ 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>

5 4

Leadership Presentation to GNSO Council and Convening of Small Teams on Predictability Framework and RSP Pre-Approval
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

Thank you Jim for the link to the Leadership presentation to GNSO Council on July 18. Attached for information are two slides which Jeff and Cheryl presented. Separately, I have been looking for the small group emails on Predictability Framework and RSP Pre-Approval but may have missed them. Is anything happening? As conveyed to the IPC on our monthly call today, two calls per week are proving too much given my current workload. I do believe other IPC members are stepping up at this time in terms of active call participation. Please advise re the above two small groups and include me on those. I note re Jeff’s presentation to Council the Principle that if Consensus is not reached on these small team items, there will be no change to the 2012 policy. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.622.3088 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D54174.10930520] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 12:16 AM To: Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group / Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ One of the AOB items I asked for was a recap of the SubPro update to the GNSO Council, which Jeff succinctly provided. I just found a recording of that session for those who are interested – starts at 1:14 into the recording and runs for about 15 minutes. https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/Qr81olKVJKfzG2mpwOcYGSN659FwXIPfAa8VJ_… Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group jim(a)galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com> +1 202-285-3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 6:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group / Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/cIqjBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ________________________________ 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.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… * Application Submission Period, page 14 * Applicant Support, page 17 * Terms and Conditions, page 24 (time permitting) 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 catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference. 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

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 23 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 23 July 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/2019-07-23+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: From 15 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Include a link to the USAG work. From 18 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates to statements of interests. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… Overarching process comment: Call out when decisions on whether or not to accept/support new ideas will be taken well ahead of the meeting where decisions will be made. a. Application Fees, start with timing of disbursement of excess funds, page 6: Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence Timing of Disbursement of Excess Funds: -- INTA Comment: Think if this is a good idea, we'd have to think about how this relates to the cost component. -- ACTION Re: These comments - link this topic to the entire discussion on what it means to close around and then just leave it at this point. Revenue shortfall: -- The whole idea of excess funds and shortfalls is kind of artificial. Seems like an accounting question and the idea of whether there's a shortfall or excess funds. Especially excess funds really seems to depend on kind of how you decide to think about the money that that comes from the fees. And the idea that you know that you would somehow refund. -- So you have to go back to the original premise right when we first started talking about fees, we agreed on the notion that this program should be self-funded. It should not draw on funds from other I can't programs and that it should be essentially a cost recovery. The fee should be selling a cost recovery basis, albeit potentially with a floor that we talked about on the last call. -- Essentially what we're saying on the front end is that this program should be self-funded and that it should be treated separate and apart and accounted for separate and apart from the rest of icons activities. So it does stand to reason that because it is a separate program there will, or could easily be access or funds or a shortfall. And the question is: What we do with those. And right now I can doesn't have any kind of guidance in terms of what to do. Well with the existing access. But putting that aside because we're not, this is not a policy that is able to be retroactive. But this is a policy that's got to look to future rounds. So I'm not sure why you think it's theoretical. -- The reason we're sticking to that original premise is because that's what we had in our initial report, and that's what the comments seem to support. The original premise is still in play. -- We've been told that there has been no cross subsidization. -- Not questioning the premise that the fees should be set, you know, essentially, in a, you know, cost recovery mode. But, in other words, that the fee should not be, you know, intentionally a cash cow. For ICANN to intentionally run a deficit. If there are refunds, then we have the whole question of who gets a refund. But that's meant to say is that money should go back to applicants. So at that point, actually probably be mostly registries. -- Understanding that ICANN will develop a business case at some point in the future. -- If the policy is that fees are set on a cost recovery. How is there any other conclusion than to return the access to the applicants. -- So it is cost recovery. But there's also a concept of if cost recovery turns out to be too low. There is this notion that seemed to get some level of support in the community about setting a floor. -- If we went purely on cost recovery then logic would dictate that it would be refunded. But if we set a floor. Then there's going to be some access that would need to be dispersed. Alternatively, there doesn't need to be any link between cost recovery based pricing and refunds. Warehousing/squatting and potential deterrents [related to notion of an application fee floor]: -- Some commenters said there is no evidence of warehousing/squatting. -- But that if we do want to turn a certain type of behavior that we would classify as one of these, we have to be very careful in defining or creating definitions so that we understand what behavior we're trying to discourage. And right now there are no definitions of what it means to warehouse or squat on a top level domain. -- There definitely were comments in support of setting a floor if the fees were too low, but a lack of agreement in the comments as to what behavior we're trying to deter. It doesn't mean that these aren't legitimate concerns. It's just that there is no agreement that what this actually means. -- Set a price, where the money for this isn't a money losing proposition for I can, nor is that a total cash cow is a perfectly valid concept, but at the same time that can't be the only concept on which we price and it can't be the only concept by which we account for the money. Anything that is just a blind obsession with cost recovery. -- The question is: what does speculation mean, where's the line between speculation and essentially a legitimate secondary market where the ones that weren't doing as well were selling out to the ones that could do something with it. -- But what is that behavior that we're trying to deter by setting that floor, what it means, what the behavior is that we're trying to guard against so that when we do a review after the fact, we could say, you know what it turns out that price was too low or that floor was too low, because we have this type of activity that's occurring and therefore we should increase or decrease the floor. What we're looking for a criteria for how you judge whether you've achieved your cost recovery. -- There's a certainly a fear that if the price is too low. It will encourage some less desirable behaviors. What we're being asked to do is to set out what we would think would be those less desirable behaviors such that when we do a subsequent review, we could say that price that was set the floor didn't work because of X, Y, and Z. So we're trying to establish some criteria. -- One thing obviously will have to be a formula to determine what the floor is. But another one is, what is the behavior we're trying to guard against so that when we do review after the fact, we can you know assess whether that floor achieved its goal. Considerations/implications of revenue neutral in continuous rounds: -- Really to make sure we think about this in a holistic approach where you have multiple rounds. Number two, you provide some sort of periodic review and three that you can make adjustments as needed in between, at least in between. ICANN being a so-called “registry of registries” (i.e., does the community envision ICANN approving a few thousand / hundreds of thousands / millions of gTLDs to be added to the root? Should there be a cap?) [Connection to 2.2.5 Application Submission Limits & 2.7.6.1 (Root Scaling)] [ACTION: MOVE THESE COMMENTS TO THOSE SECTIONS] -- These comments really refer to two other points. One is application submission limits and we already addressed that subject several weeks ago and the other is on root scaling, which we also addressed. -- Make sure that these items are moved from this section, which deals with fees to the sections that deal with either application submission limits or root scaling. Structuring fee to encourage competition and innovation: -- Comments support the notion of increasing competition by not artificially raising fees higher than the costs. -- Doesn’t make sense to couple the cost recovery question with a question whether pricing is so high that you freeze out all but the largest potential competitors, or so low that you have other unintended consequences. -- What the comments are saying is if you set a floor and that floor is higher than the cost recovery, then you need to make sure that whatever floor you are setting does not adversely impact competition. b. Variable Fees, page 10: High-Level Agreements -- none. Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence: -- Comments do still support recovering costs associated with the new gTLD program. And to make sure that whatever fee is set that it fully funds, the program being at being revenue neutral and that it's not subsidized by existing contribution. So that is the principle that no matter what we do with variable pricing, we need to keep in the back of our mind. -- Lots of varying comments. -- The most diverse group of comments supported the notion that no, we should just have the same price per application, no matter what they are applying for. -- Some commenters support the notion of same fee for no matter what type of application. -- Some commenters talked about potential different fees for different groups. -- ACTION: We'll put this out to the list as well. But do we think we should have further discussions. Is there a support for the notion of if someone wants to apply for multiple strings that there should be some kind of discount because in theory, you don't have to do the full evaluation every single time. -- Question to consider: if you have different legal entities, one for each application would those still have to be treated as individual applications and not the same, or as we talk about a registrar world with, you know, with families? Answer: Get agreement on the high-level concept first, then consider the details. -- If we are going to get into the game of variable pricing then we have to examine every plausible and probable argument for discounts, such as discounts for communities or discounts for brands or discounts, but on a policy basis. If we go down this road, it's, it's a complete rabbit hole. And ultimately just ends up making all kinds of value decisions and probably also power based decisions. -- Based on the comments and the discussion on this call there doesn’t seem to be support for going down this path. c. Application Submission Period, page 14: High-Level Agreements: -- We think there's high-level agreement that if the next application opportunity structured as a round commenters generally support a fixed application window of at least three months. -- Also, support for in the event that following the next round of new gTLDs, application opportunities are organized as a series of application windows, steps related to application processing and delegation should be able to occur in parallel with the opening of subsequent application windows. 3. AOB: Items from Jim Predergast a. String similarity: -- Kobe meeting -- ccNSO Council and GNSO Council met and ccNSO said they would be doing work on string similarity in their fast-track process. Potential to create a CCWG on this topic. -- Discussions came down to the fact that the processes in the fast track are very different. Common element of visual analysis there are elements that are different. -- GNSO has been discussing these issues so we are far down that path. -- Regardless of what happens, we still need to do a PDP, so not in favor of forming a new group. -- Council will have to decide what it wants to do, but our recommendation was that we keep moving with the process that we're going down now. b. Update to the GNSO Council: -- All PDP WG leadership teams were on the agenda at the GNSO Council meeting on 18 July. -- Cheryl and Jeff presented on where we could use the GNSO Council’s help and areas they should be paying attention to. -- GNSO and ccNSO Councils do meet regularly. See the recording of that session for those who are interested – starts at 1:14 into the recording and runs for about 15 minutes: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/Qr81olKVJKfzG2mpwOcYGSN659FwXIPfAa8VJ_…

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group / Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/cIqjBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

2 1

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… * Application Fees, start with timing of disbursement of excess funds, page 6 * Variable Fees, page 10 * Application Submission Period, page 14 (time permitting) 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 catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference. 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

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Hi Jim, Thanks very much for these helpful requests. They are noted. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM> Date: Friday, July 19, 2019 at 2:54 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 July 2019 Thanks Julie I had put an AOB request into chat but there was no call for AOB as we were short on time and it appears the chat feed was only captured after the recording started. What you can see is my willingness to move it to the next call due to time constraints. My item for AOB was an update/explanation of some correspondence I saw between the co-chairs and members of the GNSO council on string similarity. Specifically with regards to an effort the ccNSO may undertake on string similarity for ccTLDs and how that may or may not include similar concerns for gTLDs. The email is here ( https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2019-July/022881.html) but since many in the PDP may have missed it, it may be worthwhile to touch on it and explain the decision taken by leadership. Especially as it has the potential for two standards on the same topic. If we could also get a readout from the leadership briefing to the GNSO council that too may be beneficial. If providing these via email is a better alternative, I’m open to that. The next call is in the timeslot that typically has the lowest participation so it may actually be more beneficial. Thanks From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 11:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 18 July 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/2019-07-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: From 15 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Include a link to the USAG work. From 18 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Overarching process comment: Call out when decisions on whether or not to accept/support new ideas will be taken well ahead of the meeting where decisions will be made. Note that these are called out as actions below. a. Application Fees: Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence -- INTA comments seem to be contradictory: Maybe saying that the cost that ICANN is going to expend per TLD application should come from other sources thus driving the cost down and encouraging frivolous application. There are ways that the price could be below cost recovery. INTA doesn’t support it being unnecessarily expensive. So, not really divergence with the cost recovery summary. It is okay with cost recovery if it includes all of the costs. Comments on the scope of what should be included for cost-recovery: ACTION: Any support for the three new ideas? Application fee floor: -- Question: Thought the idea of the floor is that it is separate from the application fee -- it is used to determine what happens with any excess funds. Answer: It’s not a component of the fee (as we worded it in the Initial Report). Is that every application would cost a different amount. ICANN has to determine the total cost of the program but can’t divide it to figure out how much each application would be. -- Recommendations don’t address how to control warehousing. But this is not meant to define TLD warehousing as part of the rationale to not have it go to low. -- On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Disbursement of excess fees (with no price floor): ACTION: Any support for these new ideas? To the extent that they are inconsistent with the above recommendations in the high-level agreements no need to spend more time on them. Circumstances where revenue-cost neutral amount results in a refund that is greater than the application fee floor value: -- NOTE: for accounting reasons it might be better to have refunds (if any) in the form of discounts/NOTE Disbursement of excess fees (with an application fee floor): ACTION: Is there support for any of these new ideas? **Next call start with the timing of disbursement of excess funds, page 6**

2 1

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 18 July 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/2019-07-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: From 15 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Include a link to the USAG work. From 18 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… Overarching process comment: Call out when decisions on whether or not to accept/support new ideas will be taken well ahead of the meeting where decisions will be made. Note that these are called out as actions below. a. Application Fees: Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence -- INTA comments seem to be contradictory: Maybe saying that the cost that ICANN is going to expend per TLD application should come from other sources thus driving the cost down and encouraging frivolous application. There are ways that the price could be below cost recovery. INTA doesn’t support it being unnecessarily expensive. So, not really divergence with the cost recovery summary. It is okay with cost recovery if it includes all of the costs. Comments on the scope of what should be included for cost-recovery: ACTION: Any support for the three new ideas? Application fee floor: -- Question: Thought the idea of the floor is that it is separate from the application fee -- it is used to determine what happens with any excess funds. Answer: It’s not a component of the fee (as we worded it in the Initial Report). Is that every application would cost a different amount. ICANN has to determine the total cost of the program but can’t divide it to figure out how much each application would be. -- Recommendations don’t address how to control warehousing. But this is not meant to define TLD warehousing as part of the rationale to not have it go to low. -- On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Disbursement of excess fees (with no price floor): ACTION: Any support for these new ideas? To the extent that they are inconsistent with the above recommendations in the high-level agreements no need to spend more time on them. Circumstances where revenue-cost neutral amount results in a refund that is greater than the application fee floor value: -- NOTE: for accounting reasons it might be better to have refunds (if any) in the form of discounts/NOTE Disbursement of excess fees (with an application fee floor): ACTION: Is there support for any of these new ideas? **Next call start with the timing of disbursement of excess funds, page 6**

3 2

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/kaijBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/bYqjBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

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

July 15, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 15 July 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/2019-07-15+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): Kathy Kleiman is now on the faculty of American University Law School. 2. Review of summary document: (continued): a. Applicant Freedom of Expression (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yz…) – start at Input on Implementation Guidelines – General, top of page 10; -- From last week: It seemed that most commenters is that we should continue the policy that was approved in 2008 by the ICANN Board, but that we needed to try in implementation guidance more specific with respect to how that consideration should take place. -- It’s one thing to say that Freedom of Expression should be considered, but another to put that into practice. Give more concrete guidance in the AGB wherever possible. 1) Input on Implementation Guidelines - General -- ICANN Org: Be as specific as possible. -- Provide practical examples to evaluators. -- Balance with freedom of expression with all users. -- Not sure we have agreement to change from the 2008 policy approved by the ICANN Board. -- Providing consistency and clarity is a step forward. -- There are examples where we consider the use or intended use of a string in these types of evaluations. -- Questions: What were the original rules? What were the problems in the 2012 round? Answer: There were no rules that you couldn’t apply for a particular string, but based on evaluation of string contention. Found that there were no clear guidelines and up to the independent objector to use his/her analysis, and evaluators based it on their own beliefs. Most of the comments were that to the extent possible we need to be more clear and provide more guidance. 2) Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO -- From Kathy Kleiman: Then we must expressly reference the Morality and Public Order findings and standards in referencing the new Applicant Freedom of Expression. I don't see material reference anywhere in our materials here. It all has to be balanced -- But there was evolution between the original references and what went into the AGB. We could reference the AGB. -- Should change the high-level agreement to include references to Morality and Public Order findings. Protecting applicants’ Freedom of Expression rights should be balanced with other recognized rights. -- Should be considered when deliberating on the Objection section. ACTION: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. 3) Suggested criteria to ensure that denial of an application does not infringe on FX rights: -- Should be considered when deliberating on the Objection section. -- Question: ICANN org's comment before the start of 2.3.4. suggests that some of the assumptions about evaluation were incorrect and criteria was applied. do we know what the criteria was that was applied? b. Universal Acceptance, page 11 Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence Suggestions for additional work on this topic: -- Section 1.2.4 of the AGB talks about ”Notice concerning Technical Acceptance Issues with New gTLDs” -- Not even primarily and issue of registrar acceptance but much more needs to be done to resolve this issue. Came up midstream in the last round, as in name collisions. -- Seek clarification on ALAC comment: New Idea: ALAC - Registries and Registrars, if they are owned by the same entity, should be Universal Acceptance (UA) ready as part of their application. This means that their systems should be ready for IDN registrations, ready handle IDN and non-IDN New gTLDs consistently on nameservers and other machines and able to manage any Email Address Internationalization (EAI), i.e. <nativelanguage>@<idn>.<idn>, as part of the contact information and be able to send and receive emails from these type of addresses. In addition, Registries and Registrars should take affirmative actions to ensure that their suppliers are also UA ready. -- What they were saying is if you are offering registrations in the Chinese language, you should be able to get and have email that is in that language about your registration -- such as support questions, web site tools, third party suppliers of services, etc. -- Should the WG in its recommendations be urging some specific steps to address the problems? Answer: Will rewrite the high-level agreement text. -- Good to get an update from the USAG/ICANN on the state of UA and in particular on their progress. Include a link to the USAG work in the Final Report. -- This isn’t about TLDs not working, but third party applications working or not. ICANN has addressed the IDN issues from 2012, but some third parties have not. -- What more can the SubPro WG do that the USAG is not already doing. There is a new idea from the ALAC with respect to registries and registrars that we need to decide whether to include. -- So maybe one solution is stronger language from ICANN elaborating on the potential problems IDN applicants could face with usage of their domains. Clearly ICANN knows it’s a problem. Thy have spent millions on UASG efforts. But the last communication was not good for new applicants and players in the gTLD space.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Please specify & Clarify is My Privacy at Risk?
by Vaibhav Aggarwal, Catalyst & Group CEO July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear Priscillia, I appreciate your response. But this is too little and too late. If there was a Vulnerability, why were we not informed earlier as a customer / User. Secondly, I will need to understand what is the extent of this vulnerability. By Saying “Low risk Vulnerability” it is clearly showing that you are not willing to elucidate and want to either brush it under the carpet or ignore or underplay the risk. This is a mandatory disclosure you need to do as it is my privacy at stake. This is Super Important. Regards, -VA > On Jul 10, 2019, at 2:44 AM, Priscilla McCarthy <priscilla.barolo(a)zoom.us> wrote: > > Hi there Vaibhav, > Thank you for your email. These are low-risk vulnerabilities that apply only to Mac users, and we have drafted a blog post discussing them. We are updating our service tonight and this coming weekend. When you see prompted updates, you should update your Zoom app to ensure your security. Here is more information: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2019/07/08/response-to-video-on-concern/ <https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2019/07/08/response-to-video-on-concern/> > Thank you! > <https://zoom.us/> > Priscilla Barolo > Manager, Communications > Zoom Video Communications > Call 650-438-9456 <tel:650-438-9456> | Click zoom.us <https://zoom.us/> | Zoom 650-438-9456 <http://zoom.us/j/650-438-9456> > <http://www.facebook.com/zoomvideocommunications> > <http://www.twitter.com/zoom_us> > <http://www.linkedin.com/company/zoom-video-communications-inc-/> > <https://zoom.us/referrals> > > > > <https://smart.zoom.us/v2/a/zoomtopia19/5d2503c401ca44fa0d942282-OjqXg/https…> > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:20 PM Vaibhav Aggarwal <va(a)thevaibhav.com <mailto:va@thevaibhav.com>> wrote: > Dear Eric, > > I am in receipt of this following email content : > > Hey - remember when ICANN switched everyone from Adobe over to Zoom as a way of enhancing information security and data privacy? > > "A vulnerability in the Mac Zoom Client allows any malicious website to enable your camera without your permission... This vulnerability allows any website to forcibly join a user to a Zoom call, with their video camera activated, without the user's permission. On top of this, this vulnerability would have allowed any webpage to DOS (Denial of Service) a Mac by repeatedly joining a user to an invalid call. Additionally, if you’ve ever installed the Zoom client and then uninstalled it, you still have a localhost web server on your machine that will happily re-install the Zoom client for you, without requiring any user interaction on your behalf besides visiting a webpage. This re-install ‘feature’ continues to work to this day." > > Read more here: https://medium.com/@jonathan.leitschuh/zoom-zero-day-4-million-webcams-mayb… <https://medium.com/@jonathan.leitschuh/zoom-zero-day-4-million-webcams-mayb…> > > Please Clarify if my privacy at risk. And the steps taken to protect my privacy. > > Regards, > > Vaibhav Aggarwal > New Delhi, India > vaibhavaggarwal.com <http://vaibhavaggarwal.com/> > twitter.com/thevaibhag <http://twitter.com/thevaibhag> > youtube.com/+vaibhavaggarwalindia <http://youtube.com/+vaibhavaggarwalindia>

5 7

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… * Application Fees, page 3 * Variable Fees, page 4 (time permitting) 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 catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference. 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

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] August 2019 | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group
by lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

> ) > > Hmmm .... > > I had understood that : > > (a) the Co-Leads had recognised that this is the Peak holiday period in Europe if not elsewhere; > > (b) other Participants had expressed reservations as to voluntary availability for scheduled PDP calls twice a week (with +WT5 once a week aswell.) > > (c) What’s the Rush? As far as I can see, NONE of the CCT recommendations have been addressed, let alone implemented. A pre-condition. > > Why? > > CW > > >> On 15 Jul 2019, at 16:39, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> wrote: >> >> **We are sending in advance to get dates on everyone’s calendar. >> >> Dear all, >> >> Please find attached the ics attachments for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group in August 2019. Please download them to your inbox calendars. The details of the calls are as follows: >> Thursday, 01 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC >> Tuesday, 06 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC >> Thursday, 08 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC >> Monday, 12 August 2019 at 15:00 UTC >> Thursday, 15 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC >> Monday, 19 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC >> Thursday, 22 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC >> Tuesday, 27 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC >> Thursday, 29 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC >> >> Email invitations for each call will be sent out closer to the date of the meeting. >> As a reminder the next meeting will take place on Monday, 15 July at 15:00 UTC, invite has been sent. >> >> Thank you. >> Kind regards, >> >> Terri >> >> <New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group .ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [1].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [2].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [3].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [4].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [5].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [6].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [7].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [10].ics>_______________________________________________ >> Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg> >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > >

1 0

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

July 11, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued): * Applicant Freedom of Expression (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yz…) – start at Input on Implementation Guidelines – General, top of page 10; * Universal Acceptance (time permitting), page 11 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 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>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 11 July 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/2019-07-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM re: CCT-RT Recommendations and ALAC Statement -- Questions for Justine Chew: 1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere? 2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team) 3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2. 4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) -- Global Public Interest (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yz…) – start at Verified TLDs, Page 6 Verified TLDs: -- Updated the sections on mandatory and voluntary PICs to include divergence from the Public Interest Community and the NCSG. -- The word “likelihood” should be fixed. Edit and check with IPC re: IPC comment and the word “likelihood”. Typo in the original comment. -- As as it's been applied a verified TLD is one that verifies the potential registrants meets registry standards prior to registering a domain. So for instance, the registry operator might require registrants to be appropriately credentialed to practice where they do business. And that's where that implied trust comes in, I think, so that end users can trust that domains in that TLD are going to be authentic. CCT-RT Recommendations: -- For absolute clarity, is the ALAC position that the RPM PDP must be completed in its entirety (ie, Phase 1 and Phase 2) prior to next round commencing? -- As a reminder, this WG has a tracking sheet for all of the CCT-RT recommendations aimed at SubPro: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBSh…. And it has been updated to take into account what the Board has passed through to SubPro. -- John Laprise - to answer Jeff's question, could you add to your email earlier today to the SubPro list re ALAC position the document in which this position is recorded? ------------------------ ALAC statement: From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 22:20 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: 'ALAC Members' <ALAC-members(a)icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ALAC position on newgTLD subpro Hi everyone, Just a useful reminder of ALAC’s position as asserted to ICANN GDD at ICANN65: ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of CCT and RPM recommendations are fully implemented. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. NARALO ALAC Representative ALAC Vice Chair-Policy ---------------------- -- Can staff please send me [Justine] an AI on the questions being posed with respect to John Laprise's comment? Thanks. Questions: 1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere? 2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team) 3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2. 4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2. --- @jeff, in respect of your #4 my immediate answer is what you term as a “precedent”; is not precedent in the actual sense of the word, but ALAC positions are not immune to change with developments over time. -- Thanks Justine - This is why seeing the rationale and not just the final position/resolution/outcome is important. -- Jeff, your question #4 seems to assume that, if there is a difference in position between Comment 1 and 2, that somehow this indicates that ALAC has disregarded or “devalued” “precedent.” I don’t think that’s a fair assumption. -- Given that we have only one very high-level articulation of a high-level agreement and many divergent points under outstanding items;, it's not clear to me what our overall objective is in this section. Are we hoping to distill from outstanding items more points as high-level agreements? -- Thanks, Jeff - looking for commonalites makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. -- One thing to consider is that the policy goal may not be achievable, insofar as we are not able to work out some explicit implementation matrix (ie, X weighs heavier than Y) -- @Greg- and therein lies the problem. Reaching agreement on a definition has not yet been achieved at the level of international law, so us achieving that here is a big ask. Freedom of Expression: -- High-level agreement -- Support: May not be accurate. May need a more neutral phrase. Need to provide specific implementation guidance. Need to better define what is meant by “applicant freedom of expression”. Broader term than freedom of speech. -- Difficult for the WG to develop a definition since it hasn’t yet been done. -- High level agreement is that there are freedom of expression rights. -- Start with Implementation Guidelines section on the next call.

3 3

ALAC position on newgTLD subpro
by John Laprise July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019

Hi everyone, Just a useful reminder of ALAC's position as asserted to ICANN GDD at ICANN65: ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of CCT and RPM recommendations are fully implemented. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. NARALO ALAC Representative ALAC Vice Chair-Policy

2 2

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 11 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 11 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/LaSjBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019

Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Julie One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).” My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point. I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program. They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 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/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects. ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Update from ICANN65 Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question. 3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrou… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>) Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?prev… -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it?

6 16