August 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 6 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Aug. 7, 2019

Aug. 7, 2019

Dear all, Please find below notes from the call on 6 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC. 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 are posted at: https://community.icann.org/x/SaujBg Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest * No Updates 2. Review of summary document: (continued) 1. Terms and Conditions * Attendance for this meeting is heavily registry focused. Other members who are unable to attend the call should review the notes/transcript/recording and provide input over the mailing list. * Note that Jeff has provided some small draft edits to the document in redline. * Review of background documents, policy goals, and high level agreements. * Jeff suggested small change to the high level agreement - The commenters generally supported the idea that unless required under specific laws or the ICANN Bylaws, ICANN should only be permitted to reject an application if done so in accordance with the provisions of the Applicant Guidebook. This originally said, “in accordance with the Terms and Conditions.” As ICANN Org noted, the logic is a bit circular with the original language. The proposed edit corrects this. * On the second high level agreement, Jeff suggested adding “with specificity” to indicate that applicants should receive a detailed explanation. * One WG member noted that due to anti- money laundering laws a short contract is needed to pay the application fee. Terms and conditions should be part of it or referenced there. It is also a recommendation of the Financial Action Task Force (intergovernmental organization). * Question by WG member – If the covenant not to sue is removed, do we not recommend an appeals mechanism? Response – this will be discussed when we reach the section on the covenant not to sue. * Note on the intersection of high-level agreement 4 with the topic of Predictability – the issue of whether changes can be made and how those changes can be made is covered under Predictability. The issue of recourse when certain changes are made is covered under this topic. * Assumption underlying the final high level agreement – the true risk of name collisions will be determined after the application is filed. * Clarification that final high-level agreement indicates that a full refund should be provided because the applicant could not have anticipated the name collision issue. * One member indicated that it is potentially problematic if the AGB is interpreted to mean that a category of terms is not allowed after applications are submitted. * Review of comments about the rejection of an applications only under law, Bylaws, or in accordance with the Applicant Guidebook. * On RySG comment under this topic, participants from the registries will clarify why those specific sections of the AGB were called out. One member recalled that the intention was to limit the universe of changes that would be permitted. * Review of comments advocating for confidentiality if ICANN Org is required to disclose the reason for rejecting the application. * One member expressed support for the Valideus formulation of confidentiality requirements in the comments. * One member did not support confidentiality. Another clarified that the comments speak to confidentiality of ICANN’s evaluation of the application, not issues that are public, such as objections or concerns raised about whole categories of strings. It not necessary put this information out to the public if the application is not going to go forward. * Question raised – what if the reason was kept confidential only if confidential information was included in the reason? Would registries accept that? Response – the registries prefer that the reason is always confidential and are not aware of a justification for disclosure. * It was noted that in the current AGB, if the application does not move forward, that reason is made public. * Participants for the registries will discuss with the RySG and see if there is potential to support the Valideus proposal on confidentiality. * Clarification on the definition of “confidential information” – this refers to the sections of the application that are not public. A member suggested that if this is addressed in the recommendations, the terminology should be defined/explained in a footnote. * Review of comments on the covenant not to sue. * One member stated that there is no indication to form the basis of a belief that the covenant not to sue is legally valid. It was noted that the covenant was upheld in Ruby Glen vs. ICANN, but that was just one court case. * A member asked for background on why the covenant was included in the first place. Response –The justification given was the ICANN needed to include the covenant not to sue as a non-profit organization. ICANN could not subject itself to unlimited liability. Some in the community opposed it. * Review of comments on recourse if substantive changes are made to the Applicant Guidebook or program processes. Review of comments on a refund for applicant if there are substantive changes to AGB or other circumstances. Co-chairs suggested moving these comments to the section on predictability. * Review of additional suggestions to change the Terms and Conditions. * Question regarding ALAC new idea that Terms and Conditions should specify all applicable routes, procedures, costs and timelines for any challenge/appeal mechanism. Should this say “The AGB should specify. . .”? * On the BC new idea that applicants should transparently declare whether they intend to operate the registry, or whether they anticipate selling pending applications to others, the co-chairs noted that this refers to the issue of transferability. The Ts and Cs currently state: "Applicant may not resell, assign, or transfer any of applicant’s rights or obligations in connection with the application." * It was noted that once the registry is past the application phase, this is governed by the Registry Agreement. * Question – for those who supported keeping the covenant, is there understanding that the appeals mechanism includes an independent review? Was that part of the discussion? Response: In the Initial Report, the appeals mechanism is in addition to the Accountability Mechanisms, scope of Accountability Mechanisms are included in the bylaws, but it was recognized that substantive issues were not necessarily covered in the scope of the Accountability Mechanisms. Assumption is that covenant would be ok if there was an additional appeals mechanism. * Concern was raised about the proposed appeal mechanism and that it may be duplicative of the new IRP rule. * Leadership – there appears to be a high-level of support for a limited appeals mechanism that is not a substitute for other Accountability mechanisms. This will be discussed further under a different topic. 1. Application Queuing, page 2 – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nf8qGP9Y7OYuT0ZvxIgM1fZtNa4Kj8DyhzpmPhE…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nf8qGP9Y7OYuT0ZvxIgM1fZtNa4Kj8DyhzpmPhE…> * Review of policy goals and high-level agreements. * Note that the RySG supports an initial randomization with a limited opportunity to buy an earlier spot in line, which would be optional. * Clarification provided that the general point of agreement is to keep the system in place as in the 2012 round – there was an option to buy a ticket to participate in a priority draw. All other applications were included in a subsequent draw. * Note that ICANN legal will have to conduct a detailed legal analysis regarding what is possible for application queuing, but that California lottery laws do not change frequently, so it is unlikely that they are different compared to 2012. * Some support in the comments for the idea that numbers could be transferrable. Some other groups opposed this proposal. 1. AOB Next call is Thursday 8 August at 20:00 UTC

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Tuesday, 06 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Aug. 6, 2019

Aug. 6, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 06 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/SaujBg> (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, Andrea

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Tuesday, 06 August at 03:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Aug. 2, 2019

Aug. 2, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Tuesday, 06 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) * Terms and Conditions, page 24 – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Application Queuing, page 2 – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nf8qGP9Y7OYuT0ZvxIgM1fZtNa4Kj8DyhzpmPhE…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nf8qGP9Y7OYuT0ZvxIgM1fZtNa4Kj8DyhzpmPhE…> 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>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 1 August 2019
by Emily Barabas Aug. 1, 2019

Aug. 1, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 1 August 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/YqujBg. Please note in the action items below that the leadership team welcomes additional input on several topics discussed on today’s call and covered in the public comment summary document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq…. Specifically, the leadership team would like your input on whether any of the concerns or new ideas presented in the comments warrant further discussion from the group on the following topics related to Applicant Support: * How should Applicant Support applications be prioritized if there are more qualified applicants than resources available? (see page 19 for summary of public comments) * Is there agreement that aside from comments from the Indian government, there is not support for continued financial support for applicants beyond application fees? (see page 20 for summary of the comment from Government of India) * How should the Applicant Support Program be funded? (see page 22 for summary of public comments) * What metrics could be used to measure the success of the Applicant Support Program? (see page 23 for summary of public comments) * Is any additional discussion needed on the new ideas and concerns raised regarding the Applicant Support Program, string contention resolution and auctions? (see page 23 for summary of public comments) * Should there be a dedicated application round for applicants from developing countries? (see page 23 for summary of public comments) You can find the full text of the public comments on this topic here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133WbhWYB4M4kT6DqSfiCR2-ij7jxNkLj5EW… Kind regards, Emily 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest None 1. Review of summary document: (continued) * Applicant Support, page 19, beginning of with a continuation of the sub-section on Eligibility (https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>) * On the last call, the focus of the conversation was the proposal that an applicant support candidate could transfer to a standard application if the applicant support application was unsuccessful. Some support was expressed for this idea and some concerns about potential “gaming” were also considered. * Some clarification has been provided by Justine on ALAC comments on this issue (see document for text added by Justine). * Populations/Regions served: Reminder that ICANN Org is reviewing some of the terminology that has been used in the context of discussions about applicant support, but is also used elsewhere – such as “underserved” and “underrepresented.” The ICANN Org review is not focused on policy development, specifically, but in different areas of ICANN’s work. It may be appropriate to coordinate workstreams. ICANN Org analysis is moving away from “Global South” terminology. * Review of comments on methods for selecting ASP recipients if there are more applicants than funds/resources. * Note that regarding the nomenclature of “Global South” there was a suggestion to look at the UNDP Human Development Index as a resource. * One member expressed support for a bucketed approach for funding, for example with respect to IDNs. ACTION ITEM: Seek additional input on mailing list regarding how to prioritize applicant support applications if there are more qualified applicants than resources. * Review of CCT-RT recommendations on this topic passed through by the Board. * Reminder of text from the Board resolution related to CCT-RT recommendations: “Board notes that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, should they choose to do so, defining the term “Global South” in coordination with ICANN org, its engagement teams, and geographic regions definitions to create a workable definition, or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org.” * Review of comments regarding the scope of support, for example, financial support for the application only, other forms of financial support, or non-financial support such as mentorship and consulting resources. * One member noted concern about additional costs during the application process aside from the application fee, such as contention resolution in the case of a contention set. * It was noted that there are still discussions underway regarding auctions of last resort. * Another member noted that there are ongoing costs in addition to the application fee that applicants need to plan for. * A member raised that operational viability could be somewhat established through the financial aspect of the ASP criteria. * One member noted and some other members agreed that aside from the Indian Government, it appears that there is no other support for ongoing financial support for applicants beyond the application fees. * Staff noted that the high level agreements capture some support for financial assistance beyond the fee itself. * A member noted that these include costs related to the application, such as professional services, but this is different from registry-level fees. ACTION ITEM: Confirm on the mailing list that beyond comments from the Indian government, there is not support for continued financial support for applicants beyond application fees. * Clarification from staff on the Indian Government’s comment regarding the fee for middle applicants – the comment appears to propose a reduced fee for middle applicants that is higher than the standard fee and lower than the fee for applicant support recipients. * Some concern raised about complexity of such a fee structure. * Review of comments regarding the possible review of the applicant’s business plan as part of the application evaluation process. * Review of comments on outreach and learning strategy for the applicant support program. * Suggestion from one member that it should be added to the high-level agreements the comments support more education and awareness-raising with a focus on the appropriate timing. This is more of an implementation element than a policy recommendation. * Review of comments on program funding. ACTION ITEM: Solicit input on the mailing list on the topic of program funding. Also seek mailing list input on metrics to measure success; additional considerations raised regarding ASP, string contention resolution, and auctions; and the proposal to provide a dedicated round for applicants from developing countries. 1. AOB * Next meeting scheduled for Tuesday 6 August at 3:00 UTC. Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

**Please read** Member wiki page check/SOI check
by Julie Bisland Aug. 1, 2019

Aug. 1, 2019

Dear all, In an effort to ensure accuracy, please take a moment to check your GNSO SOI and make any needed updates. In addition, would all members and observers kindly visit the WG Members wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ogp1Aw and verify affiliation is correctly displayed. For any updates needed to the member wiki page or if assistance is needed with your GNSO SOI, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Much thanks to you all, GNSO SO/AC Support -- 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<https://features.icann.org/calendar>

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group / Thursday, 01 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Aug. 1, 2019

Aug. 1, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 01 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/YqujBg> (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