September 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Resolving Objection Proceedings with Mandatory PICs
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

Regarding the last call and the possible high level agreement on resolving Objection proceedings with mandatory PICs, it's important to note that there is no private right of action to enforce a PIC. The current PIC Dispute Resolution procedure - PICDRP (see attached) provides for various steps to be taken in resolving the PIC complaint and if unresolved, ICANN at its SOLE discrestion, can invoke a a Staning Panel or undertake a compliance investigation. So the points I am raising here are: (1) Proceeding on the report of a PIC violation rests in the sole discretion of ICANN (2) The expense of the Compliance investigation and/or Standing Panel is an expense of ICANN. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to consider adopting a private right of action (rather than forcing the expense on ICANN) in connection with the enforcement of mandatory PICs adopted for purposes of resolving an Objection proceeding. In fact, the PICDRP originally contained a provision allowing the enforcement issue to be taken to a third party provider. However, that draft did not survive. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image006.png@01D5747C.E1E07CD0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image007.jpg@01D5747C.E1E07CD0] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ 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.

10 16

Rosh Hashanah
by Vanda Scartezini Sept. 27, 2019

Sept. 27, 2019

Dear friends To all this is an important festivity my best wishes for an year of peace, joy, health and success with all you love! Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resolving Objection Proceedings with Mandatory PICs
by Pruis, Elaine Sept. 27, 2019

Sept. 27, 2019

Thanks for asking. As a new participant I’ve been wondering that myself… If we’re considering not just the applicant guidebook but the final effective implementation, are we including things like ICANN Advisories as well? Elaine From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:36 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resolving Objection Proceedings with Mandatory PICs My understanding is that the Baseline that we are working to is not the Applicant Guidebook but the final effective implementation including Board actions, so Voluntary PICS, (which predated Mandatory PICS) are there unless we have agreement to change them. JEFF/CHERYL: Can you confirm exactly what our baseline is? Alan At 26/09/2019 06:39 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: All, Mandatory PICS are unchanging. You can't resolve an Objection with a Mandatory PIC. It would require a Voluntary PIC -- which has become a misnomer, and a complete garbage can of everything applicants wanted to throw into the kitchen sink. There are longstanding objections to "voluntary PICs" from the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Public Interest Community (as we discussed many times). There is no high-level agreement on including them -- and they were not part of the Round 1 rules. We agreed in last week's call that you could *amend the application* to settle an Objection. That puts the private Objection settlement out for fuller and fairer review -- which is fair. Changes to public portion of applications would be subject to public comment -- and hopefully notification to all who have filed comments and therefore are likely interested in following changes to that application. Publication and public notice on significant changes to applications (with public comment) to settle an Objection was done in Round 1. But there was no question that there is a high level Disagreement to settling disputes with changes to PICs -- because mandatory PICs are fixed and unchanging. This high level Disagreement was raised in every Objections call until last night. Surely we are not saying that if you miss one discussion in the dead of night, you have waived all previous objections? I'm assuming GAC objections were the topic at issue here -- and can settled with changes to the application itself. Many, many changes to public portions of applications were made in response to the GAC in Round 1. Best, Kathy Kathryn Kleiman, American University Washington College of Law On 9/26/2019 6:13 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: [[]] Regarding the last call and the possible high level agreement on resolving Objection proceedings with mandatory PICs, it’s important to note that there is no private right of action to enforce a PIC. The current PIC Dispute Resolution procedure – PICDRP (see attached) provides for various steps to be taken in resolving the PIC complaint and if unresolved, ICANN at its SOLE discrestion, can invoke a a Staning Panel or undertake a compliance investigation. So the points I am raising here are: (1) Proceeding on the report of a PIC violation rests in the sole discretion of ICANN (2) The expense of the Compliance investigation and/or Standing Panel is an expense of ICANN. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to consider adopting a private right of action (rather than forcing the expense on ICANN) in connection with the enforcement of mandatory PICs adopted for purposes of resolving an Objection proceeding. In fact, the PICDRP originally contained a provision allowing the enforcement issue to be taken to a third party provider. However, that draft did not survive. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [[]] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [[]] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) 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 - Tuesday, 01 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Tuesday, 01 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: 1. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, continue discussion, start on page 13, String Confusion Objections 2. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 15 3. Community Applications – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, (time permitting) page 2 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Name Collision Topic [New Subject Line]
by Jeff Neuman Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

Thanks Anne and Rubens for this discussion. I think in moving forward, we may have to tackle the name collision issue with the following in mind: 1. We will need to reflect the work we have done in Work Track 4 as well as the comments we received and the discussions/materials we have received to date. This includes the JAS Final report. 2. We should note the Board Resolution which resulted ultimately in the approval of the work described in Phase 1 of the NCAP Study as reported in the Scope of Work published by the NCAP: * Scope: (https://community.icann.org/display/NCAP/NCAP+Working+Documents?preview=/79…) * Board Resolution: https://features.icann.org/name-collision-analysis-project-%E2%80%93-first-… 3. We should note that there MAY be other phases of the NCAP study and describe those phases. See https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79437474/NCAP%20Proposal%2…. But we also have to recognize that that is not a given. There may or may not ever be a Phase 2 or 3 study. 4. In the event that there are other studies, there are recommendations that this Working Group has with respect to things we would like to see studied (eg., a do not apply list, an evaluation testing procedure, etc.). 5. In the event that there are no future studies, we will need to see what our group has consensus on (if anything). 6. If there is no consensus on anything, then we will need to report on that and ultimately what happened in the last round would be recommended. Note: We will also need to see if anything comes from the letter sent from the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board on the dependencies for the next round and if that does have an impact on our recommendations. Please let me know if you have any issues with my summary. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:22 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board on Potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. The notion that Work Track 4 already covered all the know evidence of harm is not accurate. If the Board were willing to rest on what Work Track 4 had, it would never have initiated the NCAP as an OCTO project. Board never considered WT4 output, since it will only be sent to the Board in the final report. And due to lack of consensus, most discussions in WT4 will never reach Board at all, so saying that it was considered is too far fetched. Rubens ________________________________ 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>

2 2

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 26 September 2019
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 26 September 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/2019-09-26+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Objections: Should there be some sort of early warning for governments? See: carried out in accordance with the Bylaws and GAC’s internal procedures: “Does the presumption that a “string will not proceed” limit ICANN’s ability to facilitate a solution that both accepts GAC Advice but also allows for the delegation of a string if the underlying concerns that gave rise to the objection were addressed? Does that presumption unfairly prejudice other legitimate interests?” ACTION ITEM 1: Put on the list for comment: Rather than a specific time period, the WG could consider some principle or period (e.g., concurrent with the application comment period). Independent Objector: Should all funding for the IO come from ICANN? ACTION ITEM 2: Co-Leads will send potential examples for review/comment on extraordinary circumstances. Keep limitation that the IO can only file Limited Public Interest and Community Objections? -- Re: ALAC Comments: consider lifting the 2-ground limit on the IO’s ability to file objections. ACTION ITEM 3: WG to reconsider. Should multiple IOs be appointed? How should they divide their work? ACTION ITEM 4: Put this as a question out to the WG. What is your view of the proposal to allow those filing a Community Objection to specify Public Interest Commitments (PICs) they want to apply to the string, and if the objector prevails, these PICs become mandatory for any applicant that wins the contention set. - and - What is your view of the proposal to allow those filing a Community Objection to specify Public Interest Commitments (PICs) they want to apply to the string, and if the objector prevails, these PICs become mandatory for any applicant that wins the contention set. -- Community applicants weren’t allowed to make modifications to their applications. For subsequent procedures, it seems that the WG is leaning to allowing amendments as long as the are published for public comment. ACTION ITEM 5: Try to capture as a high-level agreement. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No update provided. 2. Review of summary documents: a. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, continue discussion, start on page 8 Should there be some sort of early warning for governments? See: carried out in accordance with the Bylaws and GAC’s internal procedures: “Does the presumption that a “string will not proceed” limit ICANN’s ability to facilitate a solution that both accepts GAC Advice but also allows for the delegation of a string if the underlying concerns that gave rise to the objection were addressed? Does that presumption unfairly prejudice other legitimate interests?” ACTION: Put on the list for comment: Rather than a specific time period, the WG could consider some principle or period (e.g., concurrent with the application comment period). Independent Objector: Question: Should all funding for the IO come from ICANN? : -- Beyond the scope of the independent objector. --- Seems like the majority of groups support funding of the independent objector. -- Should there be a limit to the number of objections? Majority of comments said, “no”. -- Per the AGB in section 1.1.2.4: The GAC Early Warning is a notice only. It is not a formal objection, nor does it directly lead to a process that can result in rejection of the application. -- If an Independent Objector files an objection, how is it determined? In the 2012 round the IO had more time to file. There was nothing formal in the guidebook. ACTION: Co-Leads will send potential examples for review/comment on extraordinary circumstances. Keep limitation that the IO can only file Limited Public Interest and Community Objections? -- ALAC: consider lifting the 2- ground limit on the IO’s ability to file objections. ACTION ITEM: WG to reconsider. Should multiple IOs be appointed? How should they divide their work? ACTION ITEM: Put this as a question out to the WG. -- Support for an alternative where there are conflicts. Should the same entity be allowed to apply for a TLD as community and also file a Community Objection for the same string? -- Objection to a community evaluation means it just goes into the pool. It doesn’t die. What can be done to lower the fees and make them more predictable while at the same time ensuring that the evaluations are both fair and comprehensive? -- Question: Consolidation of "common" objections to reduce resolution cost   Should non-profits be able to to defend themselves at "no cost"?  Answer: Program should be self funding. -- "No cost" doesn't exist, because someone still has to pay the DRSPs. Only if DRSPs to do it on a pro-bono basis.  What is your view of the proposal to allow those filing a Community Objection to specify Public Interest Commitments (PICs) they want to apply to the string, and if the objector prevails, these PICs become mandatory for any applicant that wins the contention set. -- Doesn’t have an impact on the CPE, but applicant has to be in queue to be considered. - and - What is your view of the proposal to allow those filing a Community Objection to specify Public Interest Commitments (PICs) they want to apply to the string, and if the objector prevails, these PICs become mandatory for any applicant that wins the contention set. -- Community applicants weren’t allowed to make modifications to their applications. For subsequent procedures, it seems that the WG is leaning to allowing amendments as long as the are published for public comment. ACTION ITEM: Try to capture as a high-level agreement.

1 0

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 25, 2019

Sept. 25, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/e4TkBg> (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

GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board on Potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures.
by Steve Chan Sept. 24, 2019

Sept. 24, 2019

Dear WG Members, Jeff and Cheryl circulated a draft version of a letter from the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board regarding potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and SubPro. Attached, please find the final version as sent to the ICANN Board. Best, Steve From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:36 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board on Potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. Dear all, Please find attached the letter sent to Cherine Chalaby, Chair of ICANN Board on the topic of Potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. This will be posted on the GNSO Correspondence webpage. [gnso.icann.org] shortly. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: terri.agnew(a)icann.org Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar [features.icann.org]

4 11

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

Sept. 23, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 23 September 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/2019-09-23+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Objections -- re: GAC Advice Option listed in Initial Report: GAC Advice must include clearly articulated rationale, including the national or international law upon which it is based. ACTION ITEM 1: Re: BRG/RySG: New Idea - Supports this option but suggests the language is modified to "GAC Advice must include clearly articulated rationale, including the (i) national or international law; and (ii) merits-based public policy reasons, upon which it is based". Review to determine if WG agrees to add to high-level agreements. ACTION ITEM 2: Re: INTA: New Idea - Require that GAC Advice nominate and provide contact details for an authorized GAC contact who is knowledgeable about the grounds for the objection and authorized to discuss solutions with a view to trying to reach a resolution. Review to determine if WG agrees to add to high-level agreements. Option listed in Initial Report: Future GAC Advice, and Board action thereupon, for categories of gTLDs should be issued prior to the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook. Any GAC Advice issued after the application period has begun must apply to individual strings only, based on the merits and details of the application, not on groups or classes of applications. ACTION ITEM 3: Review to determine if WG agrees to add to high-level agreements. ACTION ITEM 4: Look in the Bylaws with respect to GAC Advice. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary documents: -- General Question: Where will we see the summary of agreements? Staff and Co-Chairs are working on a draft. -- Consider capturing agreements with actions, but these would need to be specifically called out, ideally by leadership, so that they can be accurate captured. a. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, continue discussion, start on page 5 Opportunity to amend an application or add Public Interest Commitments in response to concerns raised in an objection (see High-Level Agreement E above). -- Noting opposition by NCSG to PICs. -- Changes to applications went out for public comment, but voluntary PICs don’t make sense. Concerned about changes being presented in PICs, when they aren’t. -- What is the distinction between a change to an application versus one that is made in response to an objection? It is an agreement between ICANN and the applicant. There is still a role for ICANN in compliance with what the applicant said what they would do. -- If part of the agreement is in a PIC then ICANN has the ability to outsource that compliance to a third party. -- The CPE is not an objection process, it’s an evaluation. There is no CPE objection process. We should not confuse Community Objections with Community Priority Evaluations. Community Objections come from affected community members, the CPE aims if a community applicant fulfills the community criteria. -- There can be opposition to community applications, although that is not an objection. -- Community Priority Evaluation rules and principles were not solidified before the application window closed in 2012. Don’t want the rules and principles to shift after the window closes. -- Let’s keep the Opposition / Objection separate. The Opposition component of CPE we will tackle when we discuss CPE (2 topics from now).  For today, lets focus ONLY on Community-based objections. -- Objections filed by under Community Objections should be time-limited just as with other objections - String Confusion, Legal Rights, Limited Public Interest. CPE should not be used to "submit" opposition akin to an objection. -- The assumption after reading the AGB was once a community applicant gets through objection and public comments that would be the basis for CPE, but that didn’t happen and allowed community opposition to come in weeks before the application window closed. Additional comments on possible remediation measures in response to objections. -- ALAC comment: the WG policies will go to an Implementation Review Team. This is different from the recommendation for a Standing IRT, which is to address issues that arise after implementation. Were some objections in the 2012 round filed with the specific intent to delay the processing of applications for a particular string? How can this issue be addressed?: -- Re: NSCG: Agreement - Working Group should build safeguards into the objection process that protect against potential gaming and other manipulations of the process. There is agreement to build in such safeguards. -- Re: NTA: New Idea - Suggests quick look mechanisms, processes which would allow for summary judgments and costs awards in clear cut non-cases, as well as clear application guidelines for applicants and clear conflicts of interest measures. Seems to be general agreement to this. Can we say who would be the third party to handle the quick look? For PICDRPs ICANN Org does it. For the limited public interest objection in the 2012 round it was a third party. -- From the AGB regarding the Limited Public Interest: The quick look is the Panel’s first task, after its appointment by the DRSP and is a review on the merits of the objection. The dismissal of an objection that is manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse of the right to object would be an Expert Determination, rendered in accordance with Article 21 of the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure.  Should ICANN continue to fund all objections filed by the ALAC? -- Re: Council of Europe: New Idea - Clarify ALAC’s task in the Bylaws. Can note this but can’t recommend changes to the Bylaws. -- Need to clarify how the ALAC has standing to object. It’s more than standing. They were not given the privileges of the independent objector. For clarification, are there any limits to the number of objections can file, if not there should be. Some comments supported that there should be limits. -- Last time they had 3 objections to 1 string. ALAC filed 3 objections against .health. We have a stringent process within ALAC to get to filing an objection. -- Limits should be qualitative, not quantitative. There already is a high bar for the ALAC to file objections. -- If you added a Global Public Interest standard, if the Board defines one, not sure why it would apply only to ALAC. The ALAC already applies the GPI standard. GAC Advice: Option listed in Initial Report: GAC Advice must include clearly articulated rationale, including the national or international law upon which it is based. -- Everyone except for the GAC agreed -- relying solely on the Bylaws for GAC advice. -- Re: BRG/RySG: New Idea - Supports this option but suggests the language is modified to "GAC Advice must include clearly articulated rationale, including the (i) national or international law; and (ii) merits-based public policy reasons, upon which it is based". ACTION: Review to determine if WG agrees to add to high-level agreements. -- Re: INTA: New Idea - Require that GAC Advice nominate and provide contact details for an authorized GAC contact who is knowledgeable about the grounds for the objection and authorized to discuss solutions with a view to trying to reach a resolution. ACTION: Review to determine if WG agrees to add to high-level agreements. -- Presumably we cannot tell the GAC to change it's processes but we can make recommendations?  --  Language should say OR rather than "and" between the "(i) and the (ii).   -- Perhaps it being a SHOULD instead of MUST ? Don't think GAC Advice has to be based on law so language would be "and/or" between (i) and (ii)) Option listed in Initial Report: Future GAC Advice, and Board action thereupon, for categories of gTLDs should be issued prior to the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook. Any GAC Advice issued after the application period has begun must apply to individual strings only, based on the merits and details of the application, not on groups or classes of applications. -- Comments are in agreement. ACTION: Review to determine if WG agrees to add to high-level agreements. -- ACTION: Look to the Bylaws with respect to GAC Advice.

2 1

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Monday, 23 September 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 23, 2019

Sept. 23, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 23 September 2019 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/eYTkBg> (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