September 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 23, 2019

Sept. 23, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 26 September 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 8 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

FW: SLA Monitoring (SLAM) Statistics
by Jim Prendergast Sept. 23, 2019

Sept. 23, 2019

It appears that my previous message was never circulated via the list as I had an incorrect email. This is take 2. While the topic did not come up on the aforementioned call, it is still important information for the WG to have as it considers other parts of the program including pre-approval programs. thanks From: Jim Prendergast Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 5:34 PM To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Subject: RE: SLA Monitoring (SLAM) Statistics As just referenced on the call (in my best impression of Mickey Mouse voice) see my note below as well as the additions here as I’ve had more time to look at the slides. We really need the raw data and some narrative. If this will be covered on the call on Tuesday – I move that we table that discussion until we have this information and have had a chance to review and digest. Sending it out late tomorrow before a holiday weekend for many of the regular participants simply would not provide enough prep time. As I looked at the slide more a few thoughts * Even the areas that are outside the ‘significant spikes’ are interesting as they represent non-trivial levels of failure. * The DNS had 10+ failures in 23 of 58 quarters (~40%). And scale on the RDDS graph is such that the lowest line is 200 failures per quarter and the line is above that for all but two quarters over nearly 5 years. * And, of course, all of this data is less informative because it’s an aggregated industry view. The reader can’t tell which RSP is involved for any of these failures. If I was shopping for an ICANN “pre-approved” vendor – I would certainly want access to that data to ensure I factored that into my decision making * Slide 2 is missing May 2019, which could or could not be significant, given the performance of June and July. Thanks From: Jim Prendergast Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 11:19 PM To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Subject: RE: SLA Monitoring (SLAM) Statistics Yes. Add my thanks for this as well. And I agree with Donna on the need for more detail. I think having the raw data behind the slides would be beneficial as when I look at the chart on slide 4, the timeline seems to be out of sorts, especially as we get to 2019. It would also be useful to know if there is any explanation behind the spikes in DNS failures earlier this year and RDDS in 2018. The DNS failures are really something else. More in June and July than in the entire cumulative history of the program. Thanks From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 7:16 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] SLA Monitoring (SLAM) Statistics Steve, thanks for providing this update. The information provided is not as ‘complete’ as that provided to the group in 2017. I’ve attached a document from an RySG Discussion Group that I believe was provided to this group early last year that summarises the level of detail that was available at that time—I think more detail would be helpful for the purposes of this group. Generalisations are not helpful either— It’s also disappointing that only ‘anecdotal’ information is available about PDT, which I personally don’t find particularly helpful to our discussion because the source doesn’t include any insight from those that were subject to PDT. For this information to be meaningful, more detailed statistics and analysis is necessary. Donna From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:26 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] SLA Monitoring (SLAM) Statistics Dear WG Members, During the course of discussions, particularly as it relates to RSP pre-approval and most recently, registrant protections, WG members have asked for updated statistics on the Service Level Agreement (SLA) Monitoring program within ICANN. Attached, please find the latest report. A few contextual notes that may help your digestion of this information: * The statistics are on a per TLD basis for each month. * In some months, there are spikes in the number of DNS and RDDS failures. Usually, these spikes are a caused by a failure in an RSP that serves a large number of TLDs. * On the 4ht slide, you will see several failures that reached EBERO thresholds but in the vast majority of cases, the failures did not trigger an EBERO event. As has been shared previously, this is likely because ICANN Org worked with the registry to resolve the event and/or there were minimal domains under management. In addition, members asked for information around Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT), which I believe is now an element of the broader Registry System Testing (RST). Please see the below response from GDD: “Additionally, on the PDT/RST side - ICANN org has neither compiled nor published summary data regarding Pre-Delegation Test results from the 2012 round. Testing data was tracked and managed by IIS, the pre-delegation testing vendor. Such testing data, was not provided to ICANN org as part of the service delivery efforts. However, based on ICANN org management of the Pre-Delegation testing processing since 2012, we can share anecdotal information based on the collective recollection of org and vendor staff. These anecdotal results includes: 1. Most TLDs received follow-up questions regarding their PDT testing submission (similar to initial evaluation Clarifying Questions) 2. Approximately one quarter of TLDs tested required extended testing beyond the standard 2 to 3 week testing cycle. Some of these tests extended up to 12 weeks. 3. Based on the flexibility of extended testing and the assistance provided by the PDT vendor to TLD operators, fewer than 10 TLDs required a second full PDT testing cycle.“ Hopefully you all find this information helpful. If you have questions or concerns, especially for GDD, please let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar [features.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_cal…>

5 6

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 19 August 2019
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 21, 2019

Sept. 21, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 19 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/display/NGSPP/2019-08-19+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Reserved Names: ACTION ITEM: Liaise with the RPM PDP WG to understand their discussions on reserved names and any overlap. Registrant Protections: ACTION ITEM re: ALAC General Comments on registrant protections: Ask ALAC to give examples of where applicants failed to meet the registrant protection standards that were allowed to proceed. Notes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary document – See: 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…> a. Reserved Names (continued discussion, start at page 7) Ability to reserve an unlimited number of second level domain names and release those names at the RO’s discretion through ICANN-accredited registrars. -- A number of comments oppose any limit on these reservations. -- Some support for some form of limit. -- Concerns if names are being released from reservation after Sunrise. -- RrSG – Concern/New Idea: Counter to the allocation of domain names via the registrar. When names are released they should be allocated thorough the registrar. Sunrise process for second-level domain names removed from a reserved names list and released by a registry operator. -- Support a sunrise period for subsequent releases. -- Process only required if commercially feasible. -- INTA/Valideus: Second sunrise may not be feasible, but support measures to allow trademark owners, with trademark recorded in TMCH, to have right of first refusal. -- RySG: Does not support Discussion: -- For geoTLDs important to be able to reserve names independent from any limits. -- Right of first refusal extend right beyond TM owners in real world. -- RPMs PDP WG discussed the 100 names that registries can reserve. Also discussed QLP and ALP. ACTION: Liaison with the RPM PDP WG to understand their discussions on reserved names and any overlap. SAC090: Advisory on Stability of the Domain Namespace: -- Names on the special use list. .onion was added recently. Questions from the SSAC: -- If the IETF updates the special use list, how do the groups communicate with each other? -- What if there is a round ongoing and there are strings that match something that the IETF is recommending to be reserved? IETF liaison to the Board could be required to notify ICANN if a applied-for string is a match for a word the IETF is seeking to reserve. -- How should ICANN discover and respond to future collisions between private names and proposed new ICANN-recognized gTLDs. Discussion: -- RFC6761 – how and why to have a special use domain: Do not operate like top-level domain registries. Generally for different purposes, such as testing, or private applications. The intent was that these would not enter the root at all. They are not supposed to resolve. -- Are these questions really for this PDP WG? Seems to be one level up. -- .onion was a good example – only resolves if you are using their app. -- Are these names temporary, or once they are assigned they are assigned permanently? Most are permanent. Need to know more about their criteria. What is the policy question here? Note that these are not TLDs. -- IETF would not be looking to use a name that already exists as a TLD. -- .home, .corp, .mail addressed through NCAP. b. Registrant Protections (page 9) High-Level Agreements: -- Generally support or not oppose maintaining existing registrant protections, including EBERO etc. -- Generally support providing TLDs exemption from spec 9 and spec 13 from EBERO requirements. -- Supported improving the background screening process. General Comments about registrant protections: -- ALAC: Might be special circumstances that require adjusting the evaluation process. Do a better job of applying standards. ACTION ITEM: Give examples of where applicants failed to meet the registrant protection standards that were allowed to proceed. -- Any exemptions to RPMs should be address by the RPM PDP WG. General Comments on EBERO: -- Not appropriate for some models of registries. -- Requiring both the EBERO and COI is unnecessarily burdensome. -- Relationship between an EBERO and COI should be clarified. EBERO exemption for single registrant TLs (including under Spec 13): -- ICANN Org: WG should clarify whether the EBERO exemption applies only to single registrant TLDS, or all ROs with Spec 13. -- Exemption from EBERO should include exemption from COI and apply to registries with exemption from Spec 9. -- SSAC: Exempting any TLD from EBERO should be considered carefully. Proposal to extend the background screening exemption currently given to publicly traded companies to include exemption for officers, etc. -- Some support and some oppose. Split in the comments. Suggest no support to change the status quo. Proposal to make background screenings more accommodating. Some support. Timing of background screening. -- ICANN Org: Given the large number of change requests on Q11 from 2012 round, consideration should be given to whether background screening should be performed during Initial Evaluation or at Contracting. Proposed additional questions for background screening: -- Some support and some oppose. Address online. Discussion: -- What happens when the COI runs out or if the registry fails after the COI is returned? These are important questions but not sure they can be addressed by this WG. -- Spec 9, Registry Code of Conduct -- there is a provision to get an exemption from the code of conduct (part of Spec 9) – only being used by the registry operator or its affiliates. Here, for those entities being granted that exception they also should be granted exemption from Spec 13. -- Sounds like it make sense to do the background check once and on the right people.

2 1

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 23 September 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 20, 2019

Sept. 20, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 23 September 2019 at 14:00 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 5 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

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 19 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 19, 2019

Sept. 19, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 19 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/doTkBg> (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 - 19 September 2019
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 19, 2019

Sept. 19, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 19 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/2019-09-19+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Objections: Possible new high-level agreement: -- "All panelist for providers will be free from conflicts of interests and there will be an appeal mechanism should a party believe that a panelist or a provider has an unresolved conflict of interest." Then, the AGB can just implement that.  Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary documents: a. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 2 Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence: Ensuring that panelists, evaluators, and Independent Objectors are free from conflicts of interest -- Need to separate out CPE. -- Not sure about publishing all of the panelists. In the CPE there was an opportunity to object to a panelist. -- So long as the parties have a chance to review potential conflicts of individual panelists that should satisfy the conflict of interest provision. Not sure that the community outside of the parties need to have this information. -- Could be for community objection, but not for CPE. -- Question: Who determines the conflict issue once a party objects? Is there an appeal from that determination?  Answer: there was an IRP proceeding related to a panelist having a perceived conflict of interest - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dot-sport-v-icann-2015-03-27-en -- There is a process already where a panelist has to declare that there are no conflicts to the provider themselves, and the list of the panelists goes to the parties. -- The providers already have mechanisms for appeal. -- That should be part of the criteria by which ICANN assesses / appoints service providers --- ie provision for dealing with COI. -- So the Policy would be "All panelist for providers will be free from conflicts of interests and there will be an appeal mechanism should a party believe that a panelist or a provider has an unresolved conflict of interest." Then, the AGB can just implement that.  -- Could be whatever appeal mechanism we determine in relation to other possible appeals. -- It may be worth looking at section 2.4.3 of the AGB again, which talks about Code of Conduct Guidelines for Panelists, to if there is truly a delta to be resolved . High Level Agreement: For all types of objections, the parties to a proceeding should be given the opportunity to agree upon a single panelist or a three-person panel - bearing the costs accordingly. Choice of single panelist or a three-person panel (see High-Level Agreement B above). -- Re: ALAC comment -- in danger of reinventing the wheel. -- Need to look at the cost distribution of the party that doesn’t want a second or third panel. -- Do all service providers follow that UDRP policy on costs being picked up by party asking for 3 panelists highlighted by Susan?  -- All parties should agree to moving to 3 panelists. -- Question: Seems like this high-level agreement is to allow all objections to choose 1 or 3 panelists. Would that then be a change to the Limited Public Interest Objection, which always was 3. Would it now be limited to 1? Answer: The comments were meant for all types of objections. Limited Public Interest then could have the option of a single panelist. Publish, for each type of objection, all supplemental rules as well as all criteria to be used by panelists (see High-Level Agreement C above). -- Re: ICANN Org comment: These supplemental rules were published well after the reveal and without guidance on what they could or could not do in the supplemental rules. -- There should be greater transparency in the selection and appointment of service providers, AND all rules which are to apply to any objection process should be available upfront. -- Supplemental rules aren’t supposed to cover the policy, but are administrative. -- But supplemental rules and documents extended beyond that - specifically for CPE - and without addressing it here it may happen for objections going forward. Non-substantiative is one thing, but reinterpretation of the AGB is another. -- Keep CPE out of the discussions as it is not an objection, but can talk about community objections. High-Level Agreement: Extension of the “quick look” mechanism, which currently applies to only the Limited Public Interest Objection, to all objection types. The “quick look” is designed to identify and eliminate frivolous and/or abusive objections. (High-Level Agreement D)  Extension of the quick look mechanism to all objection types (see High-Level Agreement D above). -- Comments have suggestions for improving quick look. -- Re: RySG comment -- CANN should develop clearer criteria to assist the DRSP in accurately identifying abuse and develop additional appropriate sanctions, including financial penalties and the loss of the ability to make additional objections.

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 19, 2019

Sept. 19, 2019

The list rejected the JAS Final Report as requiring moderator approval because the file is so big. I am forwarding this message with a modified file showing the JAS summary recommendations (not the full report). Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 4:37 PM To: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies Hi Jeff and Cheryl, Regarding Monday's call on name collisions, I have the following comments. 1. There seemed to be a lot of discussion about JAS having asserted that the system they recommended "worked". In this regard, the WG has not actually had a substantive discussion on the harm associated with name collisions. The only reporting requirement from the 2012 round was to report to ICANN any instances that involved a threat to human life. As we know, that is not the only risk posed by name collisions. The risks include the following as detailed in the attached ICANN advice to IT Professionals (see pages 6-7 of the attachment): Para 2.1 - Direction to Unexpected Websites - and interception by malicious actors (which security certificates may not be adequate to prevent), allowing access to sensitive information and/or allowing the malicious actor to install dangerous code on the user's computer. Para 2.2 - Direction of Email to the Wrong Recipients Para 2.3 - Security Reductions In the attached JAS Final Report that Jeff and Rubens referenced, Recommendation 14 states as follows: [cid:image001.png@01D56E3F.2B39F030] Assessing these dangers is a critical part of NCAP Study 1 - to define the harm - and that has to happen in order to have an intelligent discussion of the topic. The NCAP has a half day meeting in Montreal on Friday afternoon November 1. I am sure Sub Pro WG members are welcome. And I know Jeff assured the NCAP Discussion Group that he joined the Discussion Group for the purpose of coordinating policy with them. 2. Re the IPC position, just to clarify, the IPC consensus was to defer to NCAP if NCAP recommendations are ready in time for launch. Given that we project a couple of years before the framework for launch can be in place, it seems reasonable to expect that we could at least develop some sort of testing mechanism for DO NOT APPLY and the Work Track 4 risk categories prior to launch, either via NCAP or an independent advisor. Jeff and Cheryl's additions to the GNSO Council letter to the Board should be helpful in this regard. Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:34 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies Hi Jeff and Cheryl, Thanks for sending. Two quick comments: (1) the word "including" in b) seems to be missing a letter (2) In this draft, can we please ask about the pending discussion in relation to the development of a "DO NOT APPLY" list? (The sooner the NCAP develops a methodology for that, the better off we all are.) I have not seen a specific reference to a method for testing as to "DO NOT APPLY" or very high risk strings in Study 1 and so the timing there is a bit concerning. ALAC points out we could take a bunch of applications and then not delegate until that work is done. I have always thought and always commented that there should be a way for an applicant to test a string for name collision issues without having to pay the whole application fee and put all the effort into an application and business plan only to find it's a "no go". We need to be asking about a gating mechanism on this issue to save people a lot of time and trouble. If that gating mechanism were developed during the time the AGB is being written, then that might prove a way forward to coordinate the timing. Many thanks for putting this together. I believe the Board commented that there was an "opportunity for collaboration" with NCAP and an ability to work out the scheduling so that maybe their reply (in line with the public comment filed by the Board). But it never hurts to clarify. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 7:47 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, We just wanted to forward this note to the SubPro PDP Full Working Group. Cheryl and I were asked by the GNSO Council Leadership to give our thoughts to them about the attached draft letter from the Council to the ICANN Board. We provided this feedback and as you can see we made it clear that the redlines are from Cheryl and I and not the Working Group. Please let us know if you have any questions. Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:44 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>) (langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>) <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>; Pam Little <pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Subject: RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies Dear Keith, Pam and Rafik, Please find enclosed Cheryl and my redlines to the draft letter. We do not believe the substance of the letter has been changed at all, but rather just added some more specificity. This letter contains only the comments of Cheryl and I and not the Subsequent Procedures Working Group. There are so many people making so many arguments and even if the Board says that there are "dependencies", I think they need to be specific as to which exact step is the completion of the NCAP work dependent on. What is the exact point where we cannot move forward. Some people say the Board cannot accept the final policy without this work being done. Some say the policy can be completed, but implementation work cannot be completed prior to the NCAP finishing. Some say that can complete but we cannot complete the AGB. Some say we can complete that but we cannot announce the new round. Some say we can announce but cannot accept applications. Some say we can do it all but not delegate. And finally some say we can delegate and use existing name collision model until NCAP states otherwise. We hope this makes sense and please forward to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Thanks again for reaching out to us. We are going to forward this correspondence chain to the Full Working Group as well. Best regards, Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures Co-Chairs 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: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 6:48 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>) (langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>) <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> Subject: FW: FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies Jeff/Cheryl, FYI, attached is the draft Council letter to the Board on NCAP and SubPro. This has been sent to the Council list for consideration and comment. Best, Keith From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 3:47 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies Hi all, Attached for your review is a draft letter from the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board concerning dependencies between the NCAP and Subsequent Procedures PDP. Please review and advise if you have any comments or questions. We can discuss on the list and this will be included on the agenda for our 19 September GNSO Council meeting. Thanks, Keith ________________________________ 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> ________________________________ 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.

2 3

ICANN66 Prep Week Announcement
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 16, 2019

Sept. 16, 2019

Dear SubPro PDP WG members, The following announcement may be of interest. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Register for ICANN66 Prep Week Webinars LOS ANGELES – 16 September 2019 – Today, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) released the schedule for ICANN66 Prep Week, which features a series of seven webinars to prepare the community ahead of its Annual General Meeting in November. To attend any of the below webinars, please register here<http://go.icann.org/prepweeksignup> by 11 October to receive joining instructions. You may also submit questions during the registration process. All registered attendees will receive participation details days before the webinar dates. ICANN66 Prep Week Webinars Schedule Monday, 14 October 2019 16:00 UTC | Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Update: What to Expect at ICANN66 Tuesday, 15 October 2019 16:00 UTC | ICANN66 Plenary Session: DNS Abuse 23:00 UTC | Pre-ICANN66 Contractual Compliance Update Wednesday, 16 October 2019 16:00 UTC | ICANN66 Plenary Session: Evolution of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model 23:00 UTC | Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Update Thursday, 17 October 2019 12:00 UTC | Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Update 16:00 UTC | Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update All webinars be in English. Materials from the Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update will also be available in French. Recordings and materials will be posted here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/montreal66-prep-week>. Prep Week was established to help streamline the pre-meeting experience, as well as increase awareness of plenary topics, foster deeper conversations and enhance briefings and readout sessions.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 September 2019
by Jamie Baxter Sept. 16, 2019

Sept. 16, 2019

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 19 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 16, 2019

Sept. 16, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 19 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: b. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 3 c. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 15 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